Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNSN ORD-1996-008 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Article 6.23.11 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts 1 ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 1. 1996 Action Agenda Item#_X A SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Article 6.23.11 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts(Administration) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes—X—No BUDGET AMENDMENT NEEDED Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Proposed amendment Extension 2583 OWASA Resolution 2/26/96 Public Hearing Minutes(draft) TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 3/18/96 Planning Board Minutes(draft) Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill-967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to grant variances to allow the use of septic easements in watersupply watersheds. BACKGROUND On November 13, 1995, the Board of Adjustment considered a variance request for a septic easement. The lot in question contained 10 acres Because the lot was part of a plat which was exempt from subdivision regulations, a soils analysis was not required prior to creation of the lot. It has been determined by Environmental Health that the lot does not contain soils suitable for septic disposal. A residence cannot be build on the Freshwater parcel unless wastewater disposal can occur on an easement on the adjacent parcel. Article 6.23.8 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts - Water Supply/Wastewater Disposal) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the use of off- site septic easements in all water supply watersheds. Article 6.23.11 (Watershed 2 Protection Overlay Districts - Administration) provides for the Board of Adjustment to grant minor variances of requirements of the watershed protection overlay districts in accordance with Article 2.3.6. Article 2.3.6 (Application of the Variance Power) authorizes the Board of Adjustment to grant variances related to dimensional requirements only. The proposed amendment would give the Board of Adjustment explicit authority to grant a variance to allow septic easements in water supply watersheds in cases which meet other findings necessary for variance approval. The Board of Adjustment delayed action on the November 13, 1995 variance request for eight months to allow time for consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address this issue. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on February 26, 1996. One citizen (Danny Freshwater) spoke and indicated support for the proposal. The attached Resolution from OWASA indicating support for the amendment was received after the public hearing. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on March 18, 1996 and recommended approval by a 9-1 vote(minutes attached). RECONEVIENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 6.23.11 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Administration) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff Planning Board BOCC _X_Public Other: Board of Adjustment County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_X_High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 26, 1996 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To authorize the Board of Adjustment to grant variances to allow the use of septic easements in watersupply watersheds. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Article 6.23.8 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts- Water Supply/Wastewater Disposal) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the use of off-site septic easements in all water supply watersheds. Article 6.23.11 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts-Administration)provides for the Board of Adjustment to grant minor variances of requirements of the watershed protection overlay districts in accordance with Article 2.3.6. Article 2.3.6 (Application of the Variance Power) authorizes the Board of Adjustment to grant variances related to dimensional requirements only. On November 13, 1995, the Board of Adjustment considered a variance request by Danny Freshwater for a septic easement. The Freshwater property contains 10 acres, Because the plat was exempt from subdivision regulations, soil suitability was not determined prior to creation of the lot. It has been determined by Environmental Health that the lot does not contain soils suitable for septic disposal. A suitable site was identified on an adjacent 10-acre parcel which has already been developed with a single-family residence. The owner of that parcel agreed to grant a septic easement, but would not agree to a recombination which would allow the suitable soils to be incorporated into the lot owned by Mr. Freshwater. A residence cannot be built on the Freshwater parcel unless wastewater disposal can occur on an easement on the adjacent parcel. Under current regulations, a variance cannot be granted because delayed action on the November 13, 1995 variance request for eight months, to allow time for consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address this issue. 4 The proposed amendment would give the Board of Adjustment explicit authority to grant a variance to allow septic easements in water supply watersheds in cases which meet other findings necessary for variance approval. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 6.23.11 ADMINISTRATION a) Appeals Decisions of the Zoning Officer in the implementation of this Article may be appealed to the Orange County Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2.3.7 of this Ordinance. b) Variances Develepme--«tii=hies may—bed Minor variances for dimensional requirements and for the use of septic easements maybe approved by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 2.3.6 of this Ordinance. A variance which results in one or more of the following shall be considered a major exemption, requiring approval by the Environmental Management Commission. 1. the complete waiver of a management requirement of the Environmental Management Commission; 2. the relaxation of any management requirement that takes the form of a numerical standard to less than 90% of the minimum required by State fnaadate the Environmental Management Commission; and 3. the relaxation of any management requirement that applies to a development project requiring construction of a detention pond. A description of each project receiving a variance and the reason for granting the variance shall be submitted to the Commission on an annual basis. All other local governments having jurisdiction within the watershed area and the entity using the water supply for consumption shall be notified of the proposed exemption. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 18, 1996 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: i7Hk-vJ4-lyy6 15 j1 t3Ul�if1FIN{1UtK 9196443004 P.02102 RESOLUTION PWOVJDM COMMITS TO THE MANGE QOuwy am= OF COMMMSSIOMM REGAMM A FROPOWD AMZND1YMT TO SZCT10Pl 623.11 OF TOR CO[)l Y Z0Nl9'IC OwnuNCE•wATEASHBD FpoTEC'T1ON ovtw AY DtbTax-ts VANCIO<AS.she Eltaaae Caaoty Esoard of Camotiesioac:s wi11 bold a prblic hsaei�a Fibnney Z6,1996 foc time parpoee of reedv4 eaamamto an s propes ed amswdmma to Article 6.23.t 1 of ate County Z=4 mac WMMRA&the pr al, , ameodatiat w mM give the OWe Coug&Y Bored mf Adjaelmeeo!aglick as wity a Vast witoeaet so aflow of ion septic easKmem in ware:sop*wareasire4s in aces which street odra fimftp meeeaaary for wiser approval:and by re atmim atptbema y 24,1994 the Bard of Dbvcars of Oae`e Water and Sewer Audpdty sappaeeed stir ooertiaad pra dm of iodividrnl o!i-site sepie tyateia weeotea4t in the University Woe mod t ere Creeds Rmwvoir wstetsheds. 1. Tbat d w Baud dDseetas of O:attie wona and Sawn Amdrodty camd nos am srppwt der probrbitioo of adridiW am4ft septic sysoetzt comments in din University Lsaim mod tome gait Remorvoir weardwds,but mafames 1be awed,seder vaM circummumem for a wisma procedurc such era provided in dw papered ZmiaS Otdieasoe aaeadamaac 2. 71M d w Bald finds to proposed vatsaaoe procedure t4 be rater lie w In scope drag the Cowws 1994 papsad Sat wGum bans pumbed irdiv"off-site spree s1 1, assmmm by P4*at watts stapplp.rwersb a ho ad draesdor legs lia*arep-mi,dw*do%atalihr visa ms ww dte betas of da Autirvritys apposi0art m drs 1994 pr+opotat 3. Ma l i r e Samtd toppers dte papered w i l l,, ese' provided dal da vaiwtoe prreedvee sdudl app3lr only to lots strafed befass j mt=y 1.1994 in order so dlsoo mp the ae+rd i of addidomod now lac shat would admo Ise be sfoommeWpobic doe oa on-sft sepir syaps liDAmioas. 4. .Tbtt tiro Boaad of Rama of Ora W wmr ad Saver Ar6aft wow mm a be concerned abort ale kmg- as srpeea— amd ambaffiaea of individual said aitasaadve private waetewabr ditposd,ejams. The Bald tscsaams k do Ob issue be inehoded err pare of do am.fpiag disandome teW a watt:ad sews:mmvim sera bowtdM sand pabliia ndCay esemsim"tar wgesraed seas. S. 710 espies dab Rooiutiom be tnrasm it".1 a the Craede County Bed of Ooraninkoffs. Carrbaeo Baerd afAlOwmat,sand ria Tows Comm"of Owpml EU. Adopted t6a Vied dey of Fdomary,1996. Barry h "tlt3o ATTEST: w Cart Trrrasorec TOTAL P.02 072 M 1 Melinda Coleman, Preservation Planner with the Division of Archives& History, spoke in 2 support of this plan for which funds were awarded in 1994. The primary goal of the Division of 3 Archives& History's Preservation Program is to make historic preservation a part of local 4 planning by weaving it into the fabric of governmental decisions. This money was granted to 5 Orange County because it was clear that good structures were available for protection and that 6 this plan had potential to be a model for other communities. In particular,the Division of 7 Archives and History was pleased that citizen participation was such a high priority in this 8 project. 9 10 A motion was made by Commissioner Wiilihoa, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to 11 refer the Historic Preservation Element to the Historic Preservation Commission and the 12 Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner 13 than April 1, 1996. 14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15 16 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments 17 (a) Z-1-96 Schley Community Store and Flea Market 18 This item was presented by Planner Jim Hinkley to receive citizen comment on a 19 request to rezone property owned by Bobby and Lydia Crawford. The property proposed to be 20 rezoned is a .82-acre lot owned by Bobby M. And Lydia E. Crawford at 3301 NC 57 (Tax Map 21 No. 2.47..9). It is located on the West side of NC 57 approximately 1,000 feet north of Walker 22 Road. The lot is currently zoned AR Agricultural-Residential. The proposed zoning is EC-5 23 Existing Commercial. The existing use is known as Schley Community Store and Flea Market, 24 and consists of a 36' X 32' store and 26'X 60'enclosed shed. The premises have been used 25 commercially since the mid-1950's. The Crawfords have used the property for a commercial 26 use since 1982. The property is located In an area designated l,y llic CQmprehensive Man se 27 Agricultural-Residential. 28 29 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING 30 BOARD OR CITIZENS 31 32 None. 33 34 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to 35 refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be 36 returned no sooner than April 1, 1996. 37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 38 39 4, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 40 gr (a) Article 6.3.11 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts 41 (b) Article 8 Special Uses 42 These items were presented by Planner Mary Willis. Item (a)was presented for 43 the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment which would authorize the 44 Board of Adjustment to grant variances to allow the use of septic easements in watersupply 45 watersheds. Item (b)was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to 4 7 1 Special Use provisions related to expiration, validity, and approval actions for Special Use 2 Permits. 3 4 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5 6 Commissioner Gordon asked if it was necessary to have both a septic area and a repair 7 area if an easement existed. R 9 Geoff Gledhill indicated that whether a septic area and repair area were required 10 depended on when the septic system was installed. That decision is the responsibility of the 11 Health Department. 12 13 Mary Willis noted that this amendment did not change the currently established 14 landowners requirement to meet the five findings necessary for variance approval. 15 16 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND OR CITIZENS 17 18 None. 19 20 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Wilhoit, to 21 refer both of these amendments to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no 22 sooner than April 1, 1996. 23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24 25 (c) Article 23. Violations, Penalties, and Remedies, 23.2 Penalties, a) 26 Criminal Action 27 This item was presented by Planner Jim Hinkley for the purpose of 28 receiving citizen comment on a Zoning Text Amendment. The Orange County Zoning 29 Ordinance provides for action which may be taken by the County to abate zoning violations or 30 non-compliance with zoning requirements. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often 31 used, but when it is, it is important that this remedy be effective. Although not specifically stated 32 in Section 23.2, the maximum fine is fifty dollars ($50.00). The maximum $50.00-fine upon 33 conviction limits the effectiveness of the criminal action remedy. The proposed amendment 34 would enable Orange County to increase the maximum fine to$500.00, as authorized by N.C. 35 General Statutes 14-4. 36 37 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING 38 BOARD AND CITIZENS 39 40 None. 41 42 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to 43 refer the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to the Planning Board for a 44 recommendation to be returned no sooner than April 1, 1996. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 8 DRAFTThere were no comments at the public hearing from the public, County Commissioners,or Planning Board. The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the rezoning per the findings(an attachment to these minutes on pages Barrows expressed concern that the property is in an AR district and that at some point it would be inappropriate for such a use. Hinkley emphasized that an error was made with respect to this property when zoning was adopted for Cedar Grove Township January 1,1994. There had been a commercial use on this property for more than thirty years. Waddell asked what would be allowed on the property if the error had not been made when zoning was adopted. Hinkley referred to the list of uses(an attachment to these minutes on pages )that would be permitted as a right or with a Class A or B Special Use Permit. Reid expressed concern that the amount of road frontage,two hundred feet, may not be sufficient for some of the permitted uses. Hinkley responded that .82 acres has been the zoning lot of record for forty years or more. Hinkley noted also that the existing commercial designation goes with the property in perpetuity; however, the size of the lot cannot be expanded. MOTION: Waddell moved findings on page 49 in the affirmative. Seconded by Katz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Reid moved findings on page 50 in the affirmative. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed(Barrows-outside of a node and would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan if inside the activity node). MOTION: Waddell moved findings on page 51 in the affirmative. Seconded by Barrows. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Reid moved approval of the rezoning as recommended by the Zoning Officer. Seconded by Waddell. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed(Rosemond and Barrows-reasons already stated by Barrows). Katz expressed concern with the long list of permitted uses for an EC-5 designation. He asked that this be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for review to determine whether changes or reduction in the list could occur. c. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (1) Article 6.23.11 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts(Administration) Presentation by Jim Hinkley. 9 This item is to consider a proposed amendment which would authorize the Board of Adjustment to grant variances to allow the use of septic easements in DRAFT watersupply watersheds. On November 13, 1995, the Board of Adjustment considered a variance request by Danny G.Freshwater for a septic easement. The 10-acre lot in question was part of a plat which was exempt from subdivision regulations. A soils analysis was not required prior to creation of the lot. Environmental Health determined that the lot does not contain soils suitable for septic disposal. A residence cannot be built on the parcel unless wastewater disposal can occur on an easement on the adjacent parcel. Article 6.23.9(Watershed Protection Overlay Districts -Water Supply/Wastewater Disposal)of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the use of offsite septic easements in all water supply watersheds. Article 6.23.11 (Watershed Protection Overlay Districts-Administration)provides for the Board of Adjustment to grant minor variances of requirements of the watershed protection overlay districts in accordance with Article 2.3.6. Article 2.3.6(Application of the Variance Power)authorizes the Board of Adjustment to grant variances related to dimensional requirements only. The proposed amendment would give the Board of Adjustment explicit authority to grant a variance to allow septic easements in water supply watersheds in cases which meet other findings necessary for variance approval. The Board of Adjustment delayed action on the November 13, 1995 variance request for eight months to allow time for consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address this issue. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on February 26, 1996. One citizen spoke and indicated support for the proposal. A Resolution from OWASA indicating support for the amendment was received after the public hearing. The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Waddell stated that he felt there would be very few,if any,other lots of this size, ten acres,that would encounter the problem of no perc site. Rosemond asked what Waddell based his comment on. Waddell responded that it was the first such request made of the Board of Adjustment in the six years he has served on the Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the Zoning Officer. Seconded by Reid. Katz asked about the memo from OWASA regarding this issue. Hinkley responded the memo from OWASA stated its support for the amendment provided it only applies to lots created prior to January 1, 1994, when watershed regulations became effective. He further noted that this was a lot of record created long before that date. Hinkley also noted that while lots over 10.01 acres are not subject to Subdivision Regulations, when an applicant comes to the Planning Department to have a plat "signed off"by a Planner as exempt,the Planners do ask Environmental Health 10 for verification of soils suitable for septic systems. Working this way with DRAFT Environmental Health can help prevent the creation of even larger lots with soils that do not perk. If Environmental Health indicates that there are no perc sites, then the applicant is discouraged from creating the lot. He would be encouraged to redraw lot lines such that percable soils would be available. Katz asked for clarification concerning future creation of the large lots and whether those could be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Hinkley responded that this would only apply to lots created prior to January 1, 1994. Waddell noted also that it applied only to lots in the watersheds. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Rosemond-felt that the steps being taken to avoid future creation of such lots is not "tight enough".) (2) Article 8 Special Uses Presentation by Jim Hinkley. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to Special Use provisions related to expiration,validity,and approval actions for Special Use Permits. A letter from the County Attorney dated December 18, 1995, recommended several changes to the Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining to Special Uses. It is proposed that the following standard requirements be explicitly stated in each Special Use Permit: that the permit will become null and void if any of the conditions are held invalid or void;and that the permit will automatically expire within twelve months of approval if the use has not commenced or if construction has not commenced and proceeded,unless a time extension is approved. In addition,the proposed amendment involves a change to Article 8.4.7,which relates to action on Special Use Permits. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that a summary of evidence supporting the action be included as a part of the action itself. The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on February 26, 1996. There were no comments. The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Waddell expressed concern that the amendment seemed to say if the applicant went to court and the court found a condition placed by the County to be disallowed,then the County would declare the permit to be null and void. He felt this was incorrect. Extensive discussion concluded that the proposed amendment does not adequately address the concerns raised by Waddell. Katz asked why there should be an automatic expiration in 12 months. Collins responded that is a typical condition that is placed on Special Use Permits. It is approval to go ahead,but it lets the applicant know that something must done B. CONTRACT _ORANGE COUNTY SPEEDWAY In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, EMS Administrative Director Janette Smith indicated that the $12,500 contract amount covers all expenses. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve a contract between Orange County Speedway and Orange County Department of Emergency Management to provide medical coverage for events and races held at the Speedway and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board, subject to review by the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT_ARTICLE 6.23.11 WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS Planner Jim Hinkley summarized this item. This proposed amendment would authorize the Board of Adjustment to grant variances to allow the use of septic easements in watersupply watersheds for lots created before January 1, 1994. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve this amendment for lots created before January 1, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. Z-1-96 SCHLEY COMMUNITY STORE AND FLEA MARKET -ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT Planner Jim Hinkley presented information about the community store which has been in operation for 30 years. This request is for a rezoning from AR Agricultural Residential to EC-5 Existing Commercial. A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the rezoning for a .82 acre lot from AR to EC-5 in Cedar Grove Township. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT_DEDICATION_PAYMENT-IN- LIEU Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for the Board's consideration proposed amendments to the dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The specific proposal is to amend Section IV-B-7-b, Recreation Sites, of the Subdivision Regulations to substitute a payment-in-lieu based on the cost of land and facilities associated with implementing a system of community and district parks. Currently, the payment-in-lieu includes only the value of land, and is based on the assessed value listed in the Orange County Tax Office. The average payment-in- lieu per household is presently$76. Under the proposed system, the payment-in-lieu would not exceed $455 per household. In addition to the payment-in-lieu, a change in the amount of land which must be dedicated for recreation sites is also proposed as outlined in the agenda. The Recreation & Parks Advisory Council recommends the service area approach. They also recommend that the land dedication requirement be set no lower than 1/57th of an acre per lot. The Planning Board voted 8-2 to table this item. They felt that if the payment-in-lieu proposal was to be an "interim" payment until the Master Recreation Plan was updated, it would be better to wait until the update was accomplished. The Administration recommends that the payment-in-lieu be set no higher than $455 per dwelling lot and that the land dedication required be set no lower than 1/57th of an acre. Marvin Collins explained the rationale for reducing the acreage from 1/35 of an acre to 1/57 of an acre. He said that when the payment-in-lieu was considered in the late 80's the County did not have a master recreation and parks plan. They used standards put out by the National Recreation and Parks Association which set the acreage at 1/35 of an acre. When the Recreation and Parks Plan was done and adopted by the Board,two kinds of parks were included - community parks and district parks. When these standards are combined, it comes out to 1157 of an acre. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about updating the fees, Marvin Collins indicated that these can be reviewed as part of the budget process.