HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-01-1996 - IX-E • 5���1G
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 1, 1996
Action Agenda
Item
SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING- MAY 28, 1996
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes—X—No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Public Hearing Items Planning Director-Extension 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Hillsborough 732-8181
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To approve the advertisement for the May 28, 1996 quarterly public hearing.
BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for May 28, 1996. A
summary of each item proposed for public hearing is provided below. The
proposed legal advertisement, the text of proposed ordinance amendments, and
other background information are attached.
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
The proposed amendment is for the purpose of considering an increase in the
current schedule of impact fees. Specifically, Section 3, School Impact Fees
Imposed on New Residential Structures, is proposed for amendment to increase
the impact fee in the Orange County School District from $750 to no more than
$3,400. For the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District, an increase in the impact
fee from $1,500 to no more than $11,500 is proposed. These changes are based
on a recalculation of the fees in the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Technical
Report and reflect new demographic data concerning students per household as
well as the recommendations of the School Facilities Construction Standards
Work Group.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
• Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
The Stoney Creek Planning Group has spent the past year fulfilling its
charge: "To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the
2
Town of Hillsborough." The group has prepared a draft land use plan based
on two key goals: making sure landowners get fair value for their
property; and protecting the area's"rural character." They have used the
Flexible Development Options currently being considered for adoption as
the basis for their implementation recommendations.
• South Buckhorn Economic Development District
The Board of Commissioners adopted as one of its goals for the 1995-96
fiscal year the possible expansion of the Buckhorn Road EDD to include area
on the south side of I-85. The area proposed to be included in the EDD is
bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the south, 1-85
to the north and the boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east,
excluding an existing subdivision and mobile home park within that area. A
proposal for the area on the west side of Buckhorn Road south of I-85
will be developed, after obtaining input from Mebane concerning
cooperative planning efforts, and is tentatively scheduled for the August,
1996 public hearing
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
• Z-2-96 Neal and Betty Tapp
The property owners have requested the rezoning of 4.75 acre-portion of
a 28.46-acre tract from NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial to RB Rural
Buffer. The property is bounded by 1-40 and Millhouse Road.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
• Telecommunication Towers
In response to concerns raised by citizens, advisory boards and the Board
of Commissioners, a proposed amendment for telecommunication towers
was presented for public hearing in November, 1995. Minutes of the
public hearing are attached. After the public hearing, the industry
representatives who spoke at the public meeting met with the Ordinance
Review Committee. A revision to the original proposal is included in the
attachments, along with a summary of the key changes. The proposed
revisions require another public hearing.
• Home Occupations
The Planning Staff has proposed a comprehensive amendment to the
home occupation regulations to addresses issues which have been raised
is recent years, including impacts of some home occupations on
residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would replace all of
the existing home occupation regulations with exception of the
application requirements and approval procedures. The revisions include
a prohibition on home occupation permits for certain uses such as
automotive repair and construction contracting, reduce the maximum
amount of accessory building and outdoor storage area required, and
provide specific limits on traffic generation and vehicle size.
3
• Use of Historic Sites (Class A Special Use)
The proposed amendment was initiated by Commissioner Crowther and
would specify that that property as well as structures may be considered
in the consideration of Special Use Permits for non-residential use of
historic structures.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
• Recordation of Plats
The proposed amendment, initiated by the Planning Staff and County
Attorney, is technical in nature and would provide consistency between
ordinance provisions and administrative practices in the recordation of
subdivision plats by eliminating the provision that plats be recorded in the
presence of the Planning Staff.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the advertisement for public
hearing on May 28, 1996.
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106
East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. for the
purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items:
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
The proposed amendment is for the purpose of considering an increase in the current schedule of impact
fees. Specifically, Section 3, School Impact Fees Imposed on New Residential Structures, is proposed for
amendment to increase the impact fee in the Orange County School District from $750 to no more than
$3,400. For the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District, an increase in the impact fee from $1,500 to no
more than$11,500 is proposed. These changes are based on a recalculation of the fees in the Educational
Facilities Impact Fee Technical Report and reflect new demographic data concerning students per
household as well as the recommendations of the School Facilities Construction Standards Work Group.
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
AMEND the Orange County Land Use Plan to incorporate the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan. On
December 5, 1994, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the following charge: "To
prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin
Planning Area southeast of the Town of Hillsborough." Since that time, a 22 member Planning Group
has worked on a land use plan for the 4,700 acre area that achieves two goals:
1. Makes sure landowners get fair value for their property; and
2. Protects the area's"rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified three levels of land-use
intensity that would help protect these resources. The resources include Duke Forest, the Stoney
Creek Wildlife Corridor, scenic road corridors, and existing farmland and neighborhoods. Lower
intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify the area's remaining rural
character; intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower and
higher intensity; and higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth
pressures and at some future date will likely be annexed into a municipality. The Planning Group
has recommended against rezoning as a means of plan implementation and has instead used the
voluntary Flexible Development Options currently being considered for adoption as the basis for
their recommendations.
2. CP-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Activity Node Expansion
REVISE the Orange County Land Use Plan to expand the boundary of the Buckhorn Road
Economic Development Activity Node include the following parcels located in the area bounded
by I-85 to the north, West Ten Road to the south, Buckhorn Road to the west, and Mt. Willing
Road to the east: lots 13, 18, 18a, 19, 19a, 19b, 20, 20a, 20c, 20d, 20e, 49, 50, 50a, 51, 51 a ,
5
51b, 51c, 52a, 52b, 53 and 54 of Tax Map 28, and lots 1, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 9, 9a, and 9b of
Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township. The current Land Use Plan Designation is Commercial/
Industrial Activity Node. The proposed Land Use Plan Designation is ED - Economic
Development Activity Node.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-2-96 Neal and Betty Tapp
REVISE the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone up to 7.4 acres owned by Neal and Betty
Tapp from NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial to RB Rural Buffer. The property is bounded by I-
40 and Millhouse Road, and is identified as part of lot 2a, Tax Map 19, Chapel Hill Township.
The property is designated as a Retail Trade Area within the Rural Buffer, in the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan.
2 Z-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion
REVISE the Orange County Zoning Atlas to expand the boundary of the Buckhorn Road
Economic Development to include the following parcels located in the area bounded by I-85 to
the north, West Ten Road to the south, Buckhorn Road to the west, and Mt. Willing Road to the
east: lots 13, 18, 18a, 19, 19a, 19b, 20, 20a, 20c, 20d, 20e, 49, 50, 50a, 51, 51a , 51b, 51c, 52a,
52b, 53 and 54 of Tax Map 28, and lots 1, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 9, 9a, and 9b of Tax Map 44,
Cheeks Township.
The current zoning district is R-1 Rural Residential. The proposed zoning district is EDD -
Economic Development District and Primary Development Area Overlay.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Amend ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE to: require approval of a Class B Special Use
Permit for new telecommunication towers between 75 feet and 199 feet, and approval of a Class
A Special Use Permit for new telecommunication towers 200 feet or taller.
2. Amend ARTICLE 8.8.17 RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING
TOWERS, AND ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANKS (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) to
eliminate reference to and Special Use Permit requirements pertaining to radio and television
transmitting and receiving towers.
3. Add ARTICLE 8.8.17a TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS (Special Use Permit application
requirements and standards of evaluation)to require provisions which may include the following:
setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts must be equal to the tower height, but may be
reduced to 50% of tower height if the remaining distance is included within an easement on
adjoining property; setbacks adjacent to non-residential zoning districts must be equal to the
greater of 20% of the tower height or the minimum required setback; A Type C Land Use Buffer
(40 feet in width) must be provided, and existing vegetation may be removed only to the extent
necessary; the applicant must provide specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate
on an existing tower were unsuccessful; the applicant must provide specific documentation that
he/she is willing to allow shared use of the proposed tower; property owners within 1000 feet of
6
the site must be notified by mail of the Special Use Permit hearing; towers must be of a light
color that minimizes visual impact, and may not be lighted unless required by federal or state law;
a bond must be posted in order to assure removal if the tower is abandoned.
4. Amend ARTICLE 6.3.1 PRINCIPAL USES to allow an unmanned telecommunication tower as
a second principal use on a zoning lot.
5. Add ARTICLE 6.18 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF STEALTH
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS to allow new telecommunication towers up to 160 feet in
height to be approved administratively by the Planning Staff if the primary purpose of the
structure is or appears to be something different than the support of telecommunication
equipment so as to minimize visual impact, and the apparent purpose is customarily considered as
an accessory to a use which is allowed in the zoning district. The placement of
telecommunication equipment on existing structures may also be approved administratively
provided that the equipment does not extend more than 20 feet above, or 10%of the height of the
structure, whichever is greater, and height and setback limitations are met.
6. Eliminate the existing provisions of ARTICLE 6.16.6 REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME
OCCUPATIONS and replace with new provisions which would apply a uniform set of standards
would apply to all home occupations; prohibit approval of home occupation permits for certain
uses such as automotive repair and construction contracting; specify standards for traffic
generation and vehicle size; require than any accessory buildings used for a home occupation
have the appearance of a residential accessory structure and generally be limited to 1000 square
feet in area; allow no more than 500 square feet of outdoor storage area; and require screening
from adjacent roads and properties through landscaping and/or fencing
7. Amend ARTICLE 8.8.24 SPECIAL USES (USE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES) to provide
reference to and evaluation of property as well as structures when considering Special Use
Permits for the non-residential use of historic structures.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Amend SECTION III-C-4 ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL (minor subdivisions) and
SECTION III-D-3(c) ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL (major subdivisions) to
eliminate the requirement that Planning Staff be present when subdivision plats and associated
documents are recorded at the Register of Deeds Office.
The specific text amendments proposed as described in this notice are available for public inspection at
the Orange County Planning Department.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received
during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by
the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of
Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the
hearing.
7
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in
the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road,Hillsborough,North Carolina. Office hours are
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-
7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for
extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
May 15, 1996 May 16, 1996
May 22, 1996 May 23, 1996
z
1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: Mu L129-6
Action Agenda
Item# :-:JE
SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING- MAY 28, 1996
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Public Hearing Items Planning Director-Extension 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Hillsborough 732-8181
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To approve the advertisement for the May 28, 1996 quarterly public hearing.
BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for May 28, 1996. A
summary of each item proposed for public hearing is provided below. The
proposed legal advertisement, the text of proposed ordinance amendments, and
other background information are attached.
PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
The proposed amendment is for the purpose of considering an increase in the
current schedule of impact fees. Specifically, Section 3, School Impact Fees
Imposed on New Residential Structures, is proposed for amendment to increase
the impact fee in the Orange County School District from $750 to no more than
$ . For the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District, an increase in the impact
fee from$1,500 to no more than $ is proposed. These changes are based on
a recalculation of the fees in the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Technical
Report and reflect new demographic data concerning students per household as
well as the recommendations of the School Facilities Construction Standards
Work Group.
[NOTE: Recalculation of the impact fees; e.g., updating the Technical Report,
was not completed in time to include the proposed fee schedule as part of this
abstract and the attached public hearing notice. That information will be
distributed to the Board prior to the meeting date.]
s
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 2
• Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
The Stoney Creek Planning Group has spent the past year fulfilling its
charge: "To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation, for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of
the Town of Hillsborough." The group has prepared a draft land use plan
based on two key goals: making sure landowners get fair value for their
property; and protecting the area's "rural character." They have used the
Flexible Development Options currently being considered for adoption
as the basis for their implementation recommendations.
• South Buckhorn Economic Development District
The Board of Commissioners adopted as one of its goals for the 1995-96
fiscal year the possible expansion of the Buckhorn Road EDD to include
area on the south side of I-85. The area proposed to be included in the
EDD is bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the
south, I-85 to the north and the boundary of the Upper Eno Critical
Area to the east, excluding an existing subdivision and mobile home
park within that area. A proposal for the area on the west side of
Buckhorn Road south of I-85 will be developed, after obtaining input
from Mebane concerning cooperative planning efforts, and is tentatively
scheduled for the August, 1996 public hearing
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
• Z-2-96 Neal and Betty Tapp
The property owners have requested the rezoning of 4.75 acre-portion of a
28.46-acre tract from NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial to RB Rural
Buffer. The property is bounded by 1-40 and Millhouse Road.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
• Telecommunication Towers
In response to concerns raised by citizens, advisory boards and the
Board of Commissioners, a proposed amendment for telecommunication
towers was presented for public hearing in November, 1995. Minutes of
the public hearing are attached. After the public hearing, the industry
representatives who spoke at the public meeting met with the Ordinance
Review Committee. A revision to the original proposal is included in the
attachments, along with a summary of the key changes. The proposed
revisions require another public hearing.
• Home Occupations
The Planning Staff has proposed a comprehensive amendment to the
home occupation regulations to addresses issues which have been raised
is recent years, including impacts of some home occupations on
3
residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendment would replace all
of the existing home occupation regulations with exception of the
application requirements and approval procedures. The revisions include
a prohibition on home occupation permits for certain uses such as
automotive repair and construction contracting, reduce the maximum
amount of accessory building and outdoor storage area required, and
provide specific limits on traffic generation and vehicle size.
• Use of Historic Sites (Class A Special Use)
The proposed amendment was initiated by Commissioner Crowther and
would specify that that property as well as structures may be considered in
the consideration of Special Use Permits for non-residential use of historic
structures.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
• Recordation of Plats
The proposed amendment, initiated by the Planning Staff and County
Attorney, is technical in nature and would provide consistency between
ordinance provisions and administrative practices in the recordation of
subdivision plats by eliminating the provision that plats be recorded in the
presence of the Planning Staff.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the advertisement for public
hearing on May 28, 1996.
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106
East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough,North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose
of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items:
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
The proposed amendment is for the purpose of considering an increase in the current schedule of impact
fees. Specifically, Section 3, School Impact Fees Imposed on New Residential Structures, is proposed for
amendment to increase the impact fee in the Orange County School District from $750 to no more than
$ . For the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District, an increase in the impact fee from $1,500 to no more
than$__,is proposed. These changes are based on a recalculation of the fees in the Educational Facilities
Impact Fee Technical Report and reflect new demographic data concerning students per household as well
as the recommendations of the School Facilities Construction Standards Work Group.
ORANGE COL NTY LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
AMEND the Orange County Land Use Plan to incorporate the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan.
On December 5, 1994, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the following charge:
"To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for implementation,for the Stoney Creek
Basin Planning Area southeast of the Town of Hillsborough." Since that time, a 22 member
Planning Group has worked on a land use plan for the 4,700 acre area that achieves two goals:
1. Makes sure landowners get fair value for their property; and
2. Protects the area's"rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified three levels of land-use
intensity that would help protect these resources. The resources include Duke Forest, the Stoney
Creek Wildlife Corridor, scenic road corridors, and existing farmland and neighborhoods. Lower
intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify the area's remaining rural
character; intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower and
higher intensity; and higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth
pressures and at some future date will likely be annexed into a municipality. The Planning
Group has recommended against rezoning as a means of plan implementation and has instead
used the voluntary Flexible Development Options currently being considered for adoption as the
basis for their recommendations.
2. CP-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Activity Node Expansion
REVISE the Orange County Land Use Plan to expand the boundary of the Buckhorn Road
Economic Development Activity Node include the following parcels located in the area bounded
by I-85 to the north, West Ten Road to the south, Buckhorn Road to the west, and Mt. Willing
Road to the east: lots 13, 18, 18a, 19, 19a, 19b, 20, 20a, 20c, 20d, 20e, 49, 50, 50a, 51, 51 a , 51 b,
h
5
51c, 52a, 52b, 53 and 54 of Tax Map 28, and lots 1, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 9, 9a, and 9b of Tax Map
44, Cheeks Township.The current Land Use Plan Designation is Commercial/Industrial Activity
Node. The proposed Land Use Plan Designation is ED-Economic Development Activity Node.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
1. Z-2-96 Neal and Betty Tapp
REVISE the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone up to 7.4 acres owned by Neal and Betty Tapp
from NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial to RB Rural Buffer. The property is bounded by I-40 and
Millhouse Road, and is identified as part of lot 2a, Tax Map 19, Chapel Hill Township. The
property is designated as a Retail Trade Area within the Rural Buffer, in the Joint Planning Area
Land Use Plan.
2 Z-3-96 Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion
REVISE the Orange County Zoning Atlas to expand the boundary of the Buckhom Road Economic
Development to include the following parcels located in the area bounded by I-85 to the north,
West Ten Road to the south, Buckhorn Road to the west, and Mt. Willing Road to the east: lots 13,
18, 18a, 19, 19a, 19b, 20, 20a, 20c, 20d, 20e, 49, 50, 50a, 51, 51a , 51b, 51c, 52a, 52b, 53 and 54
of Tax Map 28,and lots 1,2a,3,3a, 3b,4, 5,9, 9a,and 9b of Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township.
The current zoning district is R-1 Rural Residential. The proposed zoning district is EDD -
Economic Development District and Primary Development Area Overlay.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Amend ARTICLE 4.3 PERMITTED USE TABLE to: require approval of a Class B Special Use
Permit for new telecommunication towers between 75 feet and 199 feet, and approval of a Class A
Special Use Permit for new telecommunication towers 200 feet or taller.
2. Amend ARTICLE 8.8.17 RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING
TOWERS, AND ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANKS (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) to
eliminate reference to and Special Use Permit requirements pertaining to radio and television
transmitting and receiving towers.
3. Add ARTICLE 8.8.17a TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS (Special Use Permit application
requirements and standards of evaluation) to require provisions which may include the following:
setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts must be equal to the tower height, but may be
reduced to 50% of tower height if the remaining distance is included within an easement on
adjoining property; setbacks adjacent to non-residential zoning districts must be equal to the greater
of 20%of the tower height or the minimum required setback; A Type C Land Use Buffer(40 feet
in width) must be provided, and existing vegetation may be removed only to the extent necessary;
the applicant must provide specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing
tower were unsuccessful; the applicant must provide specific documentation that he/she is willing
to allow shared use of the proposed tower; property owners within 1000 feet of the site must be
notified by mail of the Special Use Permit hearing; towers must be of a light color that minimizes
A
6 ,
visual impact,and may not be lighted unless required by federal or state law; a bond must be posted
in order to assure removal if the tower is abandoned.
4. Amend ARTICLE 6.3.1 PRINCIPAL USES to allow an unmanned telecommunication tower as a
second principal use on a zoning lot.
5. Add ARTICLE 6.18 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF STEALTH
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS to allow new telecommunication towers up to 160 feet in
height to be approved administratively by the Planning Staff if the primary purpose of the structure
is or appears to be something different than the support of telecommunication equipment so as to
minimize visual impact, and the apparent purpose is customarily considered as an accessory to a
use which is allowed in the zoning district. The placement of telecommunication equipment on
existing structures may also be approved administratively provided that the equipment does not
extend more than 20 feet above, or 10% of the height of the structure, whichever is greater, and
height and setback limitations are met.
6. Eliminate the existing provisions of ARTICLE 6.16.6 REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME
OCCUPATIONS and replace with new provisions which would apply a uniform set of standards
would apply to all home occupations; prohibit approval of home occupation permits for certain
uses such as automotive repair and construction contracting; specify standards for traffic
generation and vehicle size; require than any accessory buildings used for a home occupation
have the appearance of a residential accessory structure and generally be limited to 1000 square
feet in area; allow no more than 500 square feet of outdoor storage area; and require screening
from adjacent roads and properties through landscaping and/or fencing
7. Amend ARTICLE 8.8.24 SPECIAL USES (USE OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES) to provide
reference to and evaluation of property as well as structures when considering Special Use Permits
for the non-residential use of historic structures.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Amend SECTION III-C-4 ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL (minor subdivisions) and
SECTION III-D-3(c) ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL (major subdivisions) to
eliminate the requirement that Planning Staff be present when subdivision plats and associated
documents are recorded at the Register of Deeds Office.
The specific text amendments proposed as described in this notice are available for public inspection at the
Orange County Planning Department.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received
during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by
the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of
Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the
hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in
the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688-
7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for
extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins,Planning Director
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
May 15, 1996 May 16, 1996
May 22, 1996 May 23, 1996
A
8 ♦
PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE/PLAN: Stoney Creek Small Area Plan(Amendment to Land Use Element
of the Comprehensive Plan)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: 4_Staff Planning Board X BOCC_2�_Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To fulfill BOCC charge of December 5, 1994: "To prepare
a land use plan, including recommendations for implementation, for the Stoney Creek Basin
Planning Area southeast of the town of Hillsborough."
IMPACTASSUES: Since March 16, 1995, a 22 member Planning Group of neighborhood A
representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven alternates has worked on a land use
plan for the area that achieves two goals:
1. Protects the rights landowners have now to derive value from their land; and
2. Protects the area's "rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified levels of land-use intensity
that would help protect these resources. Three levels of land-use intensity are recommended for
different parts of the Stoney Creek area:
1. Lower intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify the area's
remaining rural character. They are proposed to have the lowest future development
densities and water and sewer extension is=envisioned.
2. Intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower and higher
intensity. They are envisioned as being predominantly residential with density being
determined largely by the character of existing development. Water and sewer extension is
unlikely.
3. Higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth and at some future
date will likely be annexed by Hillsborough or Durham. A mix of land uses is possible along
with the eventual extension of water and sewer.
The Planning Group explored traditional legal tools for plan implementation such as rezoning to
promote consistency. However, a key plan goal is to not take away any options landowners
currently have and no zoning changes are recommended. The Planning Group relied extensively
9
on the Flexible Development Options in making their recommendations and suggest the
following modifications to Flexible Development to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area:
1. Use of density bonus of additional housing unit for every acre of open space preserved above
the 33%minimum:
• Up to 50%open space allows half of the bonus to be used in the area; and
• open space in excess of 50%permits use of the bonus units wherever desired.
2. Where density bonuses can be used:
• The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses;
• the intermediate intensity area is a sending md receiving area;
• the higher intensity area is a receiving area; and
• density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated above, but
density from other areas cannot be transferred into the area.
3. In the lower intensity areas, 50% of active recreation land will not count toward open space,
although active recreation uses will continue to be permitted.
4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open space and
enhance rural character should be included as an incentive.
EXISTING /PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN PROVISIONS: The last plan amendment
in the area was adopted in July, 1988. The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will
supersede this by introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed above. However,these
will apply only in situation where landowner/developer chooses to use voluntary Flexible
Development Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed, the zoning patterns as established
by the current plan will remain in effect.
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE:
PLANNING BOARD:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
10 , •
STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN
Community Open House at New Hope Elementary School
March 21, 1996
Introduction The Orange County Commissioners
appointed the Stoney Creek Small
In the past year a group of 22 citizens Area Planning Group (see roster at
has worked on a land use plan for the end) to develop a land use plan - and
Stoney Creek area that achieves two recommendations for how it might be
goals: implemented - for the 4,700 acre area
southeast of Hillsborough. Before the
• Protects the rights that plan can be considered for adoption
landowners have now to derive by the County Commissioners, it
value from their land. The plan must be presented at public hearing
does = take away any of the and receive Planning Board review.
development options a landowner
now has and does = downzone The Stoney Creek Plan
the area; and
Citizens lobbied to get this planning
• Protects the area's "rural process started because suburban-
character" by adding new, style conventional developments are
voluntary options for how spreading and could overtake the
landowners can develop their land. remaining rural aspects of the Stoney
Creek area.
What is a Land Use Plan?
The Planning Group identified key
It is a statement of the County's resource areas and then identified
goals, policies, and recommendations levels of land-use intensity that would
regarding future land development. help protect these resources. The
As an official public document resources include Duke Forest, the
adopted by the Board of County Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor, New
Commissioners, it reflects general Hope Presbyterian Church lands,
consensus about how, when, and scenic road corridors, and existing
where the County should encourage farmland and neighborhoods. Three
or discourage future development and levels of land-use intensity (lower,
is embodied in map and tent form. intermediate, and higher) are being
recommended for different parts of
11
the Stoney Creek area and are number of uses on a lot, and lot size
described as follows (see map): among other things) to promote
consistency with recommendations in
• Lower intensity areas lie adjacent the plan. However, a goal of the plan
to most of the resource areas and is not to take away any options
best typify the area's remaining landowners currently have, so n4
rural character. These areas are zoning changes are recommended.
proposed to have the lowest future
development densities and In making recommendations on
extension of water and sewer implementation, the Planning Group
service is = envisioned. has relied extensively on a set of
Flexible Development Options (a
• Intermediate intensity areas are separate handout which gives
intended to provide a transition additional detail is available)
between lower and higher currently under review by the County
intensity. They are envisioned as that have the following features:
being predominantly residential
with density being determined • Each option involves setting aside
largely by the character of existing at least 33% of the land in
development. Water and sewer preserved open space;
extension is unlikely. • the number of buildable units is
based on what current zoning and
• Higher intensity areas are adjacent health regulations allow;
to areas experiencing urban • the layout of the buildable units
growth pressures and at some follows a set of Rural Design
future date will likely be annexed Guidelines for the creation of
into Hillsborough or Durham. A estate lots, conservation lots, or
mix of land uses is possible and cluster lots; and
these areas will eventually be • in certain areas, a landowner can
served by water and sewer. get additional housing units
(density bonus) by increasing the
Implementation Options amount of preserved open space
beyond the 33% minimum.
The Planning Group explored
traditional legal tools for plan It is i portant to remember that these
implementation such as changes in are voluntary options and landowners
zoning (County regulations that still have the choice of conventional
govern land-uses, the location and subdivision development!
12 ,
By offering incentives, the plan aims i.e., bonus units resulting from
to encourage types of development open space preserved here cannot
that protect rural character and the be used here, but must be
landowner's economic value. transferred elsewhere;
• the intermediate intensity area is a
Planning Group Recommendations sending and receiving area, i.e.,
density bonuses originating here
The Planning Group suggests the can be used here as well as density
following modifications to Flexible from lower intensity areas;
Development to make it specific to • the higher intensity area is a
the Stoney Creek area: receiving area for density
transferred from the lower and
1) Flexible Development allows a intermediate areas; and
density bonus of an additional • density bonuses created in the
housing unit for every acre of open Stoney Creek area can be utilized
space preserved above the 33% as stated above, but density from
minimum. For Stoney Creek: other areas cannot be transferred
into the Stoney Creek area.
• Up to 50% open space allows half
of the bonus units to be used in the 3) Flexible Development allows 50%
Stoney Creek area (for example, of active recreation land to count
if two bonus units are allowed, one toward open space. The Planning
can be used in the Stoney Creek Group recommends that active
area, but the other has to be used recreation uses continue to be
outside the area); and permitted in the lower intensity areas,
• , preserved open space in excess of but that they not count toward open
50% permits the owner to use the space.
bonus units wherever desired (for
example, if two bonus units are 4) To encourage the use of Flexible
allowed, both can be used in Development, a package of
Stoney Creek, or one inside and incentives has been included (see
one outside, or both outside). page 12 in the Flexible Development
handout). As an added incentive the
2) Where density bonuses can be Planning Group recommends
used: expedited review and approval of
projects that preserve large amounts
• The lower intensity area is a of open space and enhance rural
sending area for density bonuses, character.
_ r
13
As currently envisioned, expedited Next St=
review would entail review and
approval of projects by County staff Following the open house, the
as opposed to the more lengthy Planning Group will:
process of Planning Board review and
County Commissioner approval. • Review open house comments and
Currently, minor subdivisions (the incorporate as appropriate;
creation of five lots or less) and • review Rural Design Guidelines as
4
projects consistent with Economic soon as they are available;
Development District guidelines • refine the boundaries of the land-
receive expedited review. Care must use intensity levels on the map;
be taken when considering activities • finish implementation discussions
for expedited review because an and recommendations; and
important element of public oversight • pull together public hearing
none. package for presentation on May
28, 1996.
The one area in which the group has
consensus regarding expedited review More Information
is for developments that preserve
70% open space. Another idea Contact Gene Bell, Planner III, in the
discussed extensively by the Planning Orange County Planning Department
Group, but still lacking consensus is at extension 2589 at the appropriate
expedited review for low density, phone number: 688-7331 (Durham),
rural subdivisions with lot sizes 732-8181 (Hillsborough), and 967-
averaging five acres or more. 9251 (Chapel Hill).
Stoney Creek Small Area Plan Group
(* Denotes Alternate)
Verla Insko, Facilitator
Curtis Bane Bob Hall Steve Price Michael Warner
Bill Bracey Gary Hanker Lee Rafalow Don Willhoit
James Bumphus Dan Kenan* Trish Rafalow* Thea Wilson*
Clint Burklin Ken Maynard* John Ringland* David Yelton
Keith Cook Meg McKean Elio Soldi Dean Zehnder
Trudy Cuffe Bobby Nicholson Bob Strayhorn
Judd Edeburn Kim Price* Dan Teichman
Steve Halkiotis Renee Price Irene VanDyke*
a
• ;ifs
.�_ _ � �11�►��IIilllj � �� "
►p1�'''�� r��p�?ail��l fi.CC �� �, � -��l
•nruirl� �rlf � 1 �
f
WE
wi
tw
x i'1/`r4;Z40P'1 "� �j \4 h �1�� �SIR,
,
it � `�"�- +hs��� ,� � ��! _�`�'\I-••=.:,
Zol���� x..11►►►, ••��•,,•;.���� ��- ���-A...,�:, _ rt► ��-�• -
��'- MA!•%Apr
ig
-_17WA
A 10
1 1 .
�Loi
�jli
• 15
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ZONING ATLAS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN MANUAL
REFERENCE: Buckhorn Road Economic Development District Expansion
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
PURPOSE:
To consider expanding the boundaries of the Buckhorn Road Economic Development District to
include area at the southeast quadrant of I-85 and Buckhorn Road.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Commissioners adopted as one of its goals for the 1995-96 fiscal year the possible
expansion of the Buckhom Road EDD to include area on the south side of I-85. The total study
area considered for inclusion in the EDD is bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten
Road to the south, I-85 to the north and the boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east.
The study area is now designated in the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan as a Commercial/Industrial Activity Node, which allows property owners to request rezoning
to certain commercial and industrial zoning districts. Property which will be included in an
Economic Development District will not need to be rezoned if it is developed in accordance with
the Economic Development District Design Manual.
A proposal for the area on the west side of Buckhorn Road south of I-85 will be developed, after
obtaining input from Mebane concerning cooperative planning efforts, and is tentatively
scheduled for the August, 1996 public hearing
Input from Community Meeting
A community meeting to discuss the possible expansion of the Buckhorn Road EDD was held at
the Efland-Cheeks Community Center on March 12. Notices of the meeting were sent to about
200 property owners. Eighteen property owners attended the meeting. A summary of their
comments is attached. Most of the comments focused on the following issues, related to
effects on the existing residential character and the extension of water and sewer service.
• Some of the group supported expansion of the EDD and the rezoning of their property.
16
• Some of the group did not want to see any change to the residential character of the area,
and indicated that they would support changing the Land Use Plan designation to allow
only residential use.
• Others were not opposed to non-residential development, but wanted some assurance of
when development would occur before rezoning the property. They did not want to lose
the potential for residential development if it would be a long time before non-residential
development would happen,
• There was considerable discussion about water and sewer extension. Several believed
that the County should extend water and sewer to the area in order to attract business.
Water and Sewer
Buckhom Road is the approximate boundary between Haw Creek and Upper Eno Watersheds.
The east side of Buckhom Road is in the Upper Eno Watershed, and could best be served by the
Efland sewer system from the standpoint of maximizing the use of gravity flow. The area on
the west side of Buckhom Road would best be served by the Mebane sewer system for the same
reason. Only the area on the east side of Buckhom Road is proposed to be included in the EDD at
this time. The possible inclusion of area on the west side of Buckhom Road will be considered
at a later public hearing, after coordination with the City of Mebane on cooperative planning
issues.
Inclusion of the area between the I-85 and West Ten in the EDD could result in more efficient
and cost-effective sewer service. Four intermittent streams in the EDD on the north side of I-85
converge on the south side of I-85 near West Ten Road. If sewer service is provided only on the
north side of 1-85,then as many as four pump stations could be required to convey wastewater to
a discharge point in a gravity section of the Efland sewer system. If sewer service is planned
for both the north and south side, then gravity lines could carry wastewater from throughout the
district to a single pump station in the vicinity of West Ten. A system which relies on gravity
flow to the greatest possible extent, minimizing the number of pump stations needed, would be
more cost effective, even considering that the gravity lines would need to be extended underneath
1-85.
A major concern raised at the public information meeting held for area residents on March 12,
1996 concerned the lack of existing infrastructure as an incentive for development. Although all
of the Economic Development Districts are expected to develop over a number of years, rather
than in the near future, there were concerns with value in the more near future, since residential
development would no longer be an option.
Impacts on Neighborhood
Staff has identified 17 single-family residences and mobile homes within the boundaries of the
proposed expansion. Clear view Subdivision, approved in 1994, is the only subdivision
located on the north side of West Ten, and is not proposed to be included in the EDD. Five of
the subdivision's 30 lots have been developed. A resident of the subdivision was concerned with
impacts of the EDD on the neighborhood, as was the owner of the adjoining mobile home park.
Several property owners in the portion of the Study Area near Mt. Willing Road and West Ten,
indicated that they wished for the existing residential character of the area to remain. Most of
17
those individuals owned property in the Critical Area of the Upper Eno, which would not be
included in the EDD.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staff and Economic Development Commission Staff recommend the following:
1. Designate the 537-acre area on the south side of I-85, as shown on the attached map, to
the South Buckhorn EDD as Primary Development Area, subject to the same set of
permitted uses as the existing EDD on the north side of I-85. The area of the
recommended expansion is bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west, West Ten Road to the
south, I-85 to the north, and the boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east,
excluding Clearview Subdivision and the adjacent mobile home park.
2. Provide a 150' buffer around the perimeter of the Clearview subdivision and adjacent
mobile home park. (A 100' buffer is required on the remainder of the perimeter by the
standard provisions of the EDD Design Manual.)
3. Update portions of the EDD Design Manual as indicated in the attached text to include
reference to and general discussion of the expanded area. The only proposed change to the
existing design standards is the inclusion of a 150-foot buffer around Clearview Subdivision
and the adjacent mobile home park.
4 t.
18 . -
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT GUIDEBOOK
Section 2.1 Development Areas - Schematic Plans
I-85 Buckhorn Road District
The I-85/Buckhom Road Economic Development District is comprised of
3`90 795 acres located on the northeast and southeast a r rn of
the interstate interchange. This acreage is distributed among the three
principal land use categories in the schematic plan as follows:
Primary Development Area 240 QU Acres
Open Space Area -54 1-4 Acres
Rights-of-Way 29 Acres
Access to interior of the northern_portions of the district is proposed
through the extension of a service road being constructed as part of the I-
85/I-40 widening. The service road will terminate on the west side of
Buckhorn Road, and any collector road extended to serve the district must
align with it.
All of the lots in the soup .rn Quadrant have direct frontage on either West
Tgn Road or Buckhorn Road. The number of access_points onto
Buckhorn Road and West Ten Road should be minimized by creating
internal access roads where possible. The extent to which internal access
roads are feasible and theme into at which internal roads would intersect
with West Ten will depend in part on which lot(s) is (are) first
developed and how lots are combined as development occurs.
Transit access is also proposed through a eentF011y lee ated park-and-ride
lot or similar facility located in the northern quadrant., with access to
both rail and thoroughfare systems. Access needs include a sidewalk
along Buckhorn Road to,provide access between the transit station and
Jk southern Quadrant. Design criteria for these systems are presented in
section 3.3, Circulation and Parking.
Land uses in and adjacent to the district range from single-family
residential to a variety of non-residential uses. The Southern Railroad
crosses the service district as does a Duke Power transmission line and a
Public Service Company gas pipeline. The area is also served by the
Orange-Alamance Water Corporation, and sewer service is available
a {
19
through extension of the Efland sewer system owned by Orange County.
Because the district is bordered or bisected by so many transportation and
utility systems,the entire district has been designated a Primary
Development Area.
The district is characterized by gently rolling topography with few
building constraints. However, soils unsuited for development are found
along intermittent streams which flow south beneath I-40/1-85 to join
Seven-mile Creek, a tributary of the Eno River. Because of its location on
the western edge of the Upper Eno Watershed, land uses in the district are
subject to watershed protection standards governing impervious surface
and the control of stormwater.
The total amount of impervious surface covered by buildings and parking
lots is limited to 70%of a building site. As shown on the schematic plan,
stormwater control for multiple sites may be provided through
construction of detention basins along streams draining the district,
particularly on the north side of the interstate. Impervious surface limits
and standards for detention basin construction and maintenance area
discussed further in Section 2.3 -Land Intensity and Appendix C - Wet
Detention Basin Standards.,respectively. While detention basins may be
constructed on individual sites,those shown on the schematic plan provide
a district amenity and enable uses to be"clustered"into distinct
compartments.
Section 2.4 Environmental Factors
I-85/Buckhorn Road District
The I-85 Buckhom Road Economic Development District has three
potential service providers-the Orange-Alamance Water Corporation,
Orange County (through the Efland sewer system), and the City of
Mebane.
Water Supply. Service to this District is available from the Orange
Alamance Water Corporation by-way-of an existing 12-inch water line
along U.S. Highway 70. From this distribution main extend the following
lines:
6-inch water line West side of Buckhom Road from U.S. Highway 70
to south side of Southern railroad
3-inch Water Line West side of Buckhom Road from south side of
Southern Railroad to I-85
20
2-inch and 12-inch water lines From U.S. Highway 70 down
Redman Road to south side of
Southern Railroad
Extending the 12-inch water main along U.S. 70 to the approximate center
of the northern quadrant of the District would cost approximately $62,500.
This cost includes 2,000 linear feet of 12-inch ductile iron water line at
$25 per linear foot plus contingencies and engineering costs(25%).
Another potential provider is the City of Mebane (Graham-Mebane Water
System) through an existing 12-inch water main which terminates at the
Pak-Lite plant on Washington Street south of the Southern Railroad 0.3
mile from Buckhorn Road.
Sewage Disposal Orange County's Efland sewer system has an 8-inch
gravity line on the north side of U.S. Highway 70 which terminates 400
feet west of Richmond Road. Any service west or south of that point
would have to be pumped, and flows of up to 100,000 gallons per day
(GPD) could be accommodated in that line. Plants with flows of greater
than 100,000 GPD would have to pump farther to the east to a section of
12-inch gravity sewer line.
The four intermittent streams in the northern quadrant flow south,
underneath I-85 and converge in the southern quadrant of the EDD
Sewer construction which will occur as the ETD develops should rely to
the extent possible on gravity flow in order to minimize the number of
pip stations and associated costs. A system which maximizes the use of
gravity flow would include construction of gravity lines alone
intermittent streams in the north quadrant. and underneath 1-85 to West
Ten Road. A single pump station near the stream crossing at West Ten
could then convey wastewater from the entire EDD to a=vi section of
the Eflan_d sewer system
Otherwise- several pip stations could be nece awry in the northern
Quadrant of the EDD because the topggr=hy there generally ,ns
12e=ndicular to the gravity sewer on Highw y 70
Cost estimates for construction gravity system along the streams and a
pup station at West Ten may be developed to determine potential
funding scenarios.
swien having 100,000 QRD twer-age aad 250,000 peak ge,Aege fiews to the pump swien weaid then be puolped by way of a-
.
21
fefee main along U.S., Highway 70 to diseharge to the E fl.,«a ,ewe
sewer-system,
insWiation of the pump s4atien and sewer-fefee main would
app:e�dffm4ely $296z250 4449 ees4 ineWdes 6,000 li eef rot of 6_,•,ie
feet, $100,004-GPP pump
•ti. a tor- t $125 nor ml tinge a
rtctcron—�z�crrvcar�rrbcncrcrcrn—ac-�zz-�,v v v�rc'n vvircaz:��-----
„sts (2504)
Section 3.2 Landscape Design
Buffering Neighboring Uses
Well-designed landscape treatments lessen adverse visual impacts between
different types of land uses,reduce noise levels, increase privacy levels,
and mitigate effects from fumes, glare, and vibration.
To create transition between neighborhoods and areas of differing
development intensities, and separate incompatible land uses, a buffer of
100 feet in width_(exccpt where otherwise specified) is to be provided at
the boundary of the Economic Development District as well as between
Primary and Secondary Development Areas within the Districts.
In the Buc horn Road Economic Development District-a buffer of 150
Pt is required on the portion of the bound=g4jac_ent to the Clearview
Subdivision and adjoining residential area on the north side of West Ten.
Section 3.3 Circulation and Parking - Thoroughfare Planning
I-85/Buckhorn Road District:
Aside from I-85/1-40,PNe three roads have been included in the Orange
County Thoroughfare Plan.
• U.S Highway 70 has been classified as an arterial road. It has a 22-
foot pavement(two lanes) located in a 60-foot right-of-way. It is
currently capable of handling 8,500 vehicles per day and had an
average daily traffic volume of 4,000 vehicles per day in 1987. By the
year 2010,traffic on the road is expected to reach 7,500 vehicles per
day.
• West Ten has been classified as collector road It has a 20 -foot
pavement(two lanes) located in a 60-foot right-of-way It is currently
22
capable of handling 7500 vehicles per day and had an average daily
traffic volume of 500 vehicles per day in 1987. By the year 2010.
traffic on the road is expected to reach 900 per day,
Buckhorn Road has been classified as collector road. It has a 20 -foot
pavement(two lanes) and is currently capable of handling 7500
vehicles per day and had an average daily traffic volume of 400
vehicles per day in 1987 By the year 2010. traffic on the road is
expected to reach 1.000 per day.
Although the roadway and right-of-way width are considered adequate to
handle the projected traffic,the widening of Buckhorn road to a 24-foot
pavement width is preferred to matching the cross-section being installed
as part of the I-85 widening, Grade crossing improvements at the
Southern Railroad are warranted.
improved Pam radii for-easief and safer-tMek tuffling ffieveffiefft afe
Also warranted are the
installation of turn lanes and improved turn radii for easier and safer truck
turning movements at the intersections of U.S 70/Buckhorn Road.
Buc horn Road/West Ten Road and West Ten Road/Mt. Willing Road.
23 7
SOUTH BUCKHORN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Comments from March 12 Community Meeting
Efland-Cheeks Community Center
• What if property owner wants to do residential development? Residential value of property is being
taken away, yet the County is doing anything to get new businesses here, and it will be a long time
before the property has any commercial or industrial value.
• Water and sewer needs to be extended first. Without it, no development will occur.
• Who will pay for water and sewer? In other places, towns and counties pay for extending services to
attract industry. We need a plan to develop water and sewer so that businesses will come.
• If a good industry were to want to locate in Orange County,then the Board of Commissioners would
work to get the water and sewer to the site.
• Several property owners indicated that they do not want to see any changes, and want the area to
remain residential, and would support changing the Land Use Plan designation to residentia so that
business would not be allowed at all.
• The Board of Commissioners should make NCDOT build retaining walls or other types of buffers to
protect adjacent property from the impacts of widening I-85.
• Orange County already has high taxes and impact fees. It should go ahead and extend water and sewer
so that property owners would get more for their tax money.
• Uses such as shopping centers would be good at the interchange of Buckhorn and Mt. Willing Roads.
This would be compatible with and help residential development farther down West Ten Road.
• Property owner with 1400 feet of frontage on I-85 would like to be able to sell to an employer who
would pay good wages.
• Residents who have lived in the area a long time do not want to see any changes.
• Residents need to be able to work near their homes and not travel a long distance into another county
to work.
• What is Orange County doing to promote economic development?
• Will tax value increase if property is rezoned? Would like to see written assurance from Assessor that
tax is based on use value, not just on zoning district.
t
24
• Need to have water and sewer on the north side of I-85 east of Mt. Willing Road (Sim Efland) in area
shown as Critical Area for Seven-mile Creek. Water and Sewer was supposed to be extended there 10
years ago. It should not be designated as Critical Area. Water is needed there as well as in the rest of
the County.
• Would the flea market at Buckhorn/I-85 still be non-conforming?
• Need to get rid of planners and buy backhoes to extend water and sewer.
• Who bought Kirkpatrick land and why? (Discussion indicated that area was leased for hunting
purposes).
• Property owner wants to be able to create new residential lots (small number).
• Clearview homeowner was surprised to learn that the current Land Use Plan designation would allow
the property to be rezoned to commercial or industrial use. She was not aware of that when she
purchased the property. She expected that it would remain rural, and does not want to see any
changes.
Straw poll: about 1/3 do not like idea of expanding EDD. (most owned property within the WQCA
and would not be included in the district)
about 1/2 wanted to continue the process of developing an EDD.
V � �
A
4�
;;ppl♦ P "'p
A a a
ObA
VI
O °
o s
V r
e
G
e
o
J
fy
m6
a
V � f
26
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers
ARTICLE 4.3 Permitted Use Table
ARTICLE 6.3.1 Principal Uses
ARTICLE 6.18 Administrative Approval of Stealth
Telecommunication Towers(NEW)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X,Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
BACKGROUND:
Telecommunications towers are allowed in all residential zoning districts and most non-
residential zoning districts upon approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of
Adjustment. As technology has advanced in recent years, there has been increasing
concern with the growing number of towers and their visual impact.
In response to concerns of the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment and individual
citizens, the Board of Commissioners approved a Zoning Ordinance text amendment on
October 5, 1994 to require applicants to first attempt to lease antenna space on an
existing tower, and to agree to lease space to other potential users on the future if a new
tower is approved.. The intent of the amendment was to minimize the number of new
towers by providing for more than one user. Article 8.8.17 of the Zoning Ordinance,
containing the existing Special Use Permit requirements for communications towers, is
attached.
On November 27, 1995, another amendment was proposed which provided more
specific and detailed requirements. Minutes of the public hearing are attached. Below
are revisions to the original proposal, which attempt to address issues raised by
citizens and industry representatives, and a summary of the key changes.
27
Response to November 27, 1995 Public Hearing Comments (see attached minutes)
1. Minimizing the number of new towers
A major concern of industry representatives related to the means proposed by
which we would assure that adequate provision had been made to minimize the
number of new towers by sharing space on existing or new towers.
Encouraging Use Of Existing Towers
The Zoning Ordinance now requires that efforts to locate on an existing tower
be documented There are no standards, however, by which to evaluate the
documentation provided.
Proposed Documentation Process: The amendment presented for
public hearing in November, 1995 included a requirement that the
applicant submit copies of letters sent to all tower owners within one
mile of the proposed site requesting information such as availability of
space to lease, tower height and strength. Also required was a copy of
responses received. One concern raised was that the applicant must rely
on the tower owner's response to requests for information, and delays
could result if the tower owner did not prepare the needed information
in a timely manner. The proposed wording was thought to place an
implicit burden of responsibility on the owners of existing towers to
provide detailed engineering and other information,upon the demand of
potential applicants, which could be time-consuming and costly.
The proposed revision continues to require submittal of the same
specific information concerning availability of space to lease, tower
height and strength as was proposed in the initial draft. However, the
proposed revision eliminates specific requirements as to how
communication between the applicant and the tower owner is to occur.
The applicant must contact and coordinate with the tower owners in
order to obtain the requested information. The proposed revision
focuses on the outcome of that contact,rather than the process.
Location of Towers Considered for Possible Co-location: Typically,
the range within which a new tower can perform its function within the
communications network is on the order of 1/4 mile from the proposed
site. There is some variability, however, depending on factors such as
the tower height and topography.
The area within which towers must be identified and evaluated is
proposed to be at least 1 mile for towers 200 feet or taller (as originally
proposed) and one-half mile for towers shorter than 200 feet. In
addition the applicant must provide an engineers certification indicating
the widest range from the proposed site within which the equipment
could perform its function within the network.
28
All towers within the applicable radius must be identified. A thorough
and detailed explanation as to why co-location efforts were not
successful is required only for the towers located within the functional
range.
Sharing Space on New Towers
The Zoning Ordinance now requires that the applicant submit a statement
indicating that that the proposed tower can support at least one additional use
and that the applicant is willing to lease space on the tower to another user at a
reasonable rate.
The proposal presented at public hearing required that that letters be sent to all
potential users, offering to share space on the tower and requesting a response.
Potential users would have an opportunity to respond and express their interest in
leasing space.
Questions were raised regarding who would be notified,what to do in the case of
no responses, or many responses, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage for those who do not have a tower network already in place. Also
questioned was the need for this notification requirement. It was thought that
these provisions were duplicative, since any future applicants would be required
to identify, and explore the possibility of locating on, all existing towers within
the range of the equipment prior to submitting an application. When others
apply, they will have already explored possibilities of co-locating, and those
efforts would have been documented as described above. Refusal of any user
to share a tower without a valid reason would become apparent during this
process and could be a factor in actions on additional tower requests by that
provider. This would be an incentive to work with other providers
The purpose of the provisions discussed above is to assure that existing towers
will be utilized to the greatest possible extent before new towers are
constructed. The Planning Staff agrees that the notification requirements for the
purpose of offering to lease space is duplicative, and finds that the existing
provisions, which require that the tower be designed to support an additional
user, and that the Special Use Permit include a statement indicating the
applicant's willingness to lease space on the tower, are sufficient.
2. Subdivision Requirement
A lot to be used as a tower site which is created through the subdivision
process must generally be 1 or 2 acres in size, depending on the zoning district,
must be accessed by a right-of-way or easement at least 50 feet in width, and
must meet other requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations in much the same manner as lot proposed for residential use. One
29
exception is that a Notice of Restricted Development Potential can be recorded
in lieu of having a soils analysis performed by Environmental Health, since
tower sites are unmanned and no septic disposal facilities are needed.
In most cases, the property to be used for the tower is leased, and the property
owner does no.t intend to create a lot for potential residential use. Concern
with the requirement that separate lots be created for tower sites has been
expressed. Problems include having to obtain considerably more land area
than would otherwise be needed, access requirements pertaining to right-of-
way width and road improvements in excess of that needed for an unmanned
facility.
In order to comply with State enabling legislation, property which is either
purchased or leased on a long-term basis must be subdivided in order to create
it as a separate building lot. Property leased on a short-term basis, such a year-
to-year, is not required to be subdivided.
No ordinance revisions pertaining to this issue are needed. This concern can be
addressed by informing applicants of the option to eliminate the subdivision
requirement by for tower sites by obtaining a year-to-year lease rather than a
long-term lease.
3. Stealth Application
In some cases, communications equipment can be located on an existing or
proposed structure which either serves another purpose altogether (such as a
tall building or water tower) or is disguised to look like it serves another
purpose (such as a tower in a rural area built to look like a silo). Other
examples of stealth applications may include church steeples, clock towers,
and observation towers. Permits are not required to place equipment on an
existing structure. However, permit approval is generally required for the
initial construction of most structures which would be of a sufficient height and
strength to support the equipment.
The Planning Staff recommends that stealth applications be encouraged
because the reduced visual impact. It is proposed that new towers up to 160
feet in height which are sufficiently disguised be approved administratively by
the Planning Staff if the following criteria are met:
30
• The primary purpose of the structure is, or visually appears to be,
something other than the support of telecommunications equipment,
and the apparent purpose is customarily considered as accessory to a
use which is allowed in the zoning district.
• The structure and its use comply with the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance; and
• For existing structures, the equipment does not extend more than 20
feet above, or 10%of,the height of the structure, whichever is greater,
provided that height and setback limitations of the Zoning Ordinance
are met.
If the structure is not sufficiently disguised or does not meet applicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, then a Class A or Class B Special Use
Permit would be required, depending on the height.
4. Other Uses on Lot
The Zoning Ordinance now requires that there be no more than one principal
use on a parcel. Revisions to the proposal presented for public hearing in
November, 1995 include revision to Article 6.3.1, specifying that a
telecommunication tower may be allowed as a second principal use on a parcel.
A tower located on property used also for some other purpose would require
approval of a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit(unless it was found to be
a sufficiently-disguised stealth application). The boundaries of the Special Use
Permit would be that of the entire parcel, including any other uses. The
standards of evaluation required for permit approval would apply only to the
tower itself, however. This change would allow towers to be located in
conjunction with a shopping center, church , or other principal use without
creating a separate subdivision lot (provided that the property is subject to a
short-term lease only), and would facilitate the use of stealth applications.
5. Setbacks
For towers requiring approval of a Special Use Permit, minimum setbacks
adjacent to residential zoning districts are proposed to equal the height of the
tower, but could be reduced by up to 50% with approval of the adjoining
property owners, provided that the standard minimum setback requirement of
the zoning district is met.
Adjacent to non-residential uses or non-residential zoning districts, the setback
must be the greater of 20% of the tower height or the minimum standard
31
setback of the zoning district. The lesser setbacks adjacent to non-residential
districts or uses could address potential setback problems on small commercial
lots, -without impacting existing residences.
Towers or structures which qualify as stealth applications and are not subject to
approval of a Special Use Permit must meet setback provisions of Article
6.2.1(a ) which requires 2 additional feet for front and side setbacks, in
addition to the standard setback specified in Article 5.1, for each foot of height
above the maximum height specified for the zoning district.
6. Unreasonable interference with view.
The proposed amendment presented for public hearing in November 1995
included a standard that"the tower and antenna will not unreasonably interfere
with the view of or from any historic site, scenic road, or major view corridor.
Questions were raised regarding how "unreasonable interference" would be
defined. This provision has been eliminated from the draft due to the lack of a
specific standard to define "unreasonable". The intent of the provision would
be met in making the general Special Use Permit findings, particularly the
findings that the use maintain or enhance the use of contiguous property, and
that the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area in which it
is to be located and is in compliance with zoning regulations and the Land Use
Plan.
7. Minimum Tower Height
It is expected that the height of new towers will decrease after construction of
the network of towers that will provide the basic coverage needed for the
system. The location of additional towers is based on demand, and as towers
are closer together,the height requirements are not as great. Based on a review
of requirement of other jurisdictions, both local and national, the Planning
Staff recommends that towers less than 75 feet in height be permitted by right.
8. Other Types of Towers
Commissioner Willhoit questioned the applicability of proposed amendments
to towers other than those used for telecommunication purposes, such as those
used for air quality monitoring.
The staff recommends that telecommunication towers continue to be treated
as a specific use because each tower is constructed in the context of a larger
network, and it can be anticipated that requests for additional towers to add to
that network will continue. The proposed ordinance provisions address issues
which are unique to a telecommunications network.
32
Other tower-like structures or facilities are now subject to setback
requirements which include additional setback requirements if maximum
height limits are exceeded. Also, the tower must be associated with a use that
is permitted in the zoning district. Although there are occasional tower
structures proposed for purposes other than telecommunication, these requests
are infrequent, and the Staff has identified no trend which would indicate plans
to develop a coordinated network for some other purpose in the future. The
Planning Staff recommends that towers for other purposes continue to meet
applicable setback requirements, where their purpose is consistent with a use
allowed in the zoning district. If the County wishes to apply different or
additional standards or review procedures to other types of towers, a separate
ordinance amendment is recommended.
9. Notification Requirements
The issue of notification requirements was raised by an Orange County citizen,
who expressed concern with amendments which would limit notification of
citizens.
All property owners within 500 feet of a site are notified by mail of any
rezoning, Special Use Permit, or other action requiring a public hearing. In
addition, the property is posted with a sign and a newspaper notice is run twice
prior to the public hearing. The Ordinance Review Committee recommended
that property owners within 1000 feet be notified of Special Use Permit
hearings for telecommunication towers. One Committee member
recommended that the notification radius be extended further, to a distance of
at least 1500 feet.
Notification would not be required in cases where stealth applications were
used to the extent that the project could receive administrative rather than
Special Use Permit approval. Administrative approval in those cases is
proposed in response to citizen concerns regarding the visual impact of towers,
is intended as an incentive to encourage the use of effective stealth
applications.
11/27/95 Public Hearing Minutes 33
1 that Ms. Baldwin would be required to participate equally in paving the road and the right-of-
2 way from St. Mary's Road to Reba and Roses. He also asked that the Reba and Roses
3 facilities be inspected to assure that they meet all State safety standards and Federal handicap
4 accessibility standards.
5
6 John Hartwell spoke;in support of this Special Use Permit. He stated that he has
7 discussed this request with most of the neighbors and each one of them supports her request.
8 The neighborhood wants to see this approved. He did express concern about necessary
9 improvements to the road and the intersection at St. Mary's. He requested that the
10 Commissioners consider apportioning the road costs so that those who will benefit from the
11 improvements are required to help with the costs.
12
13 Laura Baldwin requested that the Commissioners take into account that the cost of road
14 improvements for subdivisions are factored into the cost of the homes. It is not possible for her
15 to pass on the cost of improving this road to her customers. It would be an unreasonable and
16 devastating economic hardship on her. She also felt that only she bears the burden of traffic to
17 Reba and Roses.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
20 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than
21 January 16, 1996.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
25 (a) Article 8.8.17 Telecommunications
26 This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis to receive comment on a
27 proposed amendment concerning Special Use Permit requirements for telecommunication
28 towers. The proliferation of telecommunication towers is an issue of concern to Orange County
29 as well as other jurisdictions nationwide. After reviewing provisions which have been adopted
30 in a number of other jurisdictions, the Planning staff recommends a proposed amendment. The
31 key aspects of this amendment are as follows: Telecommunication towers would be
32 established as a separate use and would require approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by
33 the Board of Adjustment. The set back to non-residential property lines could be reduced to
34 50% of the height of the tower if the remaining distance were included within an easement on
35 adjoining property. A type C Land Use Buffer(40 feet in width) would need to be provided.
36 Specific documentation to indicate that efforts to co-locate on an existing tower were
37 unsuccessful must be provided. Issues of tower color, lighting and view from historic site,
38 scenic road and major view corridor must be resolved. Obsolete towers must be removed.
39
40 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
41 None.
42
43 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
44 Planning Board member Bill Waddell asked about the request that engineers could
45 provide evidence that a setback includes the potential collapse zone.
34
1
2 Mary Willis commented that the industry representatives are able to calculate the
3 collapse zone. It is possible to calculate where a tower would break if it were to fall. It is also
4 possible to calculate the area to which the debris would be contained.
5
6 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS.
7 14-diV.a representative of the Carolina PCS Limited Partnership, made several
8 comments. This Partnership, which is comprised of Bed South CIrporation, Duke Power
9 Company, Carolina Power & Light and the 31 independent telephone companies in North
10 Carolina, was formed to bring to the citizens of North Carolina a new technology called
11 Personal Communication Services. This is a new technology, recently licensed by the FCC,
12 which provides a wider range of services and operates at a lower power than existing cellular
13 services. This is a digital rather than an analog technology which means that it can transmit
14 data as well as voice. This provides greater clarity and security. All of the towers that use this
15 new technology will be lower than 200 feet. The concerns that he has about this proposed
16 rewrite include the possibility that it will be too restrictive for this new technology to grow and
17 expand. He asked that incentives be implemented to encourage all companies to build their
18 systems without constructing new towers. Other possible places to locate using "stealth
19 technology" are bell towers and church steeples, water towers, and tall buildings. He
20 suggested that the incentives would be the cost savings as well as the possibility that the Board
21 of Commissioners could exempt"stealth technology" locations from the Use Permit process and
22 allow for staff approval. He also commented on the suggested standard for"unreasonable
23 interference with the view" from historic sites, scenic roads or major view corridor. He felt that it
24 would be impossible to accurately determine this standard because of its subjectivity. If the
25 intent is to assure that the tower is in harmony with the area of location, that standard already
26 exists in the ordinance.
27
28 _ x anager of Forsythe Development fc� Winer/operation of
29 t;` li , rei era a Mr. Cain's comments. He disagreed with the requirement that industry
30 notify other companies about intention to erect a tower. The construction of towers which
31 support co-location of towers is already required. County staff is aware of all activity and is the
32 logical entity to keep tract of new requests for towers and/or tower use and matching those
33 requests with already erected towers with available space. He also felt that requiring this type
34 of notification unfairly handicaps current tower owners both competitively and from a capital
35 investment standpoint. Another area in which he expressed concern was the "fall zone"
36 requirement. The industry does not feel that"fall zones" are necessary. There are 2000 towers
37 across the United States and there has never been a tower failure. He requested that these
38 towers not be compared with the T.V. towers which are in excess of 1000 feet. He also
39 commented that the 100 foot setback is not necessary or reasonable.
40
41 rsonal Communications, expressed agreement with
42 previous comments. He a ree issue of"stealth technology" which refers to antennas
43 that do not took like antennas. He recommended that a task force be created to look at this
44 technology to assure that they meet the intended nature and intent of the technology. When
45 they are approved as "stealth technology"the industry could be provided relief from subdivision
35
1 setback regulations and other Special Use Request Ordinance. He indicated that he would
2 work with staff to present examples of how the Special Use Request process and subdivision
3 process work together to create burdens on their industry.
4
5 Jef y EAM North Carolina General Counsel fb r Sprint CeUul4r, expressed several
6 concerns. He mentioned that the requirement to share tower space indicates that a letter needs
7 to be sent to all owners of towers within a one mile radius. This raises the concern for industry
8 staff that they could be requested to locate a mile from their original requested site. The site
9 locations are not flexible and would not provide the necessary coverage if they were required to
10 locate at another location. There is a real financial motivation to locate on existing towers
11 where that is possible. The additional paperwork will not increase that motivation. He also felt
12 that requiring that applicants for new towers send notification to a preexisting list is not workable
13 for industry staff. The Special Use Permit process already requires co-location wherever
14 possible. This adds additional paperwork and questions about who gets on the list. He asked
15 for clarification that the buffer is to be around the tower compound rather than the entire
16 perimeter of the tract. Also, that the setback is from the base of the tower to the adjacent
17 property line rather than the base of the tower to the lease line.
18
19 Mary Willis indicated that the buffer is to be around the tower compound but that the set
20 back is from the base of the tower to the lease line.
21
22 Mr. Eatman asked that the setback requirement be reconsidered so that it deals with
23 adjoining property owners and adjoining property lines rather than simply increasing the size of
24 the parcel that needs to be leased.
25
26 , agreed with the previous comments. He requested
27 that a open discussion be he-Ido"=IwWstry and County staff, the Planning Board, citizens , and
28 County Commissioners to facilitate developing standards.
29
30 Commissioner WIlhoit asked if it was true that land in an easement area could not be
31 cultivated. He mentioned that many of the issues to be addressed in the application do not
32 relate to telecommunications, but to the tower itself. He asked that the Planning Board address
33 the issue of whether the Special Use Permit ought to apply to a tower.
34
35 Mary Willis replied that the subdivision regulations addressed that issue. Land leased for
36 this particular purpose is considered under subdivision regulations and must receive approval in
37 order to create a lot for the principal use as opposed to just having an easement. It would not
38 specifically prohibit cultivation of that land.
39
40 Commissioner Gordon asked if the buffer was related to the lease line because other
41 nearby lots could have homes on them. She also asked for further clarification regarding the
42 objection to mailing notification to a specified list.
43
36
1 Mary Willis indicated that the buffering is required around the base of the tower to shield
2 the view around the base of the tower. It could be around the perimeter if, for instance, it was a
3 two acre area. It is more likely that it would be around the base of the tower.
4
5 Jerry Eatman, indicated that the primary objection is that the list and who gets on the list
6 would involve the Planning Department in the day-to-day operation of the business of these
7 companies. He felt that the free-enterprise line is crossed when County staff keeps a list of
8 competitors who must be notified. The issues involved for the industry are financial and
9 competitive.
10
11 John Weldon mentioned that his company, BellSouth, is the newest company in this
12 business. ATT will soon be coming to this market and they will be a direct competitor. They do
13 not want to be required to co-locate with a direct competitor.
14
15 Lee Rafalow stated that in his opinion the only reason that these companies do not want
16 notification requirements is so that the public will not be informed.
17
18 Mary Willis stated that the provision of the list is to allow everyone to be on an equitable
19 basis. It is possible to reword this section of the Amendment to accomplish this. The intent is
20 to have tower owners identified, as well as to identify all additional users. New.users would*be
21 added to the list. Companies not erecting the towers themselves, but who have equipment to
22 co-locate, would also be included. The intent of the Amendment was to have as
23 comprehensive list as possible.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to
26 refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than
27 January 16, 1996.
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 (b) Article 6.16 Home Occupations
31 This item was presented by Mary Willis to receive citizen comment on a
32 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the intent of Article 6.16.6.3 regarding
33 screening of home occupations on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres). The
34 Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board
35 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January
36 16, 1996.
37
38 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
39 Commissioner Gordon asked how it would be assured that the accessory buildings would
40 not be visible to adjacent roads and property.
41
42 Mary Willis stated that by reviewing the Site Plan and the landscape on the property a
43 determination would be made. It would not apply in cases where the proposal was to plant
44 vegetation that would eventually grow up to be an adequate shield. In this particular case, the
45 shield would have to be in-place and already existing within a wooded area.
8.8.17 " "a- And and -a Elevated Water 37
torage Tanks( la s B Special UW
8.8.17.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) A Site Plan showing site and size of all existing and proposed
structures, existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of
five feet and any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or
the presence of alluvial soils.
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of
the color and nature of all exterior material.
C) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan,
existing-and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other
landscape materials.
M
maw W*
7 '
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an
application for approval:
a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or
otherwise, for the security of the site, including the provision
of a gate at the access entrance of access roads leading to
such facilities.
b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use.
C) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of
adjacent property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding
or other menaces to public health and safety.
38
n ae,,,...* pFe-vision 4ws been made to „btein s e en
eNisting 08 s tower-in the general virakiity.
` 8.8.17a Telecommunication Towers (NEW ) 39
NOTE-Cross-out/Underline indicates revision of the original amendment
presented for public hearing in November, 1995. The existing ordinance
provisions are included as a separate attachment.
8.8.17x.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) A Site Plan showing site and size of all existing structures within
500 feet of the site, existing and proposed topography at a contour
interval of five feet and any officially designated floodways and
floodplains,or the presence of alluvial soils.
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of
the color and nature of all exterior material.
C) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan,
existing and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other
landscape materials.
d) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities for
locating the proposed facilities on an existing tower. Such evidence
shall consist of-
1) A listing of all towers within a 1/2-mile (for towers shorter
than 200 feej) or 1-mile (for towers 200 feet or taller) radius of the
pnnosed tower site.
2) Delineation of the boundaries of the maximum search raanue
within which the tower eaujpment can function as intended. The
following information shall be provided for all existing towers
within the search range:
(a) Tower height;
(b) Existing and planned tower users;
(c) Whether the existing tower could accommodate the
antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without
causing structural instability or radio frequency
interference; and
_ 40
(d) If the proposed antenna cannot be accommodated on '
the existing tower, assess whether the existing tower
could be structurally strengthened or whether the
antennas transmitters and related equipment could be
protected from electromagnetic interference, and
generally describe the means and projected cost of
shared use of the existing tower;and
3. A summary explanation of why proposed facilities cannot be
located on any-of the existing towers in the search range.
e) Evidease dim the appliewA is Mlliag te lease spar-e- A-0 it—&; w-wer. to
Eepies of —064iee Sem by eeAAed FAW to
,
tie-tower..
WhM Ovakafifw the feasibility of Shand use ifielude but ape
Documentation from applicable state or federal agencies indicating 41
requirements which affect the appearance of the proposed tower,
such as lighting and coloring.
f.. Draft bond or other security which will guarantee the removal of the
tower in the event that it is abandoned or unused for a period of 12
months.
g. A listing of all property owners within 1000 feet of the parcel shall
be provided. Each propglty owner shall be notified of the public
hearing in accordance with Article 2.3.3.4 (Class B Special Use
Permit) or Article 8.4.5 (Class A Special Use Permit) of this
Ordinance.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an
application for approval:
a) The _P_A_i;;_iP_AMFA lot size sIWI be as r-equind by the appReable
b) Adjacent to residential zoning districts, minimum setbacks
from the base of the tower to the property boundary shall be
equal to the height of the tower. The setback may be reduced
to no less than one-half of the tower height if easements for
the remaining setback distance are granted by adjoining
property owners.
C) Adjacent to non-residential uses or non-residential zoning
districts,minimum setbacks from the base of the tower to the
property boundary shall be eqtW te 5094 of" heigM of the
the Beater of
200X6 of the tower height.or the minimum reauired_setback.
d) A Type C Landscape Buffer shall be provided between the
tower and adjoining property. Existing vegetation may be
removed only to the extent necessary to accommodate the
tower, equipment buildings, and support structures such as
guy wires•
f j The site plan shall indicate a location for at least one
equipment building in addition to that proposed for use by
the applicant.
42
g) Security fencing is provided around the tower base or around
the perimeter of the site.
h) The telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed
tower cannot be accommodated on an existing tower due to
one or more of the following reasons:
1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural
capacity of existing and approved towers,
considering existing and planned use of those towers
and the towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate
planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
2. The planned equipment would cause radio frequency
interference with other existing or planned equipment
for these towers, and the interference cannot be
prevented at a reasonable cost.
3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on
which the equipment can be placed so it can function
effectively and reasonably in parity with similar
existing or approved equipment.
4. No tower or other suitable facility exists in an area
where the equipment to be placed on the tower will
function in its intended manner.
i) The communications tower is structurally designed to
support at least one additional user, and the Special Use
Permit includes a statement that owner of the tower is willing
to permit other user(s) to attach communication facilities
which do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower,
provided that such other users agree to negotiate a reasonable
compensation to the owner from such liability as may result
from such attachment.
j) The color of the tower is of light tone, except to the extent
required by law,so as to minimize its visual impact.
k) The towers will not be artificially lighted unless required by
the FAA, FCC or other federal or state agency. Where=h
agencies allow a choice between painting the tower or
installing strobe lighting_ painting shall be the preferred
choice.
N'ieWeee�
43
M) All obsolete and unwedd abandoned communication towers
shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of use.
A bond or other security guaranteeing
the removal_ of the tower in the event that it is abandoned or
unused for a period of 12 months shall be uosted. A cost
estimate shall be provided by a qualified contractor. The
amount of the security shall be 1102ercent of the estimate.
6.3.1 Principal Uses
There shall be no more than one priminai_use on any zoning to except wt here:
g) permitted as part of a Planned Developm n :or
b) the parcel is less than 2 acres in size,and non-residential multiple uses are
proposed within a singe primipal structure:or
Q One of the uses is an unmanned telecommunication tower jubject to a vet_
to-year or other short-term lease.
618 Administrative Approval of Stealth Telecommunication Towers USM
New telecommunication towers up to 160 feet in height which are sufficiently
di p Wised so as to micimize visual impact mav_Apnroved administratively by
the Planning Clag_f provided that all of the provisions con wined in Article 8.8.17a
are met A new tower may be considered sufficiently disgWsed i£ the pnm ry
12U me of th_e ctru= is or visuallya=ars to be, somCibing other than the
sumrt of telecom_municatio eQ it3Dkt; the apparent nee is customarily
considered as accessory to a use which is allowed in the zoning district: and the
structure and its prim=use comply with the Orange Coun Zoning Ordinance,
The placement of telecommunicati it on existing structures may be
ap=ed administratively provided that the eQuj= nt does not extend more than
20 feet above. or 10% of. the _height of the structure, whichever is _¢neater. an d
height and setback limitations of the Zoning Ordinance are met.
44
0
m m «
N N
m m M r
co
fy M
m h m • r
U
a-i
m m u m s :: . « • u CD
m m N
qFq Ec�-
N N
41
= m Z
a r
aiu O
E. n
O a a m a « a
M ym +)
O F Q m '! " c
H (- mul ^. E
D u
d N A N • m
n a 4 m a m m ♦ • a Q
07
N N
a m t m M • a
cm
C
ce m J r m r • e
a �
z m . m • . a E cu
to ri
z m • m « « F4 >
3 O
O F4
O_
a C f0
4 m • 4 m . r • m
H CD
•F> >
m m •r-I
a m r m • • m C N U 4-)
'H Co
rn mmm °m 41
a u �i . uia a E �
O C
U •ri
u w v •.oi u n ti n n a r1) 'O
Ij
10 o I o a a y y _ 47 t0
u°> m _ In
U u C m
u q
p q m
Y q C 4
� F •i u A '� '� m u U C 7 oal iii C
w �Qg ° a m u s�. u w
O m m I.• U F ti 10 M m Ij
o�W U Id
m C �Gi N N m m �' V O 3 m U
' •'� ••� � N N N N N N N N .
a• a a a a s a a a a a
45
standards and conditions will constitute a modification and will require
the approval of the Board of Adjustment. In determining whether a
change in the operation of the facility has occurred, the Zoning Officer
shall be guided by the procedures and criteria contained in Article 8.7
and Article 8.8.16.2.
8.8.17 Radicand Television Transmitting and Receiving Towers and Elevated
Water Storage Tanks (Class B Special Use)
8.8.17.1 Additional Information
Amended In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
10-5-94 following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) A Site Plan showing siting and size of all existing and proposed
structures, existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of
five feet and any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the
presence of alluvial soils.
b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the
color and nature of all exterior material.
C) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, existing
and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials.
d) If an existing communications tower is located in the general vicinity of
the proposed communications tower, applicant shall attempt to obtain
space on the existing tower. A letter indicating this attempt shall be
submitted with the application materials.
e) A statement indicating the applicant is willing to lease space on "its
communications tower to other communications providers whose use
would not interfere with applicant's use on a commercially reasonable
basis.
f) A statement from the applicant indicating the communications tower is
of sufficient size and structure to support the proposed use, plus one
additional use which would not interfere with the applicant's use.
8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation
Amended The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application
10-5-94 for approval:
a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or otherwise,
for the security of the site, including the provision of a gate at the
access entrance of access roads leading to such facilities.
b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use.
8-20
46 .
C) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of adjacent
property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding or other menaces
_ to public health and safety.
d) Adequate provision has been made to obtain space on an existing
communications tower in the general vicinity.
e) If a communications tower is proposed a statement is to be included
with the Special Use Permit Application indicating the applicant will
lease space on its tower on a commercially reasonable basis provided
the additional use would not interfere with the applicant's use. The
applicant may have the option of leasing space within an equipment
storage area or building or providing separate facilities for this purpose.
f) Adequate provision has been made for the communications tower to
support the proposed use, plus one additional use which would not
interfere with the applicant's use.
8.8.18 Buildings for TemporaaUse (Class B Special Use)
8.8.18.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be submitted as part of the application:
a) . Site Plan showing all existing and proposed structures on the site,
�-- existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet,
existing and proposed landscaping, parldng areas, access points, any
officially designated flood plains, and other site details.
b) A description of the exterior materials, color and construction details.
C) Statement of proposed use and length of time building will be in use.
8.8.18.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application
for this use:
a) The temporary building shall not be used for residential purposes.
b) The requirements of Articles 4, 5, 8 and 9 of this ordinance have been
met.
C) The temporary building shall not be used by operations offering drive-
in services.
d) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specified
and for the use specified.
8-21
47
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.16.6 Home Occupations
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff _X_Planning Board
X BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE:May 28, 1996
The existing home occupation regulations are contained in Article 6.16.6.1 through 6.16.6.4:
6.16.6.1 provides standards for zoning districts with a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre or less
6.16.6.2 provides standards for lots smaller than 200,000 square feet(4.6 acres) in the
AR, RB, and R-1 zoning districts.
6.16.6.3 provides standards for larger than 200,000 square feet in the AR, RB, and R-1
zoning districts.
6.16.6.4 contains application and approval procedures
There are currently 114 approved home occupations in Orange County. Seventy-five(66%)
are contained entirely within the residence and do not utilize an accessory building or
outdoor storage area. The remaining 39 involve an accessory structure. The size of
accessory structures range from 25 to 2000 square feet, and average 941 square feet. Six
utilize some outdoor storage area With the exception of several uses located in Wildwood
Subdivision, all of the home occupations are located in either the AR, RB or R-1 zoning
districts. A list of home occupation which have been approved by the Planning Staff,
including the type of business,lot size and the size of accessory buildings is attached.
Issues relating to home occupations have been raised on several occasions in the past few
years,particularly in relation to the type of activity and the location of accessory buildings.
Proposed revisions were presented for public hearing in 1992 and 1995,but were not
adopted due to the preference of the Board of Commissioners to deal with the home
occupation provisions as a whole,rather than modifying particular standards.
48
The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the intent of home occupation regulation, provide
greater emphasis on performance standards, and simplify the text.
The major changes proposed are summarized as follows:
• With exception of the maximum size allowed for accessory buildings, a uniform set of
standards would apply 'to all home occupation, regardless of lot size and zoning district.
• Certain uses which are likely to generate traffic, visual or other impacts not unsuitable
for a residential area are explicitly prohibited as home occupations.
• Specific standards for traffic generation are included.
• A size limitation on vehicles associated with a home occupation is included.
• Accessory buildings are required to K_ve the appearance of a residential accessory
structure
• No more than 1000 square feet of an accessory building could be used for a home
occupation.
• New structures built for the purpose of conducting a home occupation would be limited
to 1000 square feet in area.
• A existing accessory structure which is larger than 1000 square feet may be used for
the home occupation provided that no more than 1000 square feet is used for the home
occupation and is physically separated by walls or other barriers. In order to qualify as
an existing accessory structure for the purpose of conducting a home occupation, the
structure must have been constructed to meet building code requirements applicable to a
residential accessory structure,and must have been in existence for at least twenty-four
months.
• Requirements for additional setbacks for buildings used for home occupations on lots
larger than 200,000 square feet are eliminated. These include requirements that
accessory buildings be 30 feet farther from the road than the residence and that side and
rear setbacks be 40 feet rather than 20 feet. Requirements to provide screening from
adjacent roads and properties through landscaping and/or fencing would continue to
apply.
• Outdoor storage area is limited to 500 square feet, must be located at least 40 feet from
all property lines and roads, and must be screened in the same manner as required for an
accessory structure.
Fifteen of the existing home occupations(13%)would become non-conforming with
respect to use: nine truck/auto repair and/or detailing businesses, two hauling
49
businesses using dump trucks, two electrical and one heating/ac contractor, and one
backhoe operator.
Eleven of the 39 home occupation accessory structures(28%) are 1000 square feet or
larger. Five are non-conforming with respect to use. Inspection of the remaining six
would be required in order to determine if the home occupation occupied more than
1000 square feet of the building.
Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance allows non-conforming uses to continue provided
that there is no enlargement, intensification, or alteration of the use. Any change to the
operation of a non-conforming home occupation would result in its termination.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
6.16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations
6.16.6.1 Purpose and Inten
Home Occupation regWations are intended to provide an o0grtunity for home-based
businesses in residential districts, provided that the business use is clearly incidental
and second= to the residential use of the =pcM and does not have a negative
impact on the residential character of the neighborhood.
Certain uses, due to the nature of their operation with regard to traffic generation
and potential visual and other impacts_ are not intended to he pgrmitterl as home
occupation. The following activities are expli i ly prohibited as home
occupations: automotive repair. automotive service= a»tomotive detailing - body
shop. hauling. and building, electrical- plumbing, mechanical hanicall „_grading or other
construction contractor
The above list is not intended to include all uses which may be unsuitable as a home
accusation. Home Occupation applications for other uses may be denied if each of
the Standard of Approval listed in Article 6.16.6.2 is not fully met.
6.16.6.2 Standards of Approval
a) General Operation
(1) One sign no larger than two square feet in area is permitted..
(2) No equipmT ent or process shall be employed that will cause noise,
vibration, glom, odor or electrical interference detectable to the normal
senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside
the dwelling, in the case of attached dwelling units.
50
(3) The On-p .mires sale and delivery of goods which are not
produced on
the premise is prohibited- except inAhc_=e of the deliym and sale of
goods incidental to the provision of a service
(4) At least one individ,al working . Lhe hums „pation must live in a
residence located on the came zo ing lot as the home occupation. No
more than two (2) individua_is not living in the dwelling unii may wo
in the home occupation,
(S) In all residential districts except no more than 35%
of the floor area of the dwelling unit or 500 square feet which ever is
less_can be used for the home occupation
b) Limitations on Traffic Generation
(1) Traffic trips generated 12y visitors- customers- or deliveries shall t
exceed more than two business visitors per hour more than eight
visitors per day or more than two deliveries of nrpd= or material
r week
(2) Puking generated y the home occuna inn shall be met off the street
and other than in a required yard area
(3) There shall be no use of a vehicle with a load c Mil in excess of
three-Quarter tons in connection wi h the home occupation- including
vehicles used for delivery or icn k-u Vehicles with the nermit+ed load
capacity generally include larg :k-W trucks- and deliver trucks
and vat,. such hose used by JP4 but would not include-vehicles
such as tractor trailers or d=trucks-
c) Use of Accessory Structures
(1) An acece %= building containing un to 1000 sa ,are feet maw
utilized in the R, AR and R-1 z1 ing-districts,pro,,jded that building
has the anpemace of a residential ammory ct,,,ctt,re
(2) The crpe= structure must be screened ri
.,�----- reeved from view of the mad and
ad acent =V== by a densely planted ewrgreen hedge of shrubs or
trees. In lieu of an evergreen hedge, asix (6) foot stockade fence and
deciduous plant materials may be used for sc tee
51
(3) New structures built for t_he p�Ce of conducting a home occupation
hall no exceed 1000 square feet m area.
.�, �tn�cture which isIarg than 1000 saua a feet
�1 An existing acce�,
mU be used for the home_occupation_1?rovided that no more than
1 000 sgj= feet is used for the home occoati
barriers, In order to-qualibLu
phy_rsiclly s,tiara ed by Wa S O
a;, existing
ac_c_essory SMich�re for the p pose of conductLng, ha ome
occun�:�n A the sm�eti�re must have been constructed to_meet
btulding. rode reauiremen1-ts applica
q�/p nePn in existence for at least &nM-- o '
d1. Use of Outdoor Storage
U12 to 500�Q�� feet of outdoor st�se area maybe din the RR. �R and
R 1 zoning ictri provided that it:
(]) is clearly defined ground,
(2„L is located at least 40 feet from any lot line or road right-of-my; and
(3) is totally screened from the view from the road and from adjacent
proW,M in the came manner as is=mimed for accessory buildings.
6.16.6.3 Home Occupation Permit-Application Procedure
No home occupation may be operated in a residence except as permitted under
this Ordinance and only after Home Occupation Permit has been issued by the
Zoning Officer.
An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be filed with the Zoning
Officer and shall be submitted on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such
forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description
of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational
characteristics are disclosed.
In addition to the application, the applicant is required to submit a site plan of
the property on which the home occupation is to be located. The site plan shall
show the location of the residence or accessory building in which the home
occupation is to be located in relation to existing property lines and adjacent
homes;the location,number,and means of access to required off-street parking
areas;and the location and type of required landscaping and/or screening.
52
The applicant is also required to submit a floor plan of the residence or
accessory building in which the home occupation is to be located. The plan
shall show the location, size, and use of each room or area within the residence
or accessory building.
No review will occur until all required materials are submitted Failure to
submit all materials is ogT un_ds for denial.
Upon a determination that the application is complete, the Zoning Officer shall
cause a review of the application to be made. The review shall determine if the
proposed home occupation conforms with all requirements of this Ordinance.
Based on the review, the application will be approved, approved with
conditions,or denied.
If conditions are attached to the approval of a permit, they may address
deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance requirements or they may address
specific impacts which result from the operation of the home occupation. In
the latter case,the conditions may include, but not be limited to, limitations on
the hours of operation, the number of vehicles to be parked on the premises,
and the location of an accessory building, storage area or parking on the
property. In addition, the Zoning Officer may require greater setbacks and/or
additional landscaping or screening to adequately screen the home occupation
from adjoining properties.
If the application is approved, either with or without conditions, the Zoning
Officer shall send the applicant a permit letter informing him of the approval
and c f the requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the home occupation.
The permit letter must be signed by the applicant to indicate his/her willingness
to operate the home occupation in conformance with the requirements and.
conditions set forth in the permit letter. Each permit letter shall be kept on file
by the Zoning Officer and shall constitute the Home Occupation Permit for the
particular use in question. The home occupation may be operated by the
applicant as long as it is operated in conformance with the requirements and
conditions set forth in the permit letter.
If the application is denied,the Zoning Officer shall notify the applicant of the
denial and shall state the reasons for denial, in writing. The applicant may
appeal the decision of the Zoning Officer to the Board of Adjustment as set
forth in Article 21 of this Ordinance.
53
HOME OCCUPATION (In Residence)
Occupation Lot Size
-------------------- --------
accounting 5.57
answering service 1.00
auto repair office 10.00
; auto repair/service 1.39
backhoe service 5.30
bakery 1.50
baking 1.01
basket-making 1.75
beauty shop .25
beauty shop .53
beauty shop .95
beauty shop 2 .30
beauty shop 6.40
book consultant 1.30
Bookkeeping 1.04
bookkeeping 1.07
bookkeeping 1.31
builder 2.50
catalog sales 12.01
chimney sweep 1.41
cleaning service 1.82
coffee machine sales 2 . 18
computer assembly 1.00
computer consulting .23
computer repair 4.00
counseling 3.00
crafts 1.00
crafts 1.02
crafts 1.26
crafts/ceramics .96
dental lab 7.50
drafting/design .23
electronics repair 1.00
executive search 2. 10
fishing rod repair 11.70
framemaker 4.80
instrument repair 2.70
Insurance 2.70
jewelry import .42
kneepad marketing .92
landscape office 2.50
locksmith .50
mail order .78
make video tapes 1.20
massage 2.30
massage 10. 10
massage 90.00
medical consulting 5.56
medical information . 18
personalized gifts 2.40
personnel consulting 4.60
phone sales 2.00
phone/computer sales 7.16
psychotherapy .96
publishing 2.33
real estate .34
i nn
travel agent . 17 54
travel consulting 1.36
tutoring 1.27
typing 2 .00
typing 119.90
weaving 2 .59
writer 3.00
writer 84.00
---------------------------- --------
Average: 6.92
Count: 71
---------------------------- --------
pt u 5
,ev-vek r i (sew,n cJ .y(o
des�cjrrP -publtsh�no� t
Computer' CoY,sot-1,ino� t •S$
t�•rJ
55
HOME OCCUPATIONS (in Accessory Building)
Bldg SF Lot Size Occupation Outdoor Storage
------- -------- ---------------------- ---------------
25 2 .50 telemarketing no
300 1. 14 woodworking no
432 2.90 hand mirrors no
480 4 .00 engineering consulting no
512 3.00 crafts no
576 1.00 beauty shop no
576 2.40 ceramics no
584 4.27 massage/architecture no
600 1.50 painting/refinishing no
600 5.22 gunsmith no
640 5.81 painting/pottery no
726 7 .00 catering no
728 .73 engineering consulting no
748 .50 lawnmower repair no
755 10.00 guide books no
775 60.70 appliance repair no
800 1.00 truck repair no
800 1.50 artist no
800 2.23 book mail order no
858 2.44 art studio no
952 4.46 clay jewelry yes
960 1.50 physician no
960 3.46 pottery no
980 2. 12 auto repair no
1,000 2.98 electrical contractor no
1,000 8.20 machine shop no
1,000 10.00 woodworking no
1,000 110.28 jewelry design no
1,200 8.99 metal sculpture no
1,200 15.00 auto repair yes
1,200 67.30 dump truck/landscaping no
1,300 10. 10 woodworking no
1,344 59.32 computer consultant no
1,440 13.90 furniture maker yes
1,600 13.27 prison outreach no '
1,600 65.93 woodworking yes
1,653 5.75 auto repair/detailing yes
2,000 20.00 heating/ac repair no
2,000 232.90 metal forging yes
---------------
Average: 941
Count: 39
Page 1
J. `
56
subject to the following conditions :
a) All structures , buildings or enclosed areas , used for
housing of poultry, hogs, cattle or other livestock,
shall be a minimum of one hundred feet from all property
lines .
b) No structures, buildings or enclosed areas, housing
poultry; hogs, cattle or other livestock shall be less
than one hundred twenty feet from any residence.
C) Care shall be exercised that odor is kept to a minimum
level through frequent cleaning of the area.
d) Prior to making this exception, the applicant shall
receive from the Orange County Health Department a
letter stating that the applicant has reviewed the
Health Department' s requirements for operation of a
feeder-type facility and understands the health
requirements that must be met. Any violation of a
Health Department regulation shall be considered a
violation of this ordinance.
*6 . 16 . 6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations , As An Accessory Use
*Amended _
2-1-88
6 . 16 . 6. 1 Home Occumati ns In All Residential Districts Except RB, AR
and R-I
Amended
10-5-87 The following restrictions shall be applied to all home
occupations in all residential districts, except RB, AR and
R-1 .
a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible
except a sign as permitted by Article 9 .
b) No more than thirty-five percent ( 35%) of the floor area
of the dwelling unit or five hundred (500) square feet,
whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation.
c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will
cause noise, vibration, glare, odor or electrical
interference detectable to the normal senses at the lot
lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside
the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling
unite.
d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not
produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the
case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the
provision of a service.
e) All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling
unit.
f) No more than one ( 1) individual, not residing in the
dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation.
6-20
57
g) No traffic shall be generated. by such home occupation in
significantly greater volumes than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for
parking generated by the conduct of the home occupation
shall be met off the street and other than in a required
yard area.
6 . 16 . 6 .2 Home Occupations in the RB . AR and R-1 Districts
Amended The following restrictions shall be applied on home
10-5-87 occupations in the RB, AR and R-1 districts on lots less than
200, 000 square feet.
a) A maximum of 1, 000 square feet of floor area may be used
for the home occupation. - This floor area can be a
detached accessory structure. When a detached accessory
structure is used for the home occupation, the total
floor area of the accessory structure cannot exceed
1, 000 square feet.
b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home
occupation, the following standard must be met:
1 . The accessory building and any required off-street
parking shall be adequately screened from view of
the road and adjacent property by a densely planted
evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees . In lieu of an
evergreen hedge, a six ( 6) foot stockade fence and
deciduous plant materials may be used for screening
purposes .
C) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 .
d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not
produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the
case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the
provision of a service.
e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will
generate noise, vibration, glare, odor or electrical
interference detectable at the lot lines of the lot on
which the home occupation is located.
f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the
dwelling unit may work in the home occupation.
g) Any outside storage of materials for use in the home
occupation shall be totally screened from the road and
from adjacent property. in the same manner as the
accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed
500 square feet. The setback from the side and rear
property lines shall be the same as for an accessory
building used as a home occupation.
h) No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in.
significantly greater volumes than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for
6-21
58
parking generated by the conduct of the home occupation '
shall be met off the street and other than in a required
yard area.
*6 . 16 . 6 . 3 Home Occupations 3,n the R.B, AR and R-1 Districts
(Min. 200 , 000 square foot lots ) .
*Amended
2-1-88 The following restrictions shall be applied to home
occupations in the R3, AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess
of 200, 000 square feet.
a) A maximum of 2, 000 square feet of floor area may be used
for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a
detached accessory structure.
b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home
occupation the following criteria must be met:
1 . The accessory building shall be set back at least
thirty (30) feet farther from the road than the
residence.
2 . The accessory building shall not be closer than
forty (40) feet to the side and rear lot lines .
3 . The accessory building and any required off-street
parking shall be adequately screened from view of
the road and adjacent property by a densely planted
evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. In lieu of an
evergreen hedge, a six ( 6) foot stockade fence and
deciduous plant materials may be used for screening
purposes.
4 . Any outside storage of materials for use in the
home occupation shall be totally screened from the
road and from adjacent property in the same manner
as the accessory structures . The storage area
shall not exceed 1, 000 square feet. The setback
from the side and rear property lines shall be the
same as for an accessory building for use as a home
occupation.
C) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 .
d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not
produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the
case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the
provision of a service.
e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will
generate noise, vibration, glare, odor or electrical
interference detectable at the lot lines of the lot on
which the home occupation is located.
f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the
dwelling unit may work in the home occupation.
6-22
6 .4 Home Occupation Fern;_ = $gplication- ?rocedur-
59 '
uaeaded No home occupation may be operated in a residence except as
2-1-88 permitted under this Ordinance and only after Home Occupation
Permit has been issued by the Zoning Officer.
An application for a home Occupation Permit shall be filed
with the Zoning Officer and shall be submitted on forms
provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared
so that when completed a full and accurate description of the
proposed use, Including its location, appearance, and
operational characteristics are disclosed.
In addition to the application, the applicant is required to
submit a site plan of the property on which the home
occupation is to be located. The site plan shall show the
location of the residence or accessory building in which the
home occupation is to be located in relation to existing
property lines and adjacent homes; the location, number, and
means of access to required off-street parking areas; and the
location and type of required landscaping and/or screening.
The applicant is also required to submit a floor plan of the
residence or accessory building in which the home occupation
is to be located. The plan shall show the location, size,
and use of each room or area within the residence or
accessory building.
Upon a determination that the application is complete, the
Zoning Officer shall cause a review of the application to be
made. The review shall determine if the proposed home
occupation conforms with all requirements of this Ordinance.
Based on the review, the application gill be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied.
if conditions are attached to the approval of a permit, they
may address deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance
requirements or they may address specific impacts which
result from the operation of the home occupation. In the
. latter case, the conditions may include, but not be limited
to, limitations on the hours of operation, the number of
vehicles to be parked on the premises, and the location of an
accessory building, storage area or parking on the property.
in addition, the Zoning Officer may require greater setbacks
and/or additional landscaping or screening to adequately
screen the home occupation from adjoining properties .
If the application is approved, either with or without
conditions, the Zoning Officer shall send the applicant a
permit letter informing him of the approval and of the
requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the home
occupation. The permit letter must be signed by the
applicant to indicate his/her willingness to operate the home
occupation in conformance with the requirements and
conditions set forth in the permit letter. Each permit
letter shall be kept on file by the Zoning Officer and shall
constitute the Home Occupation Permit for the particular use
in question. The home occupation may be operated. by the
6-23
60
applicant as long as it is operated in conformance with the
requirements and conditions set forth in the permit letter.
If the application is denied, the Zoning Officer shall notify
the applicant of the denial and shall state the reasons for
denial in writing. The applicant may appeal the decision of
the Zoning Officer to the Board of Adjustment as set forth in
Article 21 of this Ordinance.
6 . 16 . 7 Storage of Junked or wrecked Motor vehicles
Amended The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is
2-5-86 specifically prohibited in all residential districts . This
section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed
building which building conforms to applicable building code
and zoning regulations or which building lawfully exists as a
non-conforming use under applicable building code and zoning
regulations .
6 . 16 . 8 Temporary Yard Sale
Temporary yard sales are permitted in all residential
districts provided that these sales do not exceed two days
per month.
6. 16. 9 Temporary Fun d Raising Activity
Temporary fund raising activities are permitted in all
residential districts provided that these activities do not
exceed two days per month.
6. 16. 10 Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-profit)
The following restrictions shall be applied to profit or
non-profit recreational facilities such as a golf course or
country club with golf course:
a) The minimum lot area shall be 50 acres .
b) No building shall be closer than 20 feet to a property
line or the minimum requirements of the district
whichever is greater.
C) No .more than 2 identification signs, not to exceed 16
square feet each and not located closer than 1 foot to
the right-of-way.
d) No adverse impacts such as noise or glare
shall extend beyond the lot boundaries .
6. 16. 11 Recreational Facilities (profit)
'The following restrictions shall be applied to for profit
recreational facilities such as tennis clubs, swim clubs,
racquet ball, squash clubs, pitch and putt courses, amusement
areas, bowling allies, skating rinks, shooting ranges,
billiard and pool halls, indoor athletic facilities and such
similar uses;
6-24
61
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REFERENCE: ZONING ORDINANCE - ARTICLE 8.8.24
Historic Structures-Non Residential Reuse/Mixed Use(Class A
Special Use)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
X BOCC Public
^ Other:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
Purpose of Amendment: To include historic property as well as structures in the
consideration of Special Use Permits for the non-residential use of historic structures.
Impacts/Issues: The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires an applicant to obtain
a Class A Special Use Permit approved by the Board of Commissioners for the non-
residential reuse/mixed use of Historic Structures. In some cases, the use of historic
structures may not only involve the historic structure itself,but also the surrounding
property associated with the structure.
The proposed amendment will clarify that Article 8.8.24 applies to the site on which a
historic structure is located,as well as the historic structure itself.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT:
8.8.24 HISTORIC STRUCPJR98 SITES -NON RESIDENTIAL REUSE/MIXED
USE (CLASS A SPECIAL USE)
8.8.24.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8,the
following shall be supplied as part of the application:
a) The site plan,prepared by a North Carolina registered land
surveyor or engineer, shall also contain the following:
1) Location,width,and type of all internal vehicular and
pedestrian circulation.
2) Location and dimensions of all on-site signage.
62
3) Boundaries of the site and distance to nearest residential
structures.
b) Description of the proposed use(s) of the site and the buildings
thereon, including the following:
1) Amount of area allocated to each use.
2) Number of full and part-time employees.
3) Number of clients and/or occupants expected to use the
facility.
4) Proposed hours of operation for non-residential uses of the
site and within buildings thereon.
C) Building plans for all existing or proposed structures to include
floor plans, elevations, and sections showing
restoration/rehabilitation proposed. Description of how the
historical style and character of the building and/or,propertv is to
be enhanced.
d) Landscape plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing
or proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscape
materials.
e) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning
the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater
treatment for the proposed uses.
f) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning
the provision of fire, police and rescue protection to the site and
structures.
g) Evidence that the property is listed on the National Historic
Register or recognized by the State of North Carolina as places of
historic interest.
h) The proposed development schedule for the site.
8.8.24.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an
application for this use:
- 63
a) The site plan submitted meets all requirements specified in sub-
sections 8.8 a) and 8.8.24.1 a).
b) Proposed uses and facilities are complementary and compatible
with surrounding area, and appropriate in the location proposed
given character of surrounding development. The proposed use of
the historic structure shall be of such a nature so as to preserve the
historic character of the site and the building. Development of the
site as proposed would have no adverse impact beyond the
building except for appropriate parking facilities.
C) Structural alterations of historic structures shall be of such a nature
as to preserve the historic character of the building(s) and site.
d) Fire,police and rescue services and water supply and wastewater
treatment methods are adequate to serve the proposed uses and
facilities.
e) Recreational areas, service areas,parking and screening are
adequate for the proposed use(s).
f) The site is served by direct access to a State-maintained road.
g) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation is adequate for the
proposed use(s).
h) All applicable requirements of Article 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 have
been satisfied.
This use is to be a Class A Special Use Permit in the following districts:
AR-Agricultural Residential
R1 -Residential-1
This Class A Special Use Permit, if approved, shall be valid for six(6)
years.
Ordinance Review Committee: April 4, 1996
Planning Board:
BOCC:
64
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
[DRAFT]
REFERENCE: Subdivision Regulations
Section III-C-4 Action Subsequent to Approval (minor subdivision)
Section III-D-3-c Action Subsequent to Approval (major subdivision)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: 4_Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1996
Purpose of Amendment: The proposed amendment will delete the requirement for a
Planning Staff member to be present each time a final plat is recorded in the Register of
Deeds Office.
I_mpacts/Issues: The Subdivision Regulations require approved final plats for major
and minor subdivisions to be recorded in the presence of the Planning Department to
assure that all required documents associated with the Final Plat are recorded as well.
This requires a Planning Staff member to go to the Register of Deeds Office each time a
final plat is recorded. This process is time consuming for the Planning Staff member as
well as the applicant and has not been the practice of the Planning Department. A system
has been developed that provides the Register of Deeds with a list of items to be recorded
with the final plat thereby alleviating the need for a Planning Staff member to be present.
When a final plat is completed and released by the Planning Staff to be recorded the staff
member prepares a list of all items required to be recorded with the final plat. The staff
member also initials each document to be recorded. When the applicant gets to the
Register of Deeds Office they must present each item and the list of items to be recorded
along with the final plat. After recordation,the Register of Deeds returns the list to the
Planning Staff to provide evidence that all required items were recorded. The list is then
placed in the project file.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT:
III-C4: Action SubMuent to Approval (minor subdivision)
The Planning Director or his/her designated representative shall endorse
approval on a reproducible mylar original of the Final Plat if the Planning
Department approves an application either with or without conditions. The
applicant shall record such plat and any associated documents necessary to
assure conformance with regulations in the Officer of the Register of Deeds
within ninety(90)days after the Planning Director's endorsement of approval.
If such plat is not recorded within the specified time period,the minor
subdivision plat is void. The Planning Director may extend this deadline
provided the applicant can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the
65
deadline, but for reasons beyond his/her control, fails to meet the requirements
for recordation within that period. All such plats shall conform to drawing
specifications and certification requirements for Final Plats contained in
Section V-D of this Ordinance.
Recordation of the approved final plat, and auxiliary documentation as
required in the conditions of preliminary plat approval shall be done in the
p£esearae of with the advice and consent of the Planning Department.
Planning PepaF6%ent by 10--.0-0- fl;-ay be r-eeer-ded on the same day.
III-C-3-c: Action Subsequent to ApProval (major subdivision)
If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the Planning
Director or his/her designated representative shall endorse his/her approval on
a reproducible mylar original of the Final Plat. The applicant shall record the
Final Plat in the Office of the Register of Deeds within ninety(90) days after
the Planning Director's endorsement of approval. If such plat is not recorded
within the specified time period,the Final Plat is void. The Planning Director
may extend the time period, provided the applicant can demonstrate a good
faith effort to comply with the deadline, but for reasons beyond his/her
control, fails to meet the requirements for recordation within that period. All
such plats shall conform to drawing specifications and certification
requirements for Final Plats contained in Section V-D of this Ordinance.
Recordation of the approved final plat,and auxiliary documentation as
required in the conditions of preliminary plat approval shall be done in the
pFesenee-e€ with the advice and consent of the Planning Department.
Planning Depal4faefit by 10--.00 a.m. may be meer4ed on the same d".
Ordinance Review Committee: April 4, 1996
Planning Board:
BOCC:
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 66
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT
Date : - g -9lo
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning At Las of
Orange County as hereinafter requested .
1 . The property is Located on the west _side of S ,R . t1725
(
Mill T4ause Rd . Street/Road) etweer S .R , # I-40 and
S .R . # Nr-8h It is known as a Lo°t� s��n ° 2A Block - , of
Orange County Tax Map - Township , It has a frontage
of 450 feet and a depth of 360-560 feet , and contains
207,000 +/- square feet or 4. 8 +/- acres .
2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned
from NC-2 to RB
3.- The foLL-owing information has been attached in__ support of the
application for changing the Zoning Atlas (• - required on a L L
applications) .
as. A fuLLy dimensioned map at a scale of not Less then one Cl) inch
_ squats one—hundred (100) Post nor more then one (1) inch squat
a
twentf 1201 feat'--showin-g-,-the Lend shieh is proposed to be
rezoned.
•b. A legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned.
'c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more . of the
fo L lowi ng:
(1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which
would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed
reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if shy, in the area or
in the County gonerstly, which sake the proposed amendment
ressonabLy necessary to the promotion of the public has Lth,
safety and general weLfers.
0(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment wiLL carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part
thereof.
0(4) Alt other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not Limited to, documentation from service
agencies (e.g. fire, patios, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision capability to the developmant. -
d. A List of sLL individuals, firms or corporations owning property
adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property
sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of
(Dalai
I certify that aLL information furnished in this application is accurate
to the b-est of my knowledge .
InAppLicant ( s) : ntPdTann
Address : 6023 NC 86
Chanel Hill , NC 27514
Phone : -
67
INFORMATION ATTACHED IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGING THE
ZONING ATLAS BY NEAL D. TAPP & BETTY CANNON TAPP
c. (3) The adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the property which is the subject
of this petition be developed in the future as "Rural Buffer." The property is currently
zoned Neighborhood Commercial-2. The proposed rezoning seeks to rezone a portion
of the existing commercial node to the rezoning recommended and called for by the
Land Use Plan.
c. (4) The stated purpose of the Rural Buffer zoning district is to allow rural residential,
agricultural and silvicultural uses in order to buffer more intense development. The
permitted or special uses listed in table 4.3 are all low density uses using relatively
small amounts of services. The uses are residential, government, utilities, parks,
communications, clubs, lodges, kennels and golf courses. The proposed land use is a
non-residential utility-type use. No water or sewer service will be required. No staff will
be permanently stationed at the site; about five maintenance trips per month are
average. Contrast this land use with the purpose of the NC-2 district, which is to allow
limited commercial uses to serve rural and neighborhood populations with convenience
goods and personal services. The NC-2 district is the opposite of the RB district in that
it encourages traffic and utility intensive uses such as service stations, banks, research
facilities, retail uses, restaurants and so on. The proposed use of this property clearly
meets the purpose and intent of the RB zoning district, not the NC-2 district.
68
VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
so in
/r0
_ NC g6
1
-40
/ SE -a New Jericho Rd. Mill House Rd.
� SR 172
C
� y
0
0
3
U
v
m
RB ZONING: RURAL BUFFER ZONE
69
� 1
I
�TQ 1
O`
}
r�
\ I
I
Q
I
N I
OT) Q
cv V 9£'
N z o\ \ M
. 9
LLJ AV
Z U \ I
Li
\ Q
\ w
X 0
LO
� \ I
,,a
I
I
I
rr
o° c� 00 I
w Cpl I
b
April 15 , 1996 70
Draft Planning Board Minutes
Access to the property is from Phase II of Grand Oak Estates. Approval of Phase 11
included a stubout to the eastern property line. Access will be through this stubout.
The streets will be public and constructed to NCDOT standards.
Part of the remaining 15.1 acre tract may eventually be added to the existing
recreation area in Phase 1.The recreation area currently has a tennis court and
playground.
Each lot will be served by individual wells and septic tanks.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Grand Oak Estate
Phase IV.
There were no Board questions or comments.
The developer stated that Phase IV will be developed in the same sense as the other
phases of Grand Oak Estates. It will be annexed to the Homeowners' Association
with the same covenants.
MOTION: Walters moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by
Rosemond.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING 5/28/96
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(1) South Buckhorn Economic Development District
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider expanding the boundaries of the Buckhorn Road Economic
Development District to include area at the southeast quadrant of I-85 and Buckhorn.
The Board of Commissioners adopted as one of its goals for the 1995-96 fiscal year
the possible expansion of the Buckhorn Road EDD to include area on the south side
of I-85. The total study area considered for inclusion in the EDD is bounded by
Buckhorn Road to the west,West Ten Road to the south,1-85 to the north and the
boundary of the Upper Eno Critical Area to the east. The study area is now
designated in the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan as a
Commercial/Industrial Activity Node,which allows property owners to request
rezoning to certain commercial and industrial zoning districts.Property which will
be included in an Economic Development District will not need to be rezoned if it is
developed in accordance with the Economic Development District Design Manual.
A proposal for the area on the west side of Buckhorn Road south of I-85 will be
developed,after obtaining input from Mebane concerning cooperative planning
efforts,and is tentatively scheduled for the August, 1996 public hearing.
A community meeting to discuss the possible expansion of the Buckhorn Road
EDD was held at the Efland-Cheeks Community Center on March 12. Notices of the
meeting were sent to about 200 property owners.Eighteen property owners attended
the meeting.A summary of their comments is included on pages of these
a - _
71
minutes. Most of the comments focused on issues related to effects on the existing
residential character,and the extension of water and sewer service.
Some of the group support expansion of the EDD and the rezoning of their property.
Some of the group did not want to see any change to the residential character of the
area,and indicated that they would support changing the Land Use Plan designation
to allow only residential use. Others were not opposed to non-residential
development,but wanted some assurance of when development would occur before
rezoning the property. They did not want to lose the potential for residential
development if it would be a long time before non-residential development would
happen. There was considerable discussion about water and sewer extension.
Several believed that the County should extend water and sewer to the area in order
to attract business.
Buckhorn Road is the approximate boundary between Haw Creek and Upper Eno
Watersheds.The east side of Buckhom Road is in the Upper Eno Watershed,and
could best be served by the Efland sewer system from the standpoint of utilizing
gravity flow to the greatest extent. The area on the west side of Buckhom Road
would best be served by the Mebane sewer system for the same reason. Only the
area on the east side of Buckhom Road is proposed to be included in the EDD at this
time. The possible inclusion of area on the west side of Buckhom Road will be
considered at a later public hearing,after coordination with the City of Mebane on
cooperative planning issues.
Inclusion of the area between the I-85 and West Ten in the EDD could result in more
efficient and cost-effective sewer service. Four intermittent streams in the EDD on
the north side of I-85 converge on the south side of I-85 near West Ten Road. If
sewer service is provided only on the north side of 1-85,then as many as four pump
stations could be required to convey wastewater to a discharge point in a gravity
section of the Efland sewer system.If sewer service is planned for both the north and
south side,then gravity lines could carry wastewater from throughout the district to a
single pump station in the vicinity of West Ten. A system which relies on gravity
flow to the greatest possible extent,minimizing the number of pump stations
needed,would be more cost effective,even considering that the gravity lines would
need to be extended underneath 1-85.
A major concern raised at the public information meeting held for area residents on
March 12, 1996 concerned the lack of existing infrastructure as an incentive for
development. Although all of the Economic Development Districts are expected to
develop over a number of years,rather than in the near future,there were concerns
with value in the more near future,since residential development would no longer be
an option.
Staff has identified 17 single-family residences and mobile homes within the
boundaries of the proposed expansion.Clearview Subdivision,approved in 1994,is
the only subdivision located on the north side of West Ten,and is not proposed to be
included in the EDD. Five of the subdivision's lots have been developed. A
resident of the subdivision was concerned with impacts of the EDD on the
neighborhood,as was the owner of the adjoining mobile home park. Several
property owners in the portion of the Study Area near Mt.Willing Road and West
Ten,indicated that they wished for the existing residential character of the area to
remain. Most of those individuals owned property in the Critical Area of the Upper
Eno,which would not be included in the EDD.
r
72
The Planning Staff and Economic Development Commission Staff recommend:
1. Designate the 587-acre area shown on the attached map(page of these
minutes)as EDD Primary Development Area,subject to the same set of
permitted uses as the portion of the EDD on the north side of I-85. The area of
the recommended expansion is bounded by Buckhorn Road to the west,West
Ten Road to the south,I-85 to the north,and the boundary of the Upper Eno
Critical Area to the east,excluding Clearview Subdivision and the adjacent
mobile home park.
2. Provide a 150'buffer around the perimeter of the Clearview Subdivision and
adjacent mobile home park. A 100' buffer is required on the remainder of the
perimeter by the standard provisions of the EDD Design Manual.
3. Update the EDD Design Manual to include reference to and general discussion
of the expanded area. The only proposed change to design standards is the
inclusion of a 150'buffer around Clearview Subdivision and the adjacent
mobile home park.
The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed expansion of the Buckhorn
Economic Development Activity Node and Zoning District to be advertised for
public hearing on May 28, 1996.
Willis also noted that another public information meeting will be held on Tuesday,
April 23, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.in the Planning Board meeting room. Notices will be
mailed to the property owners on Tuesday,April 16.
Jobsis asked if the current residents in the proposed expansion area had indicated pro
or con for the proposal. Willis responded that at the last meeting the residents had
indicated on a map the location of their lots. Of those,there were several that were
fairly adamant about wanting to retain the residential character and not be included
in the district. There were some who were in favor of rezoning now to the district
and there were others who were not generally opposed to the idea but were
concerned with how long before there was any real pressure to develop and what
they would do in the meantime if they wanted to develop the property. If it is
rezoned to the Economic Development District,they would not be allowed to
develop as residential. There was a"mixed bag"of concerns. She emphasized again
that notices would be sent regarding another information meeting on April 23.
Rosemond asked for clarification of the water quality critical area regarding zoning.
Willis responded that no commercial or industrial development is permitted in a
water quality critical area and that residential development is one unit per two acres.
Rosemond continued expressing concern that the proposed expansion would allow
commercial development right up to the critical area. Willis responded that is
already the case since the area has been designated as a commercial/industrial
activity node in the Comprehensive Plan since 1984.
Jobsis asked if the flea market located in the area would become non-conforming
Willis responded that retail uses are allowed in the EDD and the existing flea market
would be conforming. Presently,the flea market is non-conforming.
Jobsis continued,asking where the nearest sewer connection would be if the single
pump station is built. Willis responded along Hwy 70-Efland Sewer System.
Jobsis asked if the Planning Board could make a recommendation that thought be
'f L
73
given to infrastructure support/assistance from the County such as the pumping
station or sewer. She noted that a major concern seemed to be that it would be a
long time before development would occur and she felt that assistance with either
the pump station or sewer provision would be an incentive for commercial
development in the area. She felt that without County assistance with the
infrastructure, it would be difficult to the development the area. Willis responded
yes:such a recommendation could be made.
MOTION: Jobsis moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that consideration be
given to participation in the provision of either the pump station or sewer system as
an incentive for development. Seconded by Walters.
Howie stated that the only advantages in the expansion of the district seemed to be if
the County would participate in the provision as suggested by Jobsis and that the
owners would not have to request individual rezonings. It seems as if a lot is being
done to provide an Economic Development District without having the water to
attract economic development.
Jobsis stated that she felt it would be a long time before development would occur
unless there is some extra assistance. She felt that it would be too costly for a
business to come in by themselves and pay for installation of sewer lines under the
highway. Willis responded that she felt a long-term coordinated plan with a single
pump station rather than a series of pump stations seems to be a better alternative.
Jobsis stated that a long-term plan makes totally good sense for the area. The
problem is whether the individual land owners can wait unless there is some
assistance so that it will not be such a long time before development occurs.
Walters expressed agreement with Willis that the area was designated a commercial
industrial activity node several years ago;some of the landowners had requested that
designation. She continued that they had also requested that the area be under the
County's jurisdiction and that sewer be provided from Orange County. She noted
that the water supply for that area is provided by Orange-Alamance.
Using a map,Willis indicated the ridge lines and the service areas of Hillsborough,
Orange Alamance and Mebane and the different watersheds involved.
Rosemond asked how built out the north side is at this time. Willis responded that
there has been no change since being designated an Economic Development District.
Rosemond expressed concern that since there is no pressure to build in the area,such
a large"chunk"of land that borders a critical area is being considered for expansion.
Willis responded that all of the Economic Development Districts are long-term
prospects. She agreed that there is not intense pressure on the district at this time.
However,if an area is to be targeted for an Economic Development District, it must
be dealt with well in advance to make the development feasible. Rosemond
continued that was a part of her concern. Such large tracts of land are being"cut-
out"that are abutting the critical areas. Willis stated that the area outlined for
expansion followed the road outlines. She also noted that proposals being presented
at public hearing should be as broad as possible because the area could be decreased
without going again to public hearing but could not be greater than what was
presented at the public hearing.
Price expressed the same concerns noted by Rosemond. She also asked if interest in
commercial development had been expressed by someone and the Staff decided to
1.
74
make it a broad picture. Willis responded that it was included in the Commissioners'
goals to look at the expansion of the district to the south side of I-85. She continued
that it seemed like a logical to expand the district with the road network. Price
continued expressing concern that the County might water and sewer service when
there was no demand at this time for commercial development in that area. She felt
that more residential should be allowed for lower income people. Her concern was
that lower income people often get displaced because of prime commercial and
industrial land noting again that there has been no expressed need for commercial
development.
Jobsis responded to the last concern expressed by Price. She stated that she had
served on the Economic Development Task Force several years ago. The County
and County Commissioners had made a commitment to toward determining specific
areas in the County for economic development and then to label them as districts so
that they could be planned for rather than simply allowing scattered development.
That was a major goal. There has always been concern with infrastructure. It makes
good sense to select areas for commercial development and to set standards for those
areas.
Price asked if there was a more suitable area nearer Mebane for such development.
Jobsis responded that the goal was to get economic development to come to the
County and this was a logical area due to easy access to I-40 and I-85. Price
continued that she was thinking more of a cooperative effort with Mebane or
Alamance County. Howie noted that Alamance County does not have county-wide
planning.
Brooks asked for clarification that the area being proposed for expansion is already
zoned commercial-industrial. Willis responded that it is not zoned commercial but is
designated a commercial industrial activity node in the Land Use Plan. Willis
continued that one of the advantages of being in an Economic Development District
to the county as well as developer and neighboring property owners is the Economic
Development District Design Guidebook which has very stringent standards that
have to be met to secure Staff approval. There is no rezoning process and it is
known what kind of development can occur.
Brooks asked if this would change the land owners tax obligation. Willis responded
not until the land actually begins to develop and the uses change.
Walters referred to her earlier comment that landowners had requested the economic
development district designation and their request was specifically so that they
would remain in the County's jurisdiction and the type of development would be
better controlled. They had expressed concern with the seemingly"easy"approval
process in Mebane and Walters agreed with that concern.
Price asked if the existing residents would be required to connect to a water/sewer
system and would fees be required. Willis responded that it would not be required
that they automatically be connected. It would take time for the complete sewer
system to be developed where residents could connect to it. It would be very cost
prohibitive for anyone to install the complete system prior to development.
Jobsis emphasized again that she felt that development would not occur or,would
not occur for a long time unless there was some assistance with a sewer system. She
also emphasized that she did not feel the County should install a complete system,
but should offer some assistance as an incentives to developers. She noted that she
75
intended the motion to be such that the Commissioners determine what type of
assistance the County could/should offer.
VOTE: 5 in favor.
2 opposed(Rosemond-reasons already stated and that it was premature to make
such a recommendation when there has been no indication of commercial or
industrial development in this area. Price-agreed with Rosemond and expressed
concern with impact on the watersheds).
Howie encouraged Planning Board members to attend the public information
meeting on April 23 to hear comments from residents/landowners in the proposed
expansion area.
MOTION: Walters moved approval of Planning Staff to advertise this item for public hearing.
Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Stoney Creek Small Area Plan
Presentation by Gene Bell.
Bell recognized Verla Insko,facilitator for the planning group,and Lee Rafalow,
member of the Planning Group who had been in attendance at all but one of the
meetings.
Bell also noted that Rosemond represented the Planning Board on the group
originally,but could not continue so Renee Price is the current Planning Board
representative. He continued that Bob Strayhorn,recently appointed to the Planning
Board,has also been very active on this group.
Using the map,Bell indicated location of the boundaries of the Stoney Creek Small
Area Plan;I-85 to the north,the University Branch of the railroad to the east,and to
the western portion to New 86.
Bell referred to the Community Open House materials included in the agenda noting
that the first goal of the process should be worded: Make sure owners get fair value
for their property. A copy of these materials is an attachment to these minutes on
pages
On December 5, 1994,the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the
following charge:"To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the town of
Hillsborough". Since March 16, 1995,a 22 member Planning Group of
neighborhood representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven
alternates has worked on a land use plan for the Stoney Creek area that achieves two
goals:
1. Protects the rights landowners have now to derive value from their land;and
2. Protects the area's"rural character".
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified levels of land-
use intensity that would help protect these resources. Three levels of land-use
intensity are recommended for different parts of the Stoney Creek area:
76 A .
1. Lower intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify
the area's remaining rural character.They are proposed to have the lowest future
development densities and water and sewer extension is not envisioned.
2. Intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower
and higher density. They are envisioned as being predominantly residential
with density being determined largely by the character of existing development.
Water and sewer extension is unlikely.
3. Higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth and at
some future date will likely be annexed by Hillsborough or Durham. A mix
of land uses is possible along with the eventual extension of water and sewer.
The Planning Group explored traditional legal tools for plan implementation such as
rezoning to promote consistency. However,a key plan goal is to not take away any
options landowners currently have and no zoning changes are recommended.
The Planning Group relied extensively on the Flexible Development Options in
making their recommendations and suggest the following modifications to Flexible
Development to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area:
1. Flexible Development allows a density bonus of an additional housing unit for
every acre of open space preserved above 33%.For Stoney Creek:
Lip to 50%open space allows half of the bonus to be used in the area;and
open space in excess of 50%permits use of the bonus units wherever desired.
2. Where density bonuses can be used:
The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses;
the intermediate intensity area is a sending and receiving area;
the higher intensity area is a receiving area;and
density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated above,
but density from other areas cannot be transferred into the area.
3. In the lower intensity areas,50%of active recreation land will not count toward
open space,although such uses will continue to be permitted.
4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open
space and enhance rural character should be included as an incentive.
The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will supersede the 1988 plan for the
area by introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed. However,these
will apply only where a landowner/developer chooses to use voluntary Flexible
Development Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed,the zoning patterns as
established by the current plan will remain in effect.
Planning Staff recommends that the proposed plan and recommendations for
implementation be advertised for public hearing on May 28, 1996.
Jobsis stated that she was impressed with the work and amount of compromise that
appears to have gone into the Plan. She felt it was a very positive document that
would meet lots of people's needs. Walters agreed with Jobsis.
Insko stated that the group worked very hard at the process and expressed a lot of
patience with each other. She noted that a lot of energy and effort went into the
77
document Insko continued that the use of the flexible development option structure
was used intentionally in hopes that this plan would serve as a model for other small
area plans. Jobsis commented that she liked that idea and approach and also hoped
this plan could be used as a model.
Rosemond proposed that,since this group seemed to work together so well and
provided so much hard work,that there be some mechanism in place for them to
have a part in the enforcement policy. Bell expressed agreement noting that there is
a good core group representing the area and that group could remain active to
respond to Rosemond's concerns. Rosemond asked that her suggestion be carried to
the meeting scheduled for Thursday. Rafalow responded that one of the members
had already made a similar suggestion. There has been suggestions regarding a
citizens advocacy group.
MOTION: Rosemond moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation that this item be
advertised for public hearing. Seconded by Price.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
(1) Telecommunication Towers
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider amendment of Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to
telecommunication towers.
Concern with the increasing number of telecommunication towers has been raised
locally and nationwide by citizens,advisory boards and governing boards in recent
years.At the November 27, 1996 public hearing,the Orange County Board of
Commissioners and Planning Board received citizen comments on a proposed
amendment to Special Use Permit provisions relating to telecommunication towers.
Speakers included five industry representatives and one Orange County resident.
On January 18, 1996,the Ordinance Review Committee,as well as another
interested Planning Board member and a member of the Board of Adjustment,met
with the telecommunication providers who spoke at the public hearing.The purpose
of the meeting was for the Committee to gain a better understanding of issues and
technical concerns raised at the public hearing,and to consider modifications to the
proposal which could address those issues to the extent that the purpose and intent of
the proposed amendment was maintained.
A summary of some of the key areas of concern and proposed changes to the text
initially presented for public hearing on November 27, 1995 is an attachment to
these minutes on pages . Due to the extent of the changes proposed,a
second advertised public hearing is needed.
The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment be advertised for
public hearing.
Willis reviewed the issues from the November 27, 1995 public hearing comments.
One had to do with minimizing the number of new towers such as encouraging use
of existing towers,sharing of space on new towers,multi-use towers and the
78
notification process. All of this information and proposed revisions/amendments are
included in the previously noted attachments.
(The Board determined to move and vote on all three Zoning Ordinance
Amendments at the same time.)
(2)'Home Occupations
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider amendment of Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to
home occupations.
The existing home occupation regulations are contained in Article 6.16.6.1 through
6.16.6.4:
6.16.6.1 provides standards for zoning districts with a minimum lot size of 1/2
acre or less
6.16.6.2 provides standards for lots smaller than 200,000 square feet(4.6 acres)
in the AR,RB,and R-1 zoning districts
6.16.6.3 provides standards for larger than 200,000 square feet in the AR,RB,
and R-1 zoning districts
6.16.6.4 contains application and approval procedures
Issues relating to home occupations have been raised on several occasions in the past
few years,particularly in relation to the type of activity and the location of accessory
buildings.Proposed revisions were presented for public hearing in 1992 and 1995,
but were not adopted due to the preference of the Board of Commissioners to deal
with the home occupation provisions as a whole,rather than modifying particular
standards.
The proposed amendment seeks to clarify the intent of home occupations regulation,
provided greater emphasis on performance standards,and simplify the text.
The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment be advertised for
public hearing on May 28, 1996.
Willis reviewed the proposed amendment and provisions which are attachments to
these minutes on pages . She noted that the key changes specify what will
not be classified as home occupations. There are also particular standards being
proposed for traffic generation. There are some home occupations that would
become non-conforming with respect to use. However,most of the existing home
occupations would remain conforming. A list of the types of home occupations
existing is attached to these minutes on pages
Walters asked about the home occupations that would become non-conforming and
how they would continued. Willis responded that if the home occupation that was
non-conforming was discontinued, another non-conforming could not be
established. If a non-conforming use was discontinued for six months to one year,it
could not be reestablished.
Brooks asked the relationship between these guidelines and what is being done by
Chapel Hill. Willis responded that the County's jurisdiction does not overlap with
Chapel Hill. They have their own ordinance.
,I
' 79
(3) Use of Historic Sites
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to include
historic property as well as structures in the consideration of Special Use permits for
non-residential use of historic structures.
The Ordinance Review Committee considered the proposed amendments on April 4,
and recommended that they be advertised for public hearing on May 28, 1996.
The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendments be advertised for
public hearing on May 28, 1996.
Willis noted that this is a technical amendment which states that the entire site,not
just the structure,is considered historic.
MOTION: Hoecke moved approval of the recommendation of the Planning Staff that the
Zoning Ordinance Amendments be advertised for public hearing on May 28, 1996.
Seconded by Rosemond.
VOTE: Unanimous.
c. Subdivision Regulations Teat Amendments
(1) Recordation of Plats
Presentation by Mary Willis..
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations
which would delete the requirement for a Planning Staff member to be present each
time a final plat is recorded in the Register of Deeds Office.
The Subdivision Regulations require approved final plats for major and minor
subdivisions to be recorded in the presence of the Planning Department to assure that
all required documents associated with the Final Plat are recorded as well. This
requires a Planning Staff member to go to the Register of Deeds Office each time a
final plat is recorded. This process is time consuming for the Planning Staff member
as well as the applicant and has not been the practice of the Planning Department. A
system has been developed that provides the Register of Deeds with a list of items to
be recorded with the final plat thereby alleviating the need for a Planning Staff
member to be present.
The Ordinance Review Committee considered the proposed amendments on April 4
and recommended that they be advertised for public hearing on May 28, 1996.
The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendments be advertised for
public hearing on May 28, 1996.
MOTION: Howie moved approval of the Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Price.
VOTE: Unanimous.