HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH ORD-1996-025 Zoning Atlas Amendments Article 4.2.26, Article 6.24, Z-5-96 Efland Setback Overlay District Cl 001
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 26, 1996
Action Agenda
Item# C 1a & 2a
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS TEXT AMENDMENT
Article 4.2.26 Efland Setback(ES)Overlay District (NEW)
Article 6.24 Extra Requirements for the Efland Setback(ES) Overlay District
(NEW)
Z-5-96 Efland Setback Overlay District
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING_X—Yes_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT NEEDED Yes_X–No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Willis
Proposed amendment Extension 2583
Certificate of Mailing
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider the creation of a new Overlay Zoning District which would allow
lesser setbacks than generally required in the underlying zoning district, and to
apply the new Overlay district to Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas in the
Efland Area
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Planning Staff proposes that a new zoning overlay
district be applied to the 10-Year and 20-Year Transition Areas in the
Efland area. The proposed overlay would allow setbacks of 20 feet from
road right-of-way and 8 feet from side and rear property lines, with
provision for zero-lotline development in the interior of a subdivision.
The proposed setbacks are comparable to the setbacks currently allowed in
the R-5 zoning district.
The proposed amendment was initiated by the Planning Staff after
receiving a rezoning request submitted by a property owner to address a
002
setback problem. Because the problem was common to many lots in the
Efland area, an amendment was proposed by the Planning Staff to address
the issue on a community-wide rather than lot-by-lot basis.
Efland was an existing developed community when Cheeks township was
zoned in 1984, and is partially served by public water and sewer. Of the
1,289 existing lots in the Transition Areas, which includes the Efland
community as well as area west to the vicinity of Buckhorn Road, 676
(52%) are non-conforming lots smaller than 40,000 square feet. Many
cannot be built upon in accordance with the 20-foot (side/rear) and 40-foot
(front) setbacks applicable in the R-1 zoning district.
NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN EFLAND
TRANSITION AREAS
10-Year 20-Year Combined Transition
Lot size Transition Transition Areas (3686 acres)
(1686 acres) (2000 acres)
0- 10,000 sf 152 (15%) 64(22%) 216 (17%)
10,000- 15,000 sf 63 (6%) 4 (1%) 67 (5%)
15,000 -20,000 sf 75 (7%) 12 (4%) 87 (7%)
20,000 - 30,000 sf 141 (14%) 18 (6%) 159 (12%)
30,000 -40,000 sf 132 (13%) 15 (5%) 147 (11%)
more than 40,000 sf
(conforming) 434 (44%) 179 (61%) 613 (48%)
Total Lots 997 292 1289
A map of the Transition Areas showing parcel boundaries is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's
recommendation for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning
Atlas be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of
an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Atlas by either the
public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either
case,though,the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation
of the Zoning Officer's Recommendation.
Zoning Ofker Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find
in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the
proposed text and atlas amendments.
003
Ad wnis&aWdn Reeommenda ' n
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned
to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
ZONING ATLAS
REFERENCE: Article 4.2.26 Efland Setback(ES)Overlay District (NEW)
Article 6.24 Extra Requirements for the Efland Setback(ES)
Overlay District(NEW)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X_High Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1996
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To consider the creation of a new Overlay Zoning District
which would allow lesser setbacks than generally required in
the underlying zoning district, and to apply the new Overlay
district to Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas in the
Efland Area.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Orange County Planning Staff proposes that a new zoning
overlay district be applied to the 10-Year and 20-Year Transition
Areas in the Efland area. The proposed overlay would allow
setbacks of 20 feet from road right-of-way and 8 feet from side and
rear property lines, with provision for zero-lotline development in
the interior of a subdivision. The proposed setbacks are comparable
to the setbacks currently allowed in the R-5 zoning district.
The proposed amendment was initiated by the Planning Staff after
receiving a rezoning request submitted by a property owner to
address a setback problem. Because the problem was common to
many lots in the Efland area, an amendment was proposed by he
Planning Staff to address the issue on a community-wide rather than
lot-by-lot basis.
Efland was an existing developed community when Cheeks township
was zoned in 1984,and is partially served by public water and sewer.
Of the 1,289 existing lots in the Transition Areas,which includes the
Efland community as well as area west to the vicinity of Buckhorn
066
Road, 676 (52%) are non-conforming lots smaller than 40,000
square feet. Many cannot be built upon in accordance with the 20-
foot (side/rear) and 40-foot (front) setbacks applicable in the R-1
zoning district.
NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN EFLAND
TRANSITION AREAS
10-Year 20-Year Combined
Lot size Transition Transition Transition Areas
(1686 acres) (2000 acres) (3686 acres)
0 - 10,000 sf 152 (15%) 64(22%) 216 (17%)
10,000 - 15,000 sf 63 (60/o) 4(1%) 67 (5%)
15,000-20,000 sf 75 (7%) 12 (4%) 87(7%)
20,000 - 30,000 sf 141 (14%) 18 (6%) 159 (12%)
30,000 -40,000 sf 132 (13%) 15 (5%) 147 (110/o)
more than 40,000 sf
(conforming) 434 (44%) 179 (61%) 613 (48%)
Total Lots 997 292 1289
A map of the Transition Areas showing parcel boundaries is
attached.
The Ordinance Review Committee recommended that the proposed
overlay district be presented for public hearing on August 26. On
July 9, the Planning Board voted to address the issue in a in a
different manner(See attached minutes)
The Efland Small Area Plan was adopted in 1991, and identified the
following five community issues,based on input from community
meetings held in July through December of 1990. The issues
identified were:
1. Housing Availability Within Efland
2. Community Services
3. Transportation
4. Protect Open Space and Scenic Areas Within Efland
5. Appropriate Land Use and Economic Planning
Implementation through zoning changes was not included in
approval of the Plan. The Efland Small Area Plan is located within
the Transition Areas,and is bounded roughly by McGowan Creek, I-
85 and Richmond Road.
007
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
ARTICLE 4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE
4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations
4.2 District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria
4.2.26 Efland Setback(ES)Overlay District (NEW)
.) Intent
The p=ose of the Efland Setback Overlay District is to recognize the unique
pattem of lot sizes which existed in the Efland Area prior to the application of
zoninTgulations to Cheeks Township on October 1. 1984. The development
Characteristics of Efland and as west differ from development patterns in the
remainder of Orange County's Planning jurisdiction.
The area is located along a Transportation Corridor marked by I-85/1-40. US
Highway 70 and the Southern Railroad. Efland was established as a community
circa 1880. as a tobacco-shipping ou ost along the railroad. In the early 1900s.
textile manufacture became a significant industrvin both- the-region and the State.
and mills in and around Efland spurred much of the residential development which
is con idered the core of the e community.
The dominance of the railroad and manufacture of textiles has diminished during
the last half-century.but the development patterns created during that ti=
including residential development.and industrial,commercial and institutional
service.remain and development has continued.
The unique characteristics of the Efland Area is recognized in the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan by its designation as Ten-or Twenty-Year Transition Area
and in some areas, as Commercial-Industrial Activity Node. Some =as.most of
which were develo dd prior to zoning are zoned LC 1.NC2.EC-5,El or i l.
deflecting their existing_commercial or industrial use Some areas have also been
rezoned to allow residential_densities ranging from 2 to 5 dwelling units per are.
The majority of Efland-however is currently in the R-1 (RLrat Residential__) zOrLng
district The Rl district serves as a holding zone until adequate community
services enable moderate residential densities allowed in the 10- and 20-year
Tr=sition Areas,
The RI Rural Residential district requires a mi imam lot size of 40.000 square
feet Building setbacks are required to be 20 feet from side and rear=Rcm lines
and 40 feet from road rights-of-my, Lots in the R-1 district which are smaller
008
40 000 squ are feet and existed prior to the application of zoning regulations are
considered legal non-conforming lots and Diu be built upon. However. new
development is subje t to the 20 and 40 foot setbacks applicable in the RI district.
The Zoning-Ordimnce provides for development of non-conforming lots which
are too small to be built on in accordance with setbacks of the applicable zoning
district through variance procedures contained in Article 2.3.6 of this Ordinance.
Because a high percentage of the existing lots in the Ten-and Twenty-Year
Transition Areas are highly non-conforming with respect to lot size, the inability
to develoIa lot in compliance with existing setback requirements is not a unique
problem and thus the variance prose ure may not provide equitable relief in many
circumstances
The intent of the Efland Overlay District is to apply setbacks appropriate to the
existing lot size and development pattems.within the limits of what could be
achieved if properties were rezoned to the higher-density zoning districts allowed
in the Orange o un Land Use Plan.
h) ,Application Criteria
The Efland Setback.,S) Overlay District is established as_a district which
overlays other residential zoning districts established in this ordinance. The
new use of land or structures within the ES District shall comply with the use
regulations applicable in the underlying Residential zoning district with
exception of building setback requirements.
1) This district shall he applied within AR. RI. R2, R3. R4. and R5 zoning
districts wi hin areas designated as the 10-Year and 20-Year Transition Area in
the Orange Co un Comprehensive Plan in the I-85/Hwy 70 Corridor between
Hillsborough and Mebane.
¢jQ EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EFLA_ND SETBACK(ES)
OVERLAY DISTRICT(NEW)
6.24.1 Permitted Uses
Permitted Uses within the Efland Setback(ES)Overlay District, and the use of
land and structures is as pcmli=d in the underlying .o ing district or districts. All
other r gpirements for the use of land and structures contained in this ordinance
shall be met unless otherwise provided.
009
6.24.2 Setback Requirements
Building setback and required yard areas for the district are as follows:
The front yard re uirement shall be twenty(20)feet from the edge of the
rig -of-way of all roads except those classified as collectors or arterials,
92) The side and rear yard requirement shall be eight(8)feet from side and
rear on the perimeter of a subdivision or development- Interior side and
rear setbacks may be eliminated if approved as tart of a Planned
Development
**********************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: July 3, 1996
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
fi 4i u F i
A y
fill
�1 kR o It
�:�� �������
����� �I
�-
a�
013
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I,Ma y Willis, Zoning Officer, Orange County,North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on
or about August 9, 1996, I mailed, by first class mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public
Hearing to be held on the inclusion of the Efland Transition Areas in a new Efland Setback
Overlay Zoning District to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
The notice mailed specified the date,time,place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning
atlas change.
WITNESS my hand, this the 91h day of August. 1996.
wovlw
Y WILLIS
Z014ING OFFICER
pq // F - ;-4- q (�
APPROVED 10/15/96 p 1 ` ` Cn s r� l cz. 4 or—
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 26, 1996
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on
Monday, August 26, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of
holding a joint public hearing.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis, and Commissioners Alice Gordon,
Don Willhoit, and Bill Crowther.
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Karen Barrows and members
Arnie Katz, Bob Strayhorn, Leo Allison, Cheri Rosemond, and Renee Price.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Joan Jobsis, and members Paul
Hoecke, S.A.M. Brooks, Elizabeth Walters and Margaret Brown.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planners Mary Willis, Emily Cameron and Eddie Kirk,
and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN
Vice-Chair Halkiotis convened the meeting. He stated that the Vice-Chair of the Planning Board, Karen
Barrows, would chair Items C. 1 through C.3. He would chair Item CA.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Vice-Chair Halkiotis read the Public Charge.
Karen Barrows requested that Mary Willis present the first item.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
1.Zoning Atlas Amendments
(a) Z-5-96 Efland Set Back Overlay District
This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider the creation of a new Overlay Zoning
District which would allow lesser setbacks than generally required in the underlying zoning district, and to apply the new
Overlay district to Ten and Twenty-Year Transition Areas in the Efland Area. These proposed overlays would allow
setbacks of 20 feet from road right-of-way and 8 feet from side and rear property lines, with provisions for zero-lotline
development in the interior of a subdivision. The proposed setbacks are comparable to the setbacks currently allowed
in the R-5 zoning districts.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD- None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Elvira Mebane, a resident of the Efland community, spoke against the approval of this request. She
displayed a map of the area from 1919 which showed that the lots were originally so small that two or more lots were
required in order to build. She spoke on behalf of many local residents who felt that it was not in the best interest of
the community to lower these standards. The residents of this community feel that it is unsafe, and unnecessary, to
lower the setback requirements. She presented a petition supporting her position which had 117 signatures of local
residents.
John McCormick, the property owner who requested this change, owns six lots on Gains Chapel Road.
He stated that it is a hardship to require 40 foot setbacks for this property. He is trying to build affordable housing in
the Efland area and has devised a house plan that would fit the lots. These setbacks would make it impossible to
build the number of units which he has planned. He stated that current setbacks for one acre lots are unreasonable.
He has already built three homes and has building permits for 3 more units. He asked that this area be zoned to
densities similar to those for in-town development.
in the area. Renee Price, Planning Board member, asked if there were other similar requests from property owners
Mr. McCormick indicated that he had not actually heard similar complaints but he was
assuming that he was not the only property owner facing this difficulty. He stated that he is building 1200 square foot
homes which are listing for$98,400. He mentioned Lloyd Road which is a gravel road that runs parallel to Gaines. It
is 20 feet wide and has been in existence for 20 years. He did not feel that he had a responsibility to improve this
road. He said that if he did combine lots in order to meet current zoning requirements, he would have to combine
three lots to build one home.
Mary Willis mentioned that there are other residents who have non-conforming lots, however
there are no other homeowners who have building permits or homes in progress.
Samuel English, an Efland resident, felt that it was a mistake to zone any of this area to R-5. R-1 is a
designation meant for a city, not an area like Efland. This community is not ready for this type of development. There
is not enough water and sewer available for current residents. Allowing this change in the zoning would mean that
homes would be built too close to each other. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners not approve this
request.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer this item to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(b) Z-6-96 - Charles Davis
This item was presented by Eddie Kirk to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas
amendment in Hillsborough Township. The property proposed to be rezoned is located on the east side of Old NC 86
and is bounded by Cates Creek and the Town of Hillsborough Zoning Jurisdiction to the northwest and the 1-40/NC 86
Economic Development District to the south. The 105 acres which is in Orange County's jurisdiction is currently zoned
Rural Residential (R-1). The applicant proposes to rezone the property to Residential-3 (R-3).
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS
Judy Brown, a resident of Stage Coach Run, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment changes for
certain lots which she felt were actually a part of Stage Coach Run and could not be changed without permission from
the Home Owners Association.
Mary Willis explained that there was originally a part of Stage Coach Run which did extend into the area
mentioned by Ms. Brown. However, that area was recombined, eliminated from Stage Coach Run and put back into
one tract.
Geof Gledhill mentioned that private restrictive covenants do not restrict the County from rezoning. However,
the residents do not have to allow the denser development in their community. The original covenants can be enforced
by the Home Owners Association regardless of the zoning.
Dean Lategan, a resident of Stage Coach Run, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment change as
they would effect Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 in Section A and Lot 1 in Section B. He stated that those lots are actually a part of
Stage Coach Run. He did not believe that Mr. Davis has the right to exclude any lots from the subdivision without
permission from the Homeowners Association. The Association is willing to take this matter to court if necessary. They