Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH ORD-1996-028 Proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Section IV-B-5e (Lot Layout) ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 26. 1996 Action Agenda Item# C 3 a SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT Section IV-B-5-e(Lot Layout) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING_X—Yes No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes *X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment Mary Willis Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill-967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to clarify Section IV-B-5-e by substituting the word"divided"for the word"separated". BACKGROUND The proposed amendment would provide more clarity in the text. It would not result in a substantive change to any regulation. RECOMMENDATION: Section VII-D-3 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that proposed amendments to the text of the Subdivision Regulations be presented at a joint public hearing involving the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board. It is at that time that the Planning Department's recommendation is presented. Planning Department Recommendation Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. 056 No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board no sooner than October 1, 1996 05r VV PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REFERENCE: Subdivision Regulations Section IV-B-5-e(Lot Layout) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public X Other: County Attorney EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 26, 1996 Purpose_of Amendment: To clarify Section IV-B-5-e by substituting the word"divided"for the word"separated". Impacts/Issues: The proposed amendment would provide more clarity in the text. It would not result in a substantive change to any regulation. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT: *IV-B-5-e. All lots created after the effective date of this provision shall be composed ` *Amended of contiguous land area,and that area shall not be separated divided by 10/3/88 street right-of-way or other lots. A private road easement may sgW divide 10/18/94 a new lot only if all of the following criteria are met: 1. the land underlying the easement is in the same ownership as the remainder of the lot; and 2. the proposed easement contains an existing road or driveway which is to be used for access to new lots; OR the proposed easement is if located along a property line wkiek hm will have an irregular shape; and 3. the minimum lot area requirement can be met on one side of the road easement but not both sides. Those lots with Iand area separ-Med divided by a public right-of-way prior to the effective date of this provision shall not be further subdivided in a manner which creates any additional lots with sepafated divide area. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SU 3COMNUTTEE: 7/3/96 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Paul Tripodi, an Orange County resident, stated that he was applying for permission to hold small outdoor events, such as wedding receptions. He was not interested in any of the larger scale events mentioned in the presentation. They would never have events that lasted several days or evening events which would require outdoor lighting. He has been working with the State and County Health Departments to determine what needs to be done to meet health requirements and water availability. Commissioner Gordon commented that although there does not appear to be off-site impact at this particular location, that might not be true of other applicants. At issue here is the essence of a residential area and whether or not this would generally be an appropriate residential enterprise. Mary Willis commented that this was not considered a"home occupation because it would have an impact greater than that expected from a home business, For that reason, staff developed the "Temporary Events" category. Ann Peterson, a friend of the Tripodi's, asked that the Board grant the Tripodi's request. She mentioned that the Temporary Event category is much broader than that which was requested. The Tripodi's main concern is the inconvenience and time problems associated with having to apply for a Special Use Permit for each of these events. Jim Glover, also a friend of The Tripodi's, asked the Board of County Commissioners to approve their request to hold small catered weddings on their rural property. Most of the allowed activities in this"temporary Event" category are much larger than anything that the Tripodi's would ever schedule. Patti Tripodi mentioned that there are several horse farms, a dairy farm and a brick mason in the immediate vicinity. She felt that their area was actually more commercial than residential. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners approve their request. Commissioner Gordon felt that it was very important to pay close attention to anything that would create a non- residential impact in a residential community. Commissioner Willhoit asked the County Attorney if it would be possible to limit this type of event by the number of acres involved. For example, 3 people could be allowed for each acre. Geof Gledhill replied that he would research the legality of this way of determining how many people would be allowed. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. The Planning Board is also requested to consider how they would deal with offsite impacts such as density, number of vehicles and setbacks and density. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (a) Section IV-B-5-e Lot Layout This item was presented by Mary Willis to consider a proposed amendment to clarify Section IV-B-5-e by substituting the word"divided"for the word"separated". The proposed amendment would provide more clarity in the text. It would not result in a substantive change to any regulation. 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 - None A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (b) Securing Subdivision Improvements 1) Section III-E (new) Improvements(was V-D-8) 2) Section III-C-2e Application Requirements(Minor Subdivisions) 3) Section III-D-2-a.(7) Application Requirements (Preliminary Plat) 4) Section III-D-3a Application Requirements(Final Plat) This item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations to relocate provisions regarding required improvements from Section V, "Plat Specifications," to Section 111, "Application and Approval Procedures," rewrite the section for clarity and to add language regarding construction costs estimates and financial guarantees. 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 - None A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (c) Cluster Subdivision Provisions 1) Section IV-B-9 Cluster Developments 2) Section III-D Approval Procedures for Major Subdivisions 3) Section V-A Specifications for Plat Drawings This item was presented to consider a proposed amendment to re-adopt cluster subdivision provisions and Concept Plan application and approval procedures in the Rural Buffer. The flexible development provisions are applicable in all residential zoning districts except the Rural Buffer. Deleting the previous cluster regulations and Concept Plan application and approval procedures had the unintended result of eliminating those provisions in the Rural Buffer. The Planning Staff recommends that the previous provisions be re-adopted to apply to that district only. 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 - None A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1996. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Vice-Chair Halkiotis resumed the responsibility for Chairing this meeting. Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners swore in Emily Cameron and John McGovern, an employee of the Carolina Friends School. 4. Special Use Permit (a) PD-1-96 Carolina Friends School (Modification) This item was presented by Emily Cameron to receive citizen comment on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School which would allow expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990 and modified in 1992. The current request is for 3500 square feet additional floor area for a library/arts building, a 1200 square foot addition to the Middle School for a multi-purpose room and faculty offices; 1000 square feet of office and storage space at the Early School; and enclosing a 400 square foot porch for expanded reception and office area at the Center Building. The proposed construction constitutes a major