Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2013-007 Ordinance Denying Amendment to OC Comp. Plan, UDO and Zoning Atlas z -s- 13 � b Ordinance#: ORD-2013-07 w �-,•'�.r AN ORDINANCE DENYING AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas, as established in Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts and accompanying regulations in an area of the county known as Efland, and WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district were proposed to be placed are depicted on the map in the pages attached to the Ordinance in the agenda packet for the February 5, 2013 Orange County Board of County Commissioners meeting and are identified as follows: Efland Village Overlay District PIN Approximate PIN Approximate Acreage Acreage 9844776873 1.15 9844990565 9.58 9844781300 0.65 of 0.99 9844995085 4.18 of 4.64 acre parcel acre parcel 9844781766 2.17 9844999100 0.77 of 1.93 acre parcel 9844783301 1 9854074868 0.25 9844783725 2.14 9854074909 0.44 9844784391 0.85 9854074954 0.26 9844785743 4.02 9854076999 0.27 9844786242 0.46 9854077979 0.28 9844786326 0.08 9854078927 0.04 9844787303 0.23 9854078931 0.22 9844788137 3.64 9854078939 0.02 9844788631 2.01 9854078949 0.28 9844788940 1.86 9854078996 0.24 9844799385 4.69 9854079976 0.27 9844870924 2.43 9854080094 1.77 9844874973 0.4 9854080850 1.07 9844880661 0.98 9854081212 0.51 9844880970 0.88 9854081353 0.82 9844881230 1.35 9854081693 1.66 9844882391 1.15 9854081916 0.52 9844882528 1.13 9854083138 0.15 9844883012 1.15 9854083232 0.15 9844883596 1.34 9854083321 0.51 9844883951 2.39 9854083835 1.12 1 Efland Village verlay District PIN Approximate PIN Approximate Acreage - Acreage 9844884079 0.37 9854084052 0.15 9844884284 0.38 9854084057 0.16 9844884355 0.33 9854084115 0.46 9844886648 1.14 9854084152 0.15 9844886973 1.42 9854084252 0.46 9844887024 2.03 9854084353 0.3 9844887342 0.97 9854084605 1.59 9844892385 3.51 19854086528 0.47 9844893637 2.2 9854087250 2.74 9844896163 1.3 9854088807 0.40 of 0.93 acre parcel 9844896477 3.48 9854089170 0.44 9844972913 0.59 9854089250 0.52 9844973943 0.24 9854172953 0.34 9844974903 0.24 9854173499 0.99 9844974974 0.36 9854175987 0.82 9844976945 1.37 9854180304 0.98 9844980845 9.3 9854181001 0.94 9844981114 5.8 9854184217 7.25 9844985234 1.83 9854189274 1 9844987242 1.53 9854272951 1.99 9844987792 1.77 9854274935 0.75 9844988083 1.27 9854280393 0.48 9844988391 0.74 9854281107 0.43 9844988652 0.92 9854282236 0.68 9844988811 0.35 9854283244 1.84 Efland Interstate verlay District PIN Approximate PIN Approximate Acreage Acreage 9844763221 0.79 of 5.5 9844966325 0.04 acre parcel 9844766443 1.82 of 5.02 9844970156 0.53 acre parcel 9844768882 5.64 9844970237 0.46 9844778312 5.7 9844970317 0.66 9844854839 1.29 9844970543 0.33 9844861573 16.78 9844971003 0.74 9844865155 2.72 9844972545 1.6 9844867573 12.67 9844973039 1.36 9844873438 2.67 9844973217 0.49 9844873578 0.09 9844973308 0.55 9844877368 3.64 9844975018 1.21 9844879067 0.71 9844975240 0.39 9844879543 0.68 9844975300 0.4 Efland Interstate verlay District PIN Approximate PIN Approximate Acreage --Acreage 9844960493 0.44 9844975309 0.48 9844960563 0.59 9844975514 0.94 9844960792 1.56 9844978308 3.58 9844961126 1.63 9854051970 4.58 9844963059 0.89 9854070389 3.04 9844963252 0.38 9854073630 0.52 9844963354 0.56 9854074304 6.1 9844963540 0.57 9854076601 0.51 9844963644 0.48 9854077569 0.51 9844963748 0.57 9854077601 0.51 9844965134 1.12 9854078611 0.51 9844965259 0.31 9854079412 2.48 9844965336 0.41 9854161576 90.73 9844965437 0.34 9854171451 3.68 9844965621 0.99 9854178549 2.37 9844965735 0.32 9854272077 12.89 9844965832 0.32 9854276296 2.22 9844966039 0.51 9854361253 2.02 9844966320 0.04 9854466706 8.92 of 187.77 acre parcel and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.8 of the LIDO and to Section 153A- 341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds there is insufficient documentation within the record supporting the proposed amendments and that the proposed amendments will not carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas, as detailed in the agenda packet for the February 5, 2013 Orange County Board of County Commissioners meeting, are denied. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner W /Vt J& seconded by Commissioner (Z-, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 2013. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoinq is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on Sr c2,�11 3 , 2013 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , ® CleW46 the Board of Commissioners 4 52 17 t� �ortry �a10 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 5, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 6-b SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comprehensive Plan / Future Land Use Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 919-245-2578 Map and Unified Development Ordinance Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-245- (UDO) Amendment Outline Form 2592 (U D O/Zo n i n g-2012-13) 2. Staff-Recommended Ordinance Approving Amendment 3. Planning Board-Recommended Ordinance Approving Amendment 4. Resolution - Statement of Consistency 5. Ordinance Denying Amendment 6. Resolution — Statement of Inconsistency 7. Excerpt from Draft Minutes - November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing 8. Excerpt from Approved Minutes — December 5, 2012 Planning Board Meeting PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village and urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer systems. As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input. While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public shall not be solicited. BACKGROUND: The form in Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding these County initiated amendments, which are consistent with the adopted Efland- 2 Mebane Small Area Plan. The amendment package in Attachment 2 includes a map showing the extent of the two proposed zoning overlay districts. Ninty-eight (98) parcels containing approximately 157 acres are located in the proposed Efland Village Overlay District. Sixty-four (64) parcels containing approximately 275 acres are located in the proposed Efland Interstate Overlay District. These figures include road and rail rights-of way. Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on November 14, 2012. Ten people and one BOCC member attended the meeting to learn more about the proposal. Public Hearing This proposal was heard at the November 19, 2012 joint public hearing. Please see Section C.1.b of Attachment 1 for a summary of questions and comments made at the public hearing and staff responses. Comments #4 and 5 of the referenced section contain comments on which the Planning Board was asked by staff to make a specific determination. Procedural Information In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Additionally, as a result of a 2012 NC Supreme Court decision, governing bodies are required to take two separate actions addressing a proposed zoning atlas amendment, specifically: 1. Adoption of an Ordinance approving or rejecting the proposed atlas amendment (included in Attachments 2 and 3), and 2. Adoption of a separate statement denoting the atlas amendment complies with an adopted comprehensive plan (this is the Statement that comprises Attachment 4). Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered this item at its December 5, 2012 meeting. The Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this item with recommended changes, specifically that pedestrian circulation and connectivity should be provided in the Efland Village Overlay District. (See Section C.1.b, comment 5 in Attachment 1 for additional information). The Planning Board's recommended additions are included in the text of Attachment 3 in green font color. The Planning Board approved minutes are included in Attachment 8. Planning Director's Recommendation The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas amendments contained in Attachment 2. The additions in Attachment 2 address comments made at the Quarterly Public Hearing regarding provision of an internal pedestrian system in multi-family and larger commercial projects but do not require project applicants to provide a pedestrian system that connects to adjacent parcels. The recommendation for approval is based on the following: • The amendments further implement recommendations in the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan; and 3 • The amendments are reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Comprehensive plan or part thereof; and, • The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Special Note: As noted above, the Planning Board deliberated and recommended the addition of "Pedestrian Circulation" requirements in the Efland Village overlay district (noted in green on pages 6-34 and 35 of Attachment 3). The discussion arose from a comment made at the Quarterly Public Hearing regarding the inclusion of internal pedestrian systems for larger-scale non-residential and multi-family projects in the Efland Interstate overlay district without a similar requirement proposed for the Efland Village overlay district (see Section C.1.b, comment 5 in Attachment 1). For smaller scale projects in a `village' setting, the appropriate pedestrian plan would be within the road right-of-way. However, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is responsible for road maintenance in counties and does not maintain sidewalks (see link to work session materials on this topic in Section B.1 of Attachment 1). Therein a quagmire exists - the goal of walkability but no locational public accommodation unless on private property which has associated issues. These issues have been discussed with the County Manager and County Attorney's office. Issues 1. The imposition of 'requiring' public use of private property including the cost (potentially upwards of$100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise? 2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compatible (i.e. paved)? 3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance. 4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in the potential building size. 5. Would the 'piece-meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and/or affect the development design of adjacent parcels? 6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners. 7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability. Admittedly, these issues are counterbalanced with the benefits and safety of walkability and therefore the Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical, legal and cost effective regulations in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities could potentially be explored. In the interim, the proposal in Attachment 2 should be considered for adoption. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 of Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; 2. Close the public hearing; and 4 3. Deliberate as necessary and decide accordingly. The Manager recommends 3.a. below at this time. a. If the Board decides to adopt the changes recommended by the Planning Director, the Board should adopt Attachments 2 and 4 which authorize the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas and provide the required Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. (In addition, research potential solutions to the issues noted.) b. If the Board decides to adopt the changes recommended by the Planning Board, the Board should adopt Attachments 3 and 4 which authorize the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas and provide the required Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. c. If the Board decides not to adopt any changes, the Board should adopt Attachments 5 and 6, which consist of an ordinance denying the amendments and the Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. � - 5- >� � b Chair Jacobs clarified that theoretically people outside of the county will be purchasing the homes if the Board waives those hurdles and Robert Dowling said yes, after 90 days. Commissioner McKee asked if there was any thought to transfer these homes to rental properties, considering the number of homes on the market Robert Dowling said there are several hurdles and CHT needs to stay focused on home ownership not rentals. He said another issue is that special use permits that are approved by local governments refer to home ownership, not rentals. He said if HOME funds are involved then Orange County does have a say in some of the hurdles. Commissioner McKee said they may have to start thinking out of the box. Commissioner Rich said the same letter came to the Town Council several months ago and it stated there are certain steps before Durham residents are looked at, thus giving Orange County residents preference. She said that it may be time to view that memo again. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the CHT receives any discount on the HOA dues of condos in the high end markets. Robert Dowling said this is by project. He said that for East 54 there is no discount but there is a transfer fee whereby private sector owners pay a 1% fee that is used to supplement dues. He said that Greenbridge also has transfer fees and at 140 West there is no transfer fee but there is an agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that it basically varies by project but that special assessments don't get built in and dues can rise, making transfer fees inadequate. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the subsidies mentioned are upfront or if they are additional with homeowner dues. Robert Dowling said that subsidies are put in at the initial sale, but because median income has declined and everything else goes up, creating the need to re-subsidize when it is transferred. Chair Jacobs said he gave Tara Fikes some suggested topics from the retreat to share with the joint meeting on March 12. Tara Fikes said their advisory board is reviewing the letter now. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments and Zonina Atlas Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) The Board will receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village and urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer systems. Perdita Holtz said, because of the presence of new Board members and because the staff and Planning Board recommendations differ, she would do a review of the plan text using PowerPoint. The slides are included in the abstract notes for Item 6B and are as follows: Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area February 5, 2013 Item 6.b Zoning Atlas Amendment(Map-see abstract) • Heard at November 19, 2012 quarterly public hearing and referred to Planning Board for a recommendation. • Staff asked Planning Board to specifically weigh in on: a. Whether to retain the staff-proposed "tick" for a Special Zoning Overlay District in the 20-Year Transition land use classification. b. Whether an "internal pedestrian circulation system" should be required in the Efland Village Overlay District on a large project. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment(Chart-see abstract) Planning Board Recommendation • Keep the "tick" in the 20-Year Transition row. • Include language to require privately-owned, connecting walkways throughout the Efland Village Overlay District. c. Believes that provision of a pedestrian system (and other modes of transportation) is very important • Unanimously voted to recommend approval if pedestrian system language added. Staff Recommendation • Partially based on October 2011 work session regarding sidewalks and NC counties' challenges in providing and maintaining sidewalks. d. BOCC sentiment that getting into "the sidewalk business" is not feasible at this time. • Also based on issues identified in abstract regarding requiring private provision of an interconnecting public walkway system. • Require that "large" projects in Efland Village Overlay District provide an "internal pedestrian circulation system" e. "Large" defined (for this overlay district) as: i. Located on 2 or more acres or ii. > 15,000 square feet of building area iii. Large parking area: > 50 parking spaces • Also continue to acknowledge the importance of providing sidewalks and facilities for other modes of transportation. • Pursue opportunities to advance these ideas and ways counties can implement them at the State level. Manager's Recommendation • Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval with changes (require interconnecting walkways) • Close the public hearing • Deliberate as necessary and decide accordingly -Manager recommends adoption of the staff-recommended ordinance in Attachment 2 and the Resolution of Consistency in Attachment 4 Chair Jacobs clarified that if the Board follows staff recommendation, attachments 2 and 4 will be adopted and if the Board follows the Planning Board's recommendation, attachments 3 and 4 will be adopted. Perdita Holtz said this is correct. Commissioner McKee questioned why approval of either recommendation would not put the area in the sidewalk business. Perdita Holtz said the internal pedestrian system would be private for use of development residents only, but it would not be open to the public or interconnected to adjacent parcels. She said that the sidewalks would be owned and maintained by the property owners. Frank Clifton said with the alternative of a small office or shopping complex which would provide walkways to get to and from the complex from the parking area and again, would be maintained by the property owners. He said that there were just so many hurdles with sidewalks when the county does not have a public works department. He said that it is an issue to be looked at further; the state has given the county permission to get into the sidewalk business, but no revenue to do so. Commissioner Price said, with regards to the sidewalks in a small development, she wondered if this would be a requirement for every development. Perdita Holtz said it would be a sidewalk in the public right of way and would be provided by the developer. Commissioner Price questioned if it would it be a requirement for builders Perdita Holtz said it would not be frontage and the language does give the Planning Board Director some leeway in the site review process. Commissioner Price questioned if the sidewalk has to be concrete or could just be extra shoulder width. Perdita Holtz said the Unified Development Ordinance does not specify a material, but the sidewalk would just have to be designated in some way. Commissioner Price said when the planning board was discussing this, did they have any specific ideas about sidewalk versus extra right-of-way areas on the road. Perdita Holtz said that it had started out as a right-of-way discussion but this did not mesh with DOT standards for sidewalks. She said the discussion then turned to how to have sidewalk on private property for public use, but specific materials were not discussed. This was left open so as to be site specific and determined during the site plan review process. Commissioner Rich said she is a big fan of connectivity and wondered if there is a way to make sure that there is connectivity. She questioned if the area is being looked at as a whole or each parcel individually. She said she believes it should be a goal to have parcels connected. Perdita Holtz said staff is a proponent of connectivity, but their hands are tied by the state. She said that the NCDOT has not been receptive to allowing sidewalks in the right-of- way or of taking on any maintenance responsibility. She said things are done on a site by site basis and there are requirements for open space connectivity. Commissioner Rich said this is a concern and as overlay districts happen throughout the County, the developments should not isolated. She said that the full picture is not being considered if connectivity is not allowed. Commissioner Price said the Board is getting caught up with the word sidewalk when it could be called a walk way and should just be about getting to point A and point B without being in the middle of the street. She said that NCDOT should allow use of right-of-ways for bicycles. Perdita Holtz said the staffs recommendation is to continue to bring this issue to the forefront at the state level. Frank Clifton said as staff looked at this, the reality of this village concept in a rural area is that they don't have a connectivity plan. The hesitancy of DOT to accept more responsibility for these right-of-ways and with the Board of County Commissioners not wanting to be involved in the maintaining of those right-of-ways, creates the awkward position of asking property owners to put the walkway in and accept the maintenance and liability. He said there is need for more study and a decision about how far the County wants to get into the urbanization business. He said that the state is expanding ability but not revenue sources for this. He said that if the desire is to encourage development then before rules burdening property owners are established, the issues need to be studied further. Commissioner Gordon said she supported connectivity, but wondered if there is a collector street plan for this area, because they are trying to make this more urban but they have no mechanism for connectivity. She said the whole point was to allow more non- residential development but there needs to be a path to that. She said that collector street plans are more in the paradigm and at least have the developer build the street. Perdita Holtz said they could look at this issue. She noted that in Efland, many of the lots go to the center line of the roads and DOT maintains them but does not own any right of ways. She said that the suggestion is to adopt the overlay districts at this time and put some design standards in place before any more large scale development takes place, while continuing to work on the topic of sidewalks. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that what the staff recommends is approval of the internal walkway plan for the five acre interstate district with no walkway plan for the village district. Perdita Holtz said that for the Village District there would be an internal pedestrian system required for projects on 2 acres or greater than 15,000 square feet of building area. She said that there is leeway in this during the site plan process. Commissioner Dorosin questioned how the Planning Board's recommendation differs. Perdita Holtz said that the Planning Board recommends a privately owned and maintained walkway system throughout the area, on private property. Commissioner Dorosin questions how this differs from the requirement for 2 acres or more. Perdita Holtz said the 2 acre requirement is only for internal use, larger businesses would only have walkways between buildings; however the Planning Board's recommended walkways would be a private sidewalk system that anyone could use. x-5"- / 3 Commissioner Dorosin said his question is with regard to the approval process and he wonders if they could incentivize the developers to provide a publicly accessible sidewalk. Perdita Holtz said there would need to be a sidewalk plan for the area to avoid issues with encouraging trespass on adjoining properties if a sidewalk ends at the edge of one property and is not continued on the next. Commissioner Pelissier said most lots in this overlay district either face Hwy 70 or Efland Cheeks Road and these are highly traveled roads. She said that requiring sidewalks is not going to encourage connectivity in this area. Perdita Holtz said the internal pedestrian system is an amenity for that property. Commissioner McKee said that this issue brings up questions that center on the cost of housing and the cost of building in Orange County. He said that he does not believe the planning is not far enough along to really consider and he feels the discussion is premature. He said there should be a closer look at connectivity and whether this will continue the escalation in property cost on housing and businesses. He thinks the high housing cost in Orange County is partially due to these regulations. Chair Jacobs asked Craig Benedict how this fits into the Planning Department's work plan to pursue a connectivity plan. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said there is an Efland/Mebane area implementation focus group that could be re-convened to discuss this issue along with other topics that come with making this a village area. He said that the struggle is that there are designated urban transition areas, yet there are characteristics that fit more with a rural county. He said that if growth is to be promoted, the connectivity characteristic is needed. He said there will be a work plan note put together and sent to the Commissioners on what the Planning Board is trying to achieve and how progress will be made. He said there is potential to bring this up on the work plan for this year. Chair Jacobs agreed with the connectivity issue being a priority and said this issue has been discussed in the Efland area for about 8 years. He said it has not been satisfactorily addressed. He said either recommendation will require more work for planning staff. He said that an incentive plan is worth looking at and a connectivity plan is essential. He said that if intensity is going to be encouraged then comprehensive connectivity must be dealt with. He said that it is the job of the Board, if planning for urban style growth, to plan for urban style transit and he would hope for concrete recommendations this year. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made try Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt item 3-c which states the Board will not adopt any changes, and that the Board will adopt Attachments 5 and 6, which consist of an ordinance denying the amendments and the Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and that staff and the Planning Board will address and answer the issues on page 3, Items 1-7 listed below: 1. The imposition of'requiring' public use of private property including the cost (potentially upwards of$100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise? 2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) w jw compatible (i.e. paved)? 3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance. 4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in the potential building size. 5. Would the 'piece-meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and/or affect the development design of adjacent parcels? 6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners. 7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability. Commissioner Dorosin said he sees the seven issues as narrower than what Chair Jacobs said about connectivity plans and urbanization of the area. Commissioner McKee said his intent is that this be moved back to the Planning Board and staff for discussion and not that any comments or ideas discussed be eliminated or not considered. He said the idea of putting the plan in place and then addressing the issues is counterproductive and said that he is supportive of the village and the zoning. Chair Jacobs said #7 on page 3 is just a comment, not a direction and he questioned Commissioner McKee's intention in requesting an answer to this open ended statement. Commissioner McKee said the intention is to address the lack of overall plan or to ask what the plan is. Chair Jacobs said he wanted to clarify if the Board is directing staff to proactively address a walkability plan or just saying that there is no overall plan. Commissioner McKee said the issue of need for, or lack of need for, a master plan should be part of the Planning Board and staff's discussion. He said that his concern continues to be the 700 pages of the Economic Development Ordinance and its impact on the affordability of housing and the attractiveness of locating businesses in Orange County. Commissioner Rich said it feels like this is not ready to be voted on. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Motion 3-c should include the additional statement to "Accept the planning director's recommendation", followed by the recommendation wording below Issue 7 on page 3, which states as follows: ...Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical, legal and cost effective regulation in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities (should) potentially be explored Commissioner McKee accepted the friendly amendment Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification about Commissioner McKee's original statement of the issues. Chair Jacobs said that he read 3-c and then asked for answers and clarification to issues 1-7. Commissioner Gordon said she would say address the issues and then add the second point she read previously, changing the word could to should. Commissioner Rich accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Price said that liability is mentioned with regard to pedestrian walkways but she is concerned about safety and this is not mentioned. Commissioner Dorosin asked Craig Benedict about the recommendation of adoption of Attachment 2, in the interim. Craig Benedict said that, aside from the pedestrian walkway issue, there are 15-20 good aspects that are not being questioned and make sense. He said that going with 3-c throws these good things out. He said that going with Attachment 2 accepts these good things and holds off the pedestrian circulation issues. Chair Jacobs said that if you read 3-c it states that everything comes to a halt. r' VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Rich Commissioner McKee Commissioner Gordon Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Dorosin) Motion passed Commissioner Pelissier questioned if there would be a need for a new public hearing. Perdita Holtz said yes and noted that the buffer requirements are still in effect. Chair Jacobs asked for clarification regarding all of the discussion on buffering. He referred to page 59— c, and said the statements about vegetative buffering do not clarify if existing vegetation can be used. Perdita Holtz said that existing vegetations is acceptable and referred to this statement in section 6.8. 7. Regular Aaenda a. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendment Outline and Schedule for Upcomina Item —Orange-Alamance County Line Adjustment The Board considered processes components and schedule for a Planning Director initiated item for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas related to the finalization of the Orange-Alamance County Line, currently scheduled for the May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing. For the purpose of informing the new Board members, Craig Benedict presented a PowerPoint Presentation on the background information. He referred to the slides that follow: February 5, 2013 AGENDA ITEM Comprehensive Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments— Orange Alamance Line ORANGE-ALAMANCE COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE REPORT(Graphic) BACKGROUND: • Boundary line had become 'uncertain' over the years creating contradictory maps. • Both the Orange and Alamance County Board of Commissioners requested the North Carolina Geodetic Survey (NCGS) prepare preliminary surveys linking description to field monuments BACKGROUND: • Both Counties initiated process •Adoption of Session Law 2010-61 petition criteria to 'adjust the line' • Project involved numerous Orange County departments including, but not limited to: Manager's office, Planning, Land Records, Tax Administration, GIS, Attorney's office, Health Department, etc. BACKGROUND: • 91% Line' was resolved with the passing of Session Law 2011-88 on May 25, 2011