HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-17-1994 - VII-A 1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 17. 1994
Agenda Abstract
Item # a_A
SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF MAY 5, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING -
UNIVERSITY STATION/OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT AREA
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes - 5/5/94 Public Hearing Planning Director X2592
Open Space Development Area Proposals
G.S. 160A, Article 4A, Part 1 PHONE NUMBERS:
Annexation Petition Hillsborough 732-8181
Hillsborough Resolution Re: Cooperative Planning Mebane 227-2031
Agreement Durham 688-7331
Article 1.33 - Cooperative Planning Agreement Chapel Hill 967-9251
Article 3 - Cooperative Planning Agreement
PURPOSE: To continue discussion on the disposition of proposed amendments to the Land
Use Element (map and text) of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text
amendments include a description of and locational criteria for a new plan
category entitled"Open Space Development Area"The proposed map amendment
would apply the new category to the University Station site.
BACKGROUND: On May 5, 1994, a special public hearing was conducted on the above mentioned
proposals. Following receipt of a staff report and citizen comments, the Board of
Commissioners discussed the disposition of the proposals, The Board continued
the discussion to this meeting and asked staff to provide information concerning
municipal annexation procedures and development options available under the
current ordinances.
Annexation Procedures.Procedures for annexation of contiguous property are
set forth in G.S. 160A,Article 4A, Part 1. The steps are as follows:
1. Presentation to the governing board of a petition signed by the owners of
all real property in the area(A petition was submitted on May 2, 1994 to
the Town of Hillsborough.)
2. Municipal governing board causes the clerk of the municipality to
investigate the sufficiency of the petition and certify the result of the
investigation.(The clerk certified the sufficiency of the petition on May 9,
1994 at a Hillsborough Town Board meeting.)
3. Upon receipt of the certification, the municipal governing board shall fix
the date of the public hearing,and shall cause notice of the hearing to be
published once in a newspaper in the municipality at least 10 days prior
to the hearing. (June 6, 1994 has been set as the public hearing date for
i
2
the annexation question.)
4. At the public hearing, all persons who own property in the area to be
annexed who allege error in the petition shall be given an opportunity to
be heard. In addition, all residents of the municipality who question the
necessity for annexation shall be heard.
5. Following the hearing, the governing board shall then determine if the
petition meets the requirements of G.S. 160A,Article 4A, Part 1. Upon
making such findings,the governing board shall have the authority to pass
an ordinance making the annexation effective immediately or on any
specified date within six months of the date of passage of the ordinance.
Because of the implications of the proposed annexation on the Cooperative
Planning Agreement, the Hillsborough Town Board also adopted a resolution
withdrawing from the agreement. 30 days written notice is required to withdraw
from the agreement.
If the Town chooses to annex the property, the County's regulations remain in
effect until:
1. The Town has adopted such regulations; or
2. A period of 60 days has elapsed following the annexation.
During this period, the Town may hold hearings and take other measures that
may be required to adopt its regulations for the area [G.S. 160A-360 (f)].
Development Options-Current Ordinances: During the 1987-1992 period,
the average lot size (including street right-of-way) in conventional subdivisions
approved in Eno Township was 1.83 acres. These subdivisions were served by
individual wells and septic systems. If this average is applied to the total
University Station site, the number of units permitted is 464 (850 divided by
1.83). This is equivalent to an overall density of 0.54 units/gross acre.
Cluster subdivisions are permitted under the current ordinances.In determining
the maximum number of lots allowed, rights-of-way are first eliminated from the
gross land area (850 acres-43 acres). The remaining area is then divided by the
minimum required lot size of 40,000 sq.ft. (879 units).
Lot sizes may be reduced by half to 20,000 sq.ft., resulting in 403 acres in lots
(excluding street rights-of-way).With rights-of-way included,the acreage required
would be approximately 454 acres. Lot sizes may be reduced below 20,000 sq.ft.,
but only if the development is submitted as a Planned Development.
At least 20 percent of the gross land area (170 acres) must be set aside in open
space. Not more than 50 percent of the open space may be occupied by sewage
treatment systems or utilities.Natural areas must be protected,and recreational
uses are allowed, including golf courses (permitted by right).
In summary, a cluster development might contain the following acreage
allocations:
3
Gross Land Area 850 acres
Less: Existing Rights-of-Wav 43 acres
Remaining Land Area 813 acres
Less: Area in Lots 403 acres
Remaining Land Area 410 acres
Less: New Rights-of-Way 51 acres
Remaining Land Area 359 acres
Less: Required Oven Space (2090 170 acres
Remaining Land Area 189 acres
(for community nitrification fields and other open space)
Whether or not University Station could be developed as a cluster subdivision is
questionable. Community nitrification fields require considerable land area and
must be located on soils with sufficient capacity to assimilate the effluent. Only
through extensive site analysis could this be determined.
Relationship to Rural Character Strategies: A report is to be presented at
this meeting on the results of community meetings held to obtain citizen comment
on the proposed Rural Character strategies. The report also includes suggested
options based on these comments,and they should be considered in relation to the
"Open Space Development Area" proposals.
Open Space Development Zoning District Proposals: On May 23, 1994,a
new zoning district, OSD - Open Space Development, is being proposed, along
with standards applicable in that district. The proposals are intended to
implement the land use plan category and locational criteria presented at the May
5 public hearing. Copies of the proposals are included as an attachment.
RECONM ENDATION: Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance by
an individual or agency are treated in the same manner;e.g.,the public hearing is the
time for the presentation of the Zoning Officer's analysis and recommendation. Such
are also bound by the time limits contained in Article 20.7 of the Zoning Ordinance in
terms of preparation of a Planning Board recommendation.Amendments initiated by
the County, including amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text, are not bound by
the same procedure.Although the Zoning Officer normally presents a recommendation
in such cases, the only time limitations are those specified by the Board of
Commissioners during the public hearing process.
Zoning Officer Recommendation
As noted at the May 5, 1994 public hearing,options for open space development were
presented for citizen comment. Thus, no recommendation was presented by the
Zoning Officer.
Administration Recommendation
Provided the Board of Commissioners wishes to consider the proposed amendments
for possible adoption,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 June 28, 1994. The Administration further
recommends that all comments received at the May 5, 1994 public hearing as well as
the discussion of the Rural Character strategies from this meeting be included as part
of the record of the May 23, 1994 quarterly public hearing.
MAY-10-1994 14:35 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.01 4
1
D R A F T
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT MEETING
MAY 5, 1994
MINUTES
1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning
2 Board met in joint session on Thursday, May 5, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior
3 Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of holding a joint
4 public hearing.
5
6 agm= Q=XNEZQ=2 PRE6EMT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and
7 Commissioners Alice Gordon, Verla Insko, Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit.
8 PLA_.MNG ; I 1HESEHT: William Waddell, Chair and members
9 Margaret Brown, Elisabeth halters, Virginia Boland, Karen Barrows, Cheri
10 Rosemond., and Clint Surklin
11 COOMTT A"ORN2T ZURMs. Goof Gledhill
12 STAW PILZB T: County Manager John Link, Clerk to the Board Beverly
13 Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins and Planner Mary Willis.
14
15
16 &„ op mm; 18E1me n= Tn cmax
17 Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting.
18
19 IS PUBLIC QSUM
20 Chair Carey read the public charge.
21
22
23 Srs pVBLZQ`$ x4
24
25 JUL C1 & ng=xD 0128 8P CE QEQELOpI[C" AREA LAND Val PLAN CATEGORY
26 A.L C-9-94 DMZ4Ej XVT STITT
27
28 Those items were presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins for
29 the purpose of receiving citizen comments on proposed amendments to the text
30 of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The specific
31 proposal is to create a new land use plan category entitled "Open Spaces
32 Development Area." The second item to be considered is the application of
33 that category to the University Station project. In December, 1993 the Board
34 of Commissioners and the Hillsborough Town Board not to discuss various items
35 related to the cooperative planning effort between the two jurisdictions. A
36 work Group was established to concentrate on issues relating to the University
37 Station project. The Town of Hillsborough was considering whether to annex
38 the University Station property or to leave it in the County's jurisdiction.
39 In January, 1994 the Work Group not to consider a draft resolution which
40 called for the formation of a Small Area Planning Group with a specific charge
41 for dealing with University Station. After further consideration, both Boards
42 adopted resolutions containing charges to that work group. Both jurisdictions
43 committed to the principle that areas designated open space would generally
�— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
MAY-10-1994 14:37 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING S
2
1 remain non-urban? containing low density residential uses and allowing for the
2 extension of town water and sewer into designated open space areas serving
3 large developments or combinations of small ones which set aside significant
4 open space.
5
6 The County charge also included the statement that such projects would
7 conform to adopted Rural Character Study guidelines. The Charge called for
8 at least 30% of the buildable area to be set aside as open space. "Buildable
9 area" was defined as the total tract area, less any rights of way for streets,
10 railroads or utility lines. This M did not include unbuildable natural
11 cultural resources such as wetlands or steep slopes.
12 The County resolution also stated that no more than two units per acre could
13 be established on the buildable acreage. The Charge adopted by Hillsborouqh
14 indicated that the 304 buildable space applied to the total tract, without
15 consideration of unbuildable areas or rights-of-way. They also indicated that
16 no more than two units per acre would be applied to the remaining 70%. The
17 work Group held an organizational meeting and then participated in a design
is workshop. A set of recommendations was presented to the governing boards.
19 The basic issues before the Work Group were how much open space to recommend,
20 exactly what is open space, how much density should be allowed and how would
21 it be applied. Also, issues surrounding water and sewer services were
22 discussed. In February two teams were foamed. The Hillsborouqh team was
23 comprised of the Town Board members and the developer's representatives. The
24 County team consisted of the County Commissioners and the neighborhood's
25 representatives. Both teams presented a plan. The neighborhood also
26 presented the "Arendt Plan". Each of these proposed plans resulted in a
27 recommended primary conservation area of 151.9 acres; however, the secondary
28 conservation areas varied greatly. Hillsborough's plan suggested 248.8 acres,
29 orange County's plan suggested 309.7 acres and the Arendt plan suggested 523.4
30 acres. Charts showing how theme figures were reached are in the r*rmanent
31 agenda file in the Clerk's office. A chart titled, "summary of open space and
32 development characteristics for the University Station site" indicated the
33 number of allowable units for each of these plans. The Hillsborouqh plan
34 allowed 1,0&2 units, the orange County plan allowed 930 and the Arendt plan
35 allowed 464. The fork Group reached consensus on the issue of public
36 utilities provided that they be limited to the University Station project and
37 that the limitation be enforceable. The density would be limited to 946
38 individual units, however, the density impact would be addressed by the County
39 as a part of the public hearing process. Also, the level of density could be
40 adjusted subject to the monetary advantages of land conservancy to the
41 developers. Intensive, discussion focused on the use of the 160 acres between
42 old NC 10 and the railroad tract. Initially consensus was reached, however,
43 it was decided that further discussion was needed to define an option which
44 establishes for this area an appropriate mix of open space, elements of the
45 golf course, wildlife corridor, and/or necessary number of housing units.
46 various options are being presented for citizen comment at this meeting.
47
48 A now Land Use Plan category titled "Open Space Development Area, is
49 also being presented at this Public Hearing. The Board of Commissioners are
50 scheduled to receive a report on May 17th on the Rural Character Strategies.
51 on May 23rd, at the regular. Quarterly Public Hearing, another public hearing
52 will be held relating to this issue. Zoning Standards and a new Zoning
MAY-10-1994 14:39 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING 6
3
1 District, entitled Open Space Development, will be presented for citizen
2 comment. That Zoning district and the standards associated with it, seek to
3 implement a planning category that is being proposed tonight. Without those
4 standards in place, the project being presented would not be in a position to
5 be evaluated.
6
7 M BOBLIC X=IXO WAD OPBX FOR QU28TIOX8 AXD/OR COMai =8 FROM M BOARD Or
8 COMM68IOUR8 OR PLMIXO BOARD
9
10 In response to a question from commission Insko, Marvin Collins
11 indicated that the Hoard could request that the comments received at this
12 meeting be considered as part of the public record for the May 23rd meeting.
13
14
15 Collins indicated that if developers donated a certain amount of open
16 space to a conservancy and they were able to obtain tax credits or other
17 financial benefits, it aright be possible to reduce the density based on the
IS open space that was preserved. The other possibility is that they might be
19 compensated by a conservancy or other organization for this open space, which
20 they could apply to the project cost. This would result in reduced density.
21 In response to a question, he indicated that the Lacefield's property
22 contained 176 lots. Also, he indicated that the 120 acre plot want of the
23 wildlife corridor. drained toward the stream.
24
25 Roger Hernholtz, an attorney representing Arthur Cogswell and
26 Amerivest, Inc, the developers who are requesting that these amendments be
27 adopted said that this proposal is actually a rural village. The land is
28 currently Zoned R1 which would allow development of residential structures,
29 approximately 1 per acre, with septic tanks and wells. The plan is to create
30 an area where the land is protected with large areas of open space. The
31 amount of open space would be at least 30%. $a foals that this proposed
32 development is the best choice for the land. To the west of this land is the
33 10 year transition area which has been designated in the Land Use Plan for the
34 expansion of water and sewer. To the east of this site is a trailer park.
35 He said that this land is particularly suited for the category that is being
36 proposed. It would create a slightly higher density development area than the
37 rural buffer. The open space category states that 30% of the gross land area
38 of the tract be set aside ae open space. That is a reasonable and progressive
39 amount of set aside land. He indicated that it is important to create a
40 development category that will allow for the development of water and sewer
41 for this project. Managed and controlled growth for residential development
42 using water and sewer is the best approach. The density needs to be
43 established by using a formula. That formula would subtract the amount of
44 open space from the total amount of gross land area with the application of
45 a maximum density of two units per acre. He also indicated the need for a
46 variety of zoning categories in the land use designation. A rural village
47 development concept needs to be a possibility. Local or community commercial
48 areas will be necessary in this type of area. Open space normally includes
49 all areas which cannot be built. He suggested that open space include
50 vegetative recreation areas, buffers, set backs for utility easements as well
51 as other areas which by their nature, must be left open. The goal is to
52 create unified. areas of open space.
MAY-10-1994 14:41 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING
7
h
4
1 UN PUBLIC lawn W" opm I! CISIf W Columns
2
3 Michael Warner, an Orange County resident, indicated that he supports
4 the need for open space. However, the real issue is density. He opposes
5 allowing two units per acre, which would quadruple the present density
6 allowances. Re feels that this proposal would destroy the rural character of
7 orange County. He indicated that the typical density in rural Orange County
8 is approximately 7 houses per 100 acres. The density in the Town of
9 Hillsborough is 71 units per 100 acres. The Town of Chapel Hill is 147 houses
10 per 100 acres. He indicated that the current land proposal would allow up to
11 two units per acre which is 200 houses per 100 acres. If the 304 was
12 subtracted from the 100 acres it would allow 200 houses on 70 acres. He
13 suggested a proposal be adopted that requires open space and allows septic
14 systems using: the present Land Use Plan.
15
16 Robert Grill, architect and planner from Greensboro, indicated that the
17 roads in the rural portions of the county are currently underutilized. The
18 proposed development will not appreciably impact on these roads. It will
19 increase traffic, however, the roads are certainly able to handle it. There
20 will be left turn lanes added to help traffic move along. He indicated that
21 current traffic counts indicate that approx 1500 to 2000 cars a day travel on
22 Old NC 10; approximately 1000 to 1500 on New Hope Church Road; and
23 approximately 400 on University Station Road. He indicated that additional
24 traffic resulting from this development would be 3000 to 6000. They estimate
25 that 3000 of those cars will travel south on Now Rope Church Road or Hwy. 86;
26 an additional 254 would travel east on Hwy. 10; and, 154 would go west on Hwy
27 10.
28
29 Dr. Leon Lucas, with N.C. State University, addressed the issues of
30 turf grass and open space. He commented that the majority of turf grass is
31 used in hose and golf courses. Turf grass stabilizes soils, improves water
32 infiltration, removes sediment from water., and cools surrounding areas. He
33 indicated the State has established zany regulations in the use of this turf
34 grass in order to avoid sedimentation. Tests have shown that when fertilizer
35 and pesticides were applied according to best management practices, no
36 problems were detected. Turf grass is considered to be an excellent
37 biological filter system.. Re stated that he fools that well maintained golf
38 courses should be -considered as open space.
39
40 Roy Roth, an Orange County resident, spoke against this proposed
41 amendment saying that it would negatively impact 'the school system, increase
42 automobile traffic, devastate rural open space and increase the tax burden of
43 orange County residents. His comments in their entirety are in the permanent
44 agenda file in the Clerkys office.
45
46 Robert Griffin, a resident of the Town of Chapel Hill, asked that the
47 open space designation be based on long term planning rather than on the short
48 term development interest. He requested that a small group of scientifically
49 trained citizens be appointed to study this issue before any development is
50 started.
51
52 Martha Lorantos, a resident of Orange County, spoke in support of long
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MAY-10-1994 14:43 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING g
r
5
1 range planning. She does not support the Land Use Plan which is being
2 considered. She spoke in favor of using the Arendt plan as a first choice and
3 the current zoning if the Arendt plan is not adopted.
4
5 Jan Halle, an Orange County resident, spoke against the extension of
6 water and sewer from Hillsborough. Open space and cluster development is the
7 answer for the rural area= however, developers need to be required to adhere
8 to the current zoning. The average perkability is approximately one unit per
9 two acres= quadrupling the density does not provide the answer to more open
10 space. She felt that open space needs to be properly defined as river and
11 stream beds, agricultural lands, and contiguous wildlife corridors.
12
13 Diane Bloom , an Orange County resident, stated that there are 24,000
14 acres in Eno Township. That includes 10,500 undeveloped acres, 3,600 acres
15 are in agriculture, 51640 are managed forest. That leaves 20,000 which could
16 be developed. A long range. planning process is vital in order to protect a
1.7 unique and rich blend of wetlands and woodlands. She suggested as a
18 requirement for open space cluster developments, under a yield plan, 504 of
19 the buildable land be set aside for agricultural, preserved woodlands or
20 active recreation. That would preserve the beauty and be economically
21 beneficial.
22
23 Callie Warner, an Orange County resident, spoke against this proposal
24 and presented a petition in opposition signed by 70 residents. She showed
25 slides which showed the proposed University Station area and the natural
26 beauty of that area, The petitions contained 48 signatures and read as
27 follows:
28 "This petition is a formal request to the Board of County
29 Commissioners by the undersigned citizens of Orange County. We
30 would like to participate in a small area planning process in the
31 rural-residential section of orange County. The area under
32 consideration would-encompass approximately 3000 acres bounded to
33 the Pest by Old 86, to the East by gighway 70, to the North by
34 Hillsborough's Transition Area and to the South by the Rural
35 Buffer. This area would include the proposed University Station
36 site.
37
38 Many property owners in this region are willing to engage in a pro-
39 active process for long-range planning. Due to the tremendous
40 growth n this part of the county, and a common goal to preserve
41 and. protect significant ecological and rural features, we feel the
42 small area planning process is the only appropriate approach. This
43 is not an unprecedented request. The southern part of Orange
44 County (in the Chapel Hill Planning Jurisdiction) has already
45 engaged in one small area planning process which led to a
46 successful conclusion. We would appreciate your prompt attention
47 to this request and we feel confident that, as our elected
48 officials., you will support a process that encourages citizen
49 participation."
50
51
52 Julie Andresen, an Orange County resident, spoke as a member of the
MAY-10-1994 14:45 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING
9
6
1 Citizens for Livable Comsunities committee. She indicated that it is
2 important to apply the principles of sustainable development to the land in
3 orange County. One of those principles is to conserve and preserve natural
4 resources. Another is to encourage local empowerment and participation.
5 Also, it is necessary to apply zoning based on a vision created by the people
6 in the community. A plan needs to be implemented which is not a direct
7 response to an individual development. Developers must be required to pay for
8 the impact of their development. The current proposal would create an urban
9 development with a demand for urban services which will put a tax burden on
10 the current residents. Development follows water and sewer and should not be
it used to solve all of the problems related to failing sewers in the rural
12 areas. It is very expensive and not necessarily the appropriate answer in the
13 rural areas. She feels that non-municipal alternative systems can be made
14 safe and function very well.
15
16 Gwen Cagle spoke in opposition to this proposal. As a land owner in
17 close proxiaity to the proposed University Station development, she feels that
18 the quality of life would be greatly harmed if thin was approved.
19
20 sandy Stallings, a resident of Orange County, indicated that the rural
21 character of the area has changed dramatically in the last 25 years. She said
22 that long range goals, not development options, need to be used in making
23 zoning decisions. If water and sewer is extended into the rural residential
24 area, as well as the rural buffer, land values will rise which will prevent
25 small scale, low impact,. development. This proposal will encourage urban
26 sprawl. Open space, cluster development is the solution but must be based on
27 the carrying capacity of the land with fifty (50%) open space, excluding the
28 unbuildable areas. She suggested appointing a committee of biologists and
29 concerned citizens to study and define how open space preservation should be
30 determined.
31
32 Ilenw Siegler, a resident of Orange County,. spoke against this proposed
33 amendment saying that the rural buffer and rural character both need to be
34 preserved.
35
36 Dennis Boucher, small business owner in Hillsborough and an Orange
37 County landowner, spoke in opposition to the proposed land use amendment. He
38 suggested that only long range planning be permitted based upon 50% open
39 space, including the unbuildable areas, and adopted into the Comprehensive Use
40 Plan._ He feels that water and sewer needs. to be prohibited in the rural
41 residential and rural buffer areas. He asked that citizens be included in a
42 small area planning .process.
43
44 Barbara Robertson, a resident of Old NC 10, spoke in opposition to this
45 proposed amendsent. In particular she supported the comments made by Callie
46 warner. Her neighbors are worried about the University Station proposal.
47 Affordable housing is an issue not addressed by this proposal. Long range
498 planning needs to be done with citizen participation.
50 Dan Kenan, an Orange County resident, spoke in opposition to this
51 proposal. He is in favor of open space development but feels that the i
52 amendment being considered would create urban sprawl. Changes to the
MAY-10-1994 14:47 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING 10
7
1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan regarding open space needs to be handled by a
2 small area planning group. No amendment should occur until such a plan has
3 been completed. He mentioned that the Cooperative Sanctuary has stressed
4 environmental education aimed at the golf course management industry. This
5 program receives endorsement and financial support from the U.S. Golf
6 Association, Club Managers Association and the PGA Tour. The standards
7 established by the Cooperative Sanctuary program needs to be applied as the
8 minimum standards for all new golf course construction. A copy of his full
9 statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerks office.
10
11 John Hartwell made reference to when the water and sewer policy was
12 initially established. He pointed out that this policy was intended to
13 discourage the extension of water and sewer to other areas. At that time the
14 Board of Commissioners had reservations about whether water providers could
15 be prevented from allowing tap on's, even with stipulations, if the lines were
16 already in place. He suggested that the current prohibitions be maintained.
17 If cluster development is allowed in the rural buffer it will be necessary to
18 provide water and sewer.
19
20 Lester. Ray, an orange county dairy farmer, commented that his family
21 has farmed in the county for 7 generations. He spoke in opposition to the
22 open space category. The average age of the orange County dairy farmer in 60
23 years old. This indicates that much land will change hands in the next 10
24 years. Thera is not currently an option for preserving farm land. The
25 transfer of development rights and the purchase 'of development rights needs
26 to be studied and implemented in the county.
27
28 Bob Hall, an Orange County resident, spoke in opposition to this
29 amendment. The definition of Open Space is vague and must be more clearly
30 defined. He stated that the zoning districts being presented do not actually
31 apply to the University Station request. He indicated that some of the
32 language in the proposal uses words like "may" be rather than "shall or must"
33 be. This proposal offers incentives for heavy development in areas where that
34 type of development should not happen. He read from the Concept page (pq.
35 3.2) as follows. "To minimize existing energy efficient and land consuming
36 patterns of rural sprawl, the land use element is premised on two basic
37 strategies: Creating activity nodes and maximizing in-fill development. The
38 in-fill development is premised on the desirability of encouraging development
39 to occur first within the corporate limits of the town, then where
40 appropriate, within the areas surrounding the towns in the transition area
41 from rural to urban. "To achieve this goal requires a combination of
42 incentives and disincentives to development activity, which include but are
43 not limited to allowing higher densities and intensity of land use within the
44 urban and urbanizing areas and allowing only low intensity uses outside of
45 these areas. " In his opinion the county Commissioners have a legal basis to
46 reject this avAmidmont. A copy of his complete statement is in the permanent
47 agenda file in the ClerkFs office.
48
49 Genie Kamirues spoke about the addition of a land use element category
50 of Open Space Development Area. She feels that an open space development
51 plan must exist to protect the land. She asked that 508 buildable land be
52 protected as open space. The preservation of a wildlife corridor to link
MAY-10-1994 14:49 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING
11
8
1 mayor tracts of protected land must be maintained. Also, the maximum number
2 of units should be based on the carrying capacity of the land itself which
3 would allow for the use of alternative systems. Public water and sewer must
4 not be allowed. A small area plan should be developed for each area in Orange
5 County. She stated that the proposed zoning change from R-1 Residential to
6 open Space Development Area is unacceptable as written. However, if it
7 included 504 of the buildable land as open space, it would be more acceptable.
8
9 ROx Bentley, a resident of the New Hope Church Road community, mention
10 several coamunities which have 5o% of their land not aside as open .space. He
11 spoke to planners in Livingston County, Mich. , Montgomery County, Penna. , and
12 Graffin, Mass. The Open Space Ordinances were well received, even by
13 developers, after they were in place. Two of these Planners suggested not
14 allowing substantial density bonuses for cluster development. They said that
15 the Ordinance Gust be' density neutral. They also felt that 504 open space is
16 necessary to effectively preserve the rural character. He stated that the
17 densities allowed in this proposal are unacceptable to him.
18
19 Bob Harrell, a sexber of the University. Station work Group, stated that
20 this group started with an established set of criteria and then developed
21 plans based on this criteria. If 304 open space is the only requirement, he
22 felt that the effect of open space would be lost;.
23
24 Marty Mandell, an Orange County resident, spoke in opposition to this
25 proposal. She read from the minutes of a Carrboro Board of Alderman meeting
26 where they directed their Planning Staff to draft an amendment which requires
27 504 open space. She fools the density is already too high and that it is
28 important to let the countryside survive for future generations.
29
30 Stanley Robbing, an Orange County resident, spoke in support of the
31 Arendt Plan and requested that the Board of Commissioners study and consider
32 it carefully.
33
34 Allen Saiferheld, a resident of orange County, spoke in opposition of
35 allowing the extension of water and soarer into the open space development
36 area.
37
38 Lee Ralalow, an Orange County resident and member of the University
39 station Planning group, spoke in support of small area plans. He asked if
40 open space is designed to preserve rural character or is it designed to
41 promote urban sprawl. It is well documented that extending water and sewer
42 causes urban sprawl. Density allowances must be such that water and #ewer is
43 not required. He feels that a small cluster development can be supported by
44 alternative systems and large clusters cannot. Open space must be defined as
45 preservation of the existing rural character.
47 Larry Bohm, an Orange County resident, lives north of the proposed
48 development. He fools that it is important that the county proceed
49 thoughtfully with future growth preserving at least 504 of the buildable land
50 and that developments should provide their own water treatment facilities.
51 A small area plan should be completed before any changes to the Land Use Plan
52 is considered. He thinks that development in Orange County can be provided
MAY-10-1994 14:51 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING
12
9
i for while continuing to preserve the rivers, forests, farms, and wildlife.
2 He fools that the Stony Creek area would be irrevocably changed if this
3 development is approved and that high density development and a golf course
4 would cause an unnatural amount of runoff to occur which would greatly damage
5 the creek and surrounding areas. A copy of his complete statement is in the
6 permanent agenda file in the clerk"s office.
7
8 Keg McKean, an Orange County resident, spoke in favor of Open Space
9 preservation. She stated that incremental zonihq changes and variances to
10 Comprehensive Planninq needs to be rejected as a way of planning for the
11 future growth of Orange County. She supported a set aside of at least 508 of
12 the buildable land based on the Arendt plan.
13
14 David Obenshain, a resident of the Strayhorn Hills area, spoke in
15 support of well planned growth in Orange County. He mentioned that the
16 services currently provided to him as a resident and employee of Hillsborouqh
17 are less than adequate. That situation needs to be corrected prior to
18 increasing the need for additional services from the Town of Hillsborough.
19
20 *END OF CITIZEN CCKKM
21
22 Letters received and made a part of those minutes by reference are listed
23 below:
24 Elizabeth Woodman is against the proposed) University Station project.
25 She asked that the Board reject the radical high-density university Station
26 golf course development and open discussion on high-quality growth being
27 promoted by her family and many others in this community.
28 John' Prater of New Hope Drive stated his opposition to the proposed
29 zoning changes which he fools will drastically alter the rural character of
30 the county. He would like for the County's Land Use Plan to disallow any form
31 of high density development. He asked that golf courses not be considered as
32 open space.
33 Jennifer Killer of Kt. Sinai Road said! in her letter that public
34 interest and infrastructure concerns should. steer the Board away from the
35 proposed University Station high density: develoo;�mment. She feels the effects
36 from this proposed development will be devasitating to the environment,
37 schools, roads, public safety and health. She feels the open space amendment
38 should follow the rural character study effort. She asked that the Board put
39 public interest before private fortunes.
4.0
41 *MM OF BRITM CONO NTS
42
4.3
44 Q=sCUSSIMM i..�9iap on .c:ocn� emocsaszo is
45
46 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Board could continue to discuss this
47 matter and also. refer it to the Planning Board.
48
49 commissioner Insko asked for clarification on what could happen to this
50 area using the current zoning during the next several years if a small area
31 planning process was adopted? Would the Board of Commissioners have any
52 control over requiring open space for this area under existing zoning
MAY-10-1994 14:52 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING
13
10
1 regulations? Another option to consider would be to stop this process and use
2 existing zoning until the Aural Character process is completed. She asked
3 what would be the shortest possible time frame for annexation by Hillsborough?
4 Now will the analysis of the impact proceed?
5
6 Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the planning Board and staff will
7 decide if the traffic impact data is relevant.
8
9 Commissioner Gordon raised the possibility of not sending this to the
10 Planning Board until after hearing the Rural Character Study recommendations.
11 '
12 John Link suggested that the responses to, questions raised tonight be
13 presented to at a joint meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and
14 the Planning Board on May 31st. The report from the Rural Character Study
15 Committee will be presented to the Board of Commissioners at the regular
16 meeting on Hay 17th.
17
18 Commissioner Willhoit indicated that he agreed with many of the
19 comments pertainin to the long range plan. He restated the reason the County
20 initially entered into this process. A developer was making this proposal and
21 the Tovn of Hillsborough was considering annexation. This was a modified
22 small group process. The purpose was to attempt to reach a consensus which
23 was accomplished with many of the issues. The Planning Board needs to answer
24 the question "Is the proposal, as submitted, or modified by the Planning
25 Board's recommendation, preferable to the alternative that may occur?" He
26 asked that this issue not be contingent on the Rural Character Study
27 recommendations because it is likely that the County Commissioners will reach
28 a consensus on the rural character issue by May. 17th. the question is does
29 the Board approve this development now or take a chance on the alternatives?
30 Staff was requested to report on the impact of the following options:
31 -annexation,
32 -a two to three year long small area :planninq process, or
33 -developing the area using the existing zoning
34
35 Commissioner Willhoit consented that he would like to see the Rural
36 Character Study Committee's recommendations and systematically adopt what can
37 be adopted and fine tune the remaining parts.
38
39 A motion was, made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
40 Insko, to adjourn this nesting to the May 17, 15194, meeting for decision.
41 VOTI: UHAI1=8
42
43 Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
44. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
45
46
14
PROPOSED ORDINANCEIPLAN AMENDMENT
ORDINANCEIPLAN: Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
REFERENCE: Section 3.3 Land Use Element Categories
Section 3.4 Locational Criteria
Section 4.1 Overview of Implementation Strategies
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen
Other: University Station Work Group
PRIORITY RECON0MENDATION: _X,_High Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 5, 1994
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
This amendment would add language to the text of the Land Use Element of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan to include a new plan category entitled"Open Space Development Area% A related
map amendment is also proposed, the application of the proposed category to the University Station
proposal.
IMPACTSASSUES
On December 16, 1993, the governing boards of Orange County and Hillsborough met in joint session to
discuss matters of mutual interest concerning the Hillsborough CPZ Agreement. The governing boards
agreed to establish a Work Group comprised of two members of each governing board to seek solutions
to the University Station development issue; i.e., annexation by the Town or approval by the County.
On January 4, 1994, the Work Group held its first meeting and considered a resolution dratted by Town
Attorney Michael Brough.The resolution proposed the establishment of a Small Area Planning Group with
a specific charge for dealing with University Station. 1
With the approval of the resolution by the Board of Commissioners on January 18, 1994, the University
Station Planning Group began work on its charge on January 27.The Planning Group completed its work'
on March 9, and, on April 4, 1994, the recommendations of the Planning Group were presented to the
Board of Commissioners (copy attached).
As part of its recommendations,the Planning Group suggested that a public hearing be held on a propose
amendment to the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan text and map that would create an open space
classification and apply that classification to the University Station property. If the amendments were
approved, the developers could then apply for the corresponding rezoning and planned development
approval.
The proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Element seek to create the"open space"category
referred to above.The amendments are based on the provisions of the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning
Agreement,the work of the University Station Planning Group,and on similar amendments presented at
public hearing in 1992.
EXISTING ORDINANCEIPLAN PROVISIONS (No changes to existing text proposed)
PROPOSED ORDINANCEIPLAN PROVISIONS
The proposed changes to the text of the Land Use Element are as follows:
( 15
Section 3.3 - Land Use Element Categories
Proposed Change: Under "Basic Category" of RURAL, add category entitled Open-Space
Development Area, as shown below.
RURAL Rural Buffer
Rural Residential
Agricultural-Residential
Open-Space Development Area
Rural Neighborhood Activity Node
Rural Industrial Activity Node
Agricultural Areas
Proposed Chance: Add description of plan category after"RURAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITY NODE"
and before "RURAL BUFFER."
OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT AREA.Land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which
In generally non-urban in character and which will generally remain as such. Land in this
category will generally contain low-density residential uses(e.g.,no more than two units per
acre)which may be served by individual wells and septic tanks or by public water and sewer.
Public water and sewer would be an option available to large-scale developments, or a
combination of small developments. All open space residential development with density
greater than one unit per two acres would be required to set aside and preserve significant
amounts of open space (e.g., at least 30 percent of the total project acreage or, another
Option under consideration, at least 30 percent of the developable area of the project after
certain undevelopable open space area such as wetlands and steep slopes are excluded).
Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria
Proposed Change: Auer the category RURAL COMMUNITY ACTIVITY NODE and preceding the
plan category section entitled RURAL BUFFER, insert the following:
PLAN CATEGORY: OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT AREA
Land Slope: Located in areas where slopes of greater that 15% can be protected
within designated open space.
Hydrology: Located in areas where 100-year flood-prone area and wetlands may
be located within designated open space.
Flora& Fauna: Located In areas where local,state or Federally-acknowledged unique
or endangered spades, and natural areas may be protected from
detrimental development impacts by their location in designated open
space.
Soil Conditions: Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for
development because of good drainage characteristics and load-bearing
capacity for site development.
Public Services Located in areas within the County's planning jurisdiction where
& Utilities: public water and sewer would be available only for developments which
protect significant amounts of open space (e.g., at least 30 percent of
the total project acreage or, another option under consideration, at
least 30 percent of the developable area of the project after certain
undevelopable open space areas such as wetlands and steep slopes are
excluded).
16
Transportation Located in area with good road access to nearby urban areas, and
System: the potential for providing access to public transit facilities.
Energy Use. Located within 10 minutes commuting time from major commercial uses or an
Urban area, and designed so that small-scale commercial uses provided within
developments limit the number of shorter distance commutes for goods and
services.
Existing Land Use: Generally non-urban in character and located in areas adjacent to Urban or
Transition areas.
Agriculture Located in areas where agricultural and forestry activities
&Forestry. may continue within designated open space.
Population Density: Located in areas with an overall low density of population and which do not
exceed two units per acre.
Historic Located in areas where detrimental development impact on
& Cultural: County, state or Federally-aclmowledged historic/cultural sites or County-
identified Public Interest Areas does not east, or can be mitigated by protection
within designated open space.
Section 4.1 - Overview of Implementation Strategies
Proposed Change: Add Open-Space Development Area row to"Land Use Element Categories-
Zoning District Matrix" (between Rural Residential and County Residential
Transition).Create a new column from existing"R-2,R-3,R4",moving"R-2"into
a free-standing column (see attached table).
Proposed Change: Add a new section before existing description of RURAL BUFFER, as shown
below-
OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT AREA.Identities areas adjacent to Urban or Transition areas
which are generally non-urban in character and which will remain as such. Land in this
category will generally contain low-density residential uses(e.g.,no more than two units per
acre)which may be served by individual wells and septic tanks or by public water and sewer.
Public water and sewer would be an option available to large-scale developments, or a
combination of small developments. All open space residential development with density
greater than one unit per two acres would be required to set aside and preserve significant
amounts of open space (e.g., at least 30 percent of the total project acreage or, another
option under consideration,at least 30 percent of the developable area of the project after
certain undevelopable open space areas such as wetlands and steep slopes are excluded).The
applied zoning districts would include RB(Rural Buffer),AR(Agricultural-Residential),R-1
(Low-Density Reddential), and R-2 (Low-Moderate Density Residential).
####iii####iii##ii#i#•#iiii#i##i##iii#iii#iii#i#iiiiiii##iiii#iiiii###iii#iiiii#i#########i#
ORDINANCE REVIEW COKK[TTEE:
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOARD OF COMbUSSIONERS REVIEW:
17
a
*
w
* *
* *
a
* *
A � o
Gy
o� a
* *
z * * *
.. * * *
* �
� w
x * * .'
a *
ju
y C7 I 9�i� 9p A++8 i 1 r■l++Qq i i
o M A ► M +1 V
1 1 �M +4 +i l M
I �8fl 14
.1.r 1
18
PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE/PLAN: Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
REFERENCE: Section 4.1 Overview of Implementation Strategies
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen
Other:
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X_High Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
This amendment would add language to the text of the Land Use Element of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan to include a proposed new plan category entitled"Open Space Development Area'to
the "Land Use Element Categories - Zoning District Matrix".
IMPACTS/ISSUES
Proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being
presented at public hearing on May 5, 1994. The amendments seek to create a new "Open Space
Development Area" land use plan category and are based on the following.
1.The provisions of the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement;
2.The work of the University Station Planning Group; and
3.On similar amendments presented at public hearing in 1992.
On the same date,consideration will be given to applying the new classification to the University Station
property. If the amendments are approved, the developers of the project could apply for rezoning and
planned development approval. However, staff has identified the lack of specific standards in the Zoning
Ordinance through which to implement the intent of the Open Space Development Area land use category.
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which seek to correct this problem are being presented at the May
23, 1994 public hearing. This proposal is related to the Zoning Ordinance amendments in that it will
provide the linkage between the "Open Space Development Area" land use plan category and the "Open
Space Development (OSD)" zoning district.
EXISTING ORDINANCE/PLAN PROVISIONS (No changes to existing text proposed)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN PROVISIONS
The proposed changes to the text of the Land Use Element are as follows:
Section 4.1 - Overview of Implementation Strategies
Proposed Chance: Add Open-Space Development Area row to "Land Use Element Categories -
Zoning District Matrix" (between Rural Residential and County Residential
Transition)and create a new"Zoning District"column entitled"OSD"(see attached
table).
Proposed Change: Add a new section before existing description of RURAL BUFFER, as shown
below:
19
OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTAREA.Identifies areas adjacent to Urban or Transition areas
which are generally non-urban in character and which will remain as such. Land in this
category will generally contain low-density residential uses(e.g.,no more than two units per
acre)which may be served by individual wells and septic tanks or by public water and sewer.
Public water and sewer would be an option available to large-scale developments, or a
combination of small developments. All open space residential development with density
greater than one unit per two acres would be required to set aside and preserve significant
amounts of open space (e.g., at least 30 percent of the total project acreage or, another
option under consideration,at least 30 percent of the developable area of the project after
certain undevelopable open space areas such as wetlands and steep slopes are excluded).The
applied zoning district would be OSD (Open Space Development).
ORDINANCE REVIEW CO :
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REVIEW:
e
20
1
*
0
W 1
* * *
a
o o * *
Gti � M o
� m �
A o �
.� *
r-T
* a
a
� �" 41 m m
44 44 gdo qp
i1 +,I +1 pp M y M +i V A
fit rl tl
4,1 4 G ■1� J� 1� M i1 N 4
W V14�
21
PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMEND]ITNT
ORDINANCE/PLAN.' Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Regulations
RFJ?EJ?EN ''' OSD - Open Space Development Zoning District
See "Mristing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions"below.
ORIGIN OFAD[ENDMENT. X Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen
Other.
STAFF PRIORIW RECOMMENDATION. X High Middle Low
EJECTED PUBLIC IL AMG DATR.'May 23, 1994
PURPOSE OFAMENDMEIVI:-
The proposed amendment adds language to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new zoning
district entitled "OSD - Open Space Development". The proposal includes dimensional requirements,
permitted uses, and development standards applicable within the new district.
IMPACTS/ISSUES'
Proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented
at public hearing on May 5, 1994. The amendments seek to create a new"Open Space Development Area"
land use plan category and are based on the following.
1. The provisions of the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreemeng
2. The work of the University Station Planning Group, and
3. On similar amendments presented at public hearing in 1992.
On the same date, consideration will be given to applying the new classification to the University Station
property. If the amendments are approved, the developers of the prqject could apply for rezoning and
planned development approval.However,staff has identified the lack of specific standards in the Zoning
Ordinance through which to implement the intent of the Open Space Development Area land use category.
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to correct this problem.
MST12VG ORDINANCE/PLAN REVISIONS:No changes to the existing text are proposed.
PROPOSED ORDINANCR/PLAN REVISIONS:
1. Amend Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Article 4.2.6-Open Space Development
(OSD)District to read as follows.
4.2.6 Open Space Development (OSD) District
a) Intent
The intent of the Open Space Development (OSD)District is to provide locations
for low-intensity residential development and supporting recreational,community
22
service,educational,and small-scale commercial uses.The primary purpose of the
district is to provide an alternative to conventional subdivisions in rural areas.
Such clustered development is intended to better harmonize rural development
with designated Urban or Transition areas in the Comprehensive Plan through
the conservation of agricultural and forest land, and historic and natural areas.
b) Application Criteria
This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist:
1. The site is within an area designated as Open Space Development Area
by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
2. Water and sewer service is available to the site or is to be provided as
part of the development process or the lot size for individual uses is
appropriate for the method of water supply and sewage disposal.
3. Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street or streets
designated as either arterial or collector by the adopted Comprehensive
Plan. Access to transit corridors is desirable but not required.
2. Amend Article 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance - Permitted Use Table to add the Open Space
Development (OSD)District and include the following list of permitted uses within that zoning
district:
Day Care Facility By Right
Dwelling, Single-Family By Right
Dwelling, Two-Family By Right
Dwelling, Multiple Family By Right
Family Care Home By Right
Group Care Facility Class B Special Use
Residential Hotel Class A Special Use
Botanical Gardens & Arboretums By Right
Church By Right
Community Center Class B Special Use
Governmental Protective Services By Right
(Police& Fire Stations,
Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire
Departments)
Parks, Public & Non-Profit By Right
Schools, Elementary, Middle, By Right
& Secondary
Transmission Lines Class B Special Use
Governmental Facilities & Office By Right
Buildings
Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping By Right
Stations
Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal By Right
Clubhouses
Riding Stables Class B Special Use
Recreational Facilities (Non-Profit) By Right
Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-Profit): By Right
Golf Club & Country Club
Historic Structures: Non-ResidentW/Mixed Use Class A Special Use
23
Non-residential uses may be permitted as part of an open space development but only in
accordance with the provisions of Article 7 - Planned Developments.
S. Amend Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements
(Schedule forResidential Development,Single and Two-Family,Multi Family,Residential Hotels,
Rooming Houses, Etc.) by adding the Open Space Development (OSD) zoning district and
providing the following notation in the OSD row:
Refer to Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD)
Districts.
4. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space
Development(OSD)Districts to read as follows.
6.30 Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD) Districts
All open space residential development with density greater than one unit per two
acres shall be required to set aside and preserve significant amounts of open space
in accordance with the development standards specified herein.
6.30.1 Percentage of Open Space
The minimum percentage of land that shall be designated as permanent open
space, protected by donation to or through a conservation easement held by
Orange County, a recognized land trust or conservancy, or by a homeowners
association, shall be as specified below:
(Based on the work of the University Station Planning Group, a range of options
is provided.)
a-1. A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the total tract area shall be
designated as common open space.
(This option is based on the resolution adopted by Town of
Hillsborough.)
a-2. A minimum of thirty percent(30%)of the total tract area,after deducting
"Primary Conservation Areas" as defined below, and land required for
street, railroad, powerline, and similar rights-of-way, shall be designated
as common open space.
(This option is based on the resolution adopted by Orange County.)
b. All common open space shall be restricted from further subdivision
through a permanent conservation easement or restrictive covenants in
a form acceptable to Orange County and duly recorded in the Orange
County Register of Deeds Office.
6.30.2 Location of Open Space
The location of open space conserved through cluster development shall be
consistent with the following guidelines:
a. Open space shall be comprised of two types of land: "Primary
24
Conservation Areas" and "Secondary Conservation Areas". The first
category shall consist of wetlands,water bodies, 100-year floodplains and
alluvial soils, and slopes greater than 25%.
b-1. In addition to the Primary Conservation Areas, the remaining land
necessary to comprise thirty percent (30%) of the total tract area shall be
designated and permanently protected as Secondary Open Space.
(This option is based on the resolution adopted by Town of
Hillsborough.)
b-2. In addition to the Primary Conservation Areas and land required for
street,railroad,powerline,and similar rights-of-way,thirty percent(30%)
of the remaining land shall be designated and permanently protected as
Secondary Open Space.
(This option is based on the resolution adopted by Orange County.)
C. Secondary Open Space may include farmland, natural areas and wildlife
habitats,wildlife corridors,mature woodlands,historic and archaeological
sites,recreation uses such as parks, community commons or greens,play
fields,and golf courses,landscape buffers,and scenic views or viewsheds.
In the case of recreational uses,no more than fifty percent (50%) of such
use(s) may be counted toward satisfying the Secondary Open Space
requirements.
6.30.3 Density Standards
a-1. Open space developments that preserve at least thirty percent (30%) of
the total tract area in common open space may be developed at a density
of not more than two units per gross acre.
(This option is based on the resolution adopted by Town of
Hillsborough.)
a-2. Open space developments may be developed at a density of not more than
two units per buildable acre. "Buildable acreage" is the amount of land
remaining after deducting Primary Conservation Areas and land required
for street, railroad, powerline, and similar rights-of-way from the total
tract area
(This option is based on the resolution adopted by Orange County.)
6.30.4 Dimensional Requirements
Within open space developments,the following dimensional standards shall apply:
Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet
Minimum lot width: 75 feet
Minimum front and rear yards: 25 feet
25
Minimum side yards: 10 feet
Maximum building height: 25 feet
Minimum distance between building 400 feet
areas of cluster lots facing
across a village common or green:
These dimensional requirements may be reduced but only through approval of an
open space development in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 -Planned
Developments.
6.30.5 Utility Requirements
Open space developments may be served either by:
a. Individual wells and septic tanks on each lot; or
b. A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed,constructed,
and maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local
rules and regulations; or
C. Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a
municipality,association,or water or sewer authority. System extensions
shall be sized only to serve the open space development(s) for which the
system(s) are extended.
5. Amend Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance by revising Article 7.2.1 to include the PD-H-OSD
Planned Development-Housing-Open Space Development District as a permitted Planned
Development District as follows.
7.2.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts
Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in
Article 4 are hereby created:
R-13 -PD-H - R-13
R-8 -PD-H-R-8
R-5 -PD-H - R-5
R-4 -PD-H - R-4
R-2 -PD-H -R-2
R-1 -PD-H - R-1
RB -PD-H - RB
OSD -PD-H - OSD
LC-1 -PD-C - LC-1
NC-2 -PD-C - NC-2
CC-3 -PD-C - CC-3
GC-4 -PD-C - GC-4
0I-1 -PD - 0I-1
I-1 -PD -I-1
I-2 -PD - I-2
I-3 -PD - I-3
ED -PD - ED
PW-I -PD - PW-I
26
PD - MU
PD - R
PD - ME?
6. Amend Article 22-Definitions -of the Zoning Ordinance by adding a definition of"Open Space
Development Area"to read as follows.
Open Space Development Area - Land adjacent to Urban or Transition areas which are
generally non-urban in character and which will remain as such. Land in this category will
generally contain low-density residential uses (e.g., no more than two units per acre) which may
be served by individual wells and septic tanks or by public water and sewer. Public water and
sewer would be an option available to large-scale developments, or a combination of small
developments.All open space residential development with density greater than one unit per two
acres would be required to set aside and preserve significant amounts of open space (e.g.,at least
30 percent of the total project acreage or,another option under consideration,at least 30 percent
of the developable area of the project after certain undevelopable open space areas such as
wetlands and steep slopes are excluded).
7 Amend Section IV-B of the Subdivision Regulations by adding a new Section 1V B-12,Open Space
Development, to read as follows.
W-B-12. OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT
All subdivisions located in an OSD-Open Space Development zoning district shall
conform to each and all of the requirements of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance applicable to that district.
ORDINANCE REVL&W COMDITPEE REVIEW
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
BOCC REVIEW
27
ARTICLE 4A.
Extension of Corporate Limits.
Part 1. -Extension by Petition.
§ 160A-29. Map of annexed area, copy of ordinance
and election results recorded in the of-
fice of register of deeds.
Whenever the limits of any municipal corporation are enlarged,
in accordance with the provisions of this Article, it shall be the duty
of the mayor of the city or town to cause an accurate map of such
annexed territory, together with a copy of the ordinance duly certi-
fied, and the official results of the election, if conducted, to be re-
corded in the office of the register of deeds of the county or counties
in which such territory is situated and in the office of the Secretary
of State. The documents required to be filed with the Secretary of
State under this section shall be filed not later than 30 days follow-
ing the effective date of the annexation ordinance. All documents
shall have an identifying number affixed thereto and shall conform
in size in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary. Failure
to file within 30 days shall not affect the validity of the annexation.
Any annexation shall be reported as part of the Boundary and An-
nexation Survey of the United States Bureau of the Census. (1947,
c. 725, s. 6; 1973,c. 426, s. 74; 1987,c. 715, s. 6; c. 879, s. 3; 1989,c.
440, s. 7; 1991, c. 586, s. 1.)
Local Modification.-(As to Article ber 1, 1991, and applicable to annexa-
4A) Bladen: 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. tion documents required to be filed with
807, as. 2 and 3; Cabarrus and Orange the Secretary of State after that date,
and municipalities located therein: deleted"and in the case of annexed ter-
1987,c.233,s.2;1991,c.685,s.7;(As to ritory located in a county with a popula-
Article 4A)city of Durham:1993,c.342, tion of 55,000 or over according to the
s. 1; (as to Part 1) town of Dobbins 1980 decennial federal census or in any
Heights: 1983,c.658;(As to Article 4A) other county subject to Article 12A of
town of Holden Beach: 1991,c.638,s. 1; Chapter 163 of the General Statutes,
(As to Article 4A) town of Lewisville: pursuant to G.S. 163-132.6, where the
1991,c.116,s.1;(As to Article 4A)town annexation ordinance becomes effective
of Middlesex: 1993, c. 480. during the period beginning January 1,
Effect of Amendments. - 1988, and ending January 2, 1990, to
The 1989 amendment, effective June cause a copy of such map and ordinance
26,1989,inserted"or in any county sub- to be filed with the county board of elec- It
ject to Article 12A of Chapter 163 of the tions of the county where the territory is
General Statutes, pursuant to G.S. located"at the end of the first sentence,
163-132.6" in the first sentence. and added the second, third and fourth
The 1991 amendment, effective Octo- sentences.
CASE NOTES
Bight to Annexation Conditioned nicipality has made its prima facie
on Compliance with Duty to Create showing of compliance with this Article,
Record. - For an annexation ordi- the burden shifts to those opposing an-
nance to be valid,the record must show nexation to prove either a procedural ir-
prima facie complete and substantial regularity in the annexation process ma-
compliance with Article 4A of§ 160A as terially prejudicing the rights of those
a condition precedent to the municipal- opposing annexation or a failure on the
ity's right to annex the territory, part of the municipality to comply with
Matheson v.City of Asheville, 102 N.C. statutory prerequisites to annexation as
App. 156, 402 S.E.2d 140 (1991). a matter of fact. Matheson v. City of
If Record is Complete, Burden of Asheville,102 N.C.App.156,402 S.E.2d
Showing Irregularity Shifts to Those 140 (1991).
Opposing Annexation.-Once a mu-
� I
28
§ 16OA-31. Annexation by petition.
(a) The governing board of any municipality may annex by ordi-
nance any area contiguous to its boundaries upon presentation to
the governing board of a petition signed by the owners of all the
real property located within such area. The petition shall be signed
by each owner of real property in the area and shall contain the
address of each such owner.
(b) The petition shall be prepared in substantially the following
form:
DATE:
To the........................ (name of governing board)of the (City
or Town) of ................
1. We the undersigned owners of real property respectfully re-
quest that the area described in paragraph 2 below be annexed to
the (City or Town) of ................
2. The area to be annexed is contiguous to the (City or Town) of
........... . and the boundaries of such territory are as follows:
..................................................................................
(c) Upon receipt of the petition, the municipal governing board
shall cause the clerk of the municipality to investigate the suffi-
ciency thereof and to certify the result of his investigation. Upon
receipt of the certification, the municipal governing board shall fix
a date for a public hearing on the question of annexation, and shall
cause notice of the public hearing to be published once in a newspa-
per having general circulation in the municipality at least 10 days
prior to the date of the public hearing;provided, if there be no such
paper, the governing board shall have notices posted in three or
more public places within the area to be annexed and three or more
public places within the municipality.
(d) At the public hearing all persons owning property in the area
to be annexed who allege an error in the petition shall be given an
opportunity to be heard, as well as residents of the municipality
who question the necessity for annexation. The governing board
shall then determine whether the petition meets the requirements
of this section. Upon a finding that the petition meets the require-
ments of this section, the governing board shall have authority to '
pass an ordinance annexing the territory described in the petition. I
The governing board shall have authority to make the annexing j
ordinance effective immediately or on any specified date within six
months from the date of passage of the ordinance. ,
(e) From and after the effective date of the annexation ordinance, ,
the territory and its citizens and property shall be subject to all
debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in such municipal-
ity and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other
parts of such municipality. Real and personal'property in the newly
annexed territory on the January 1 immediately preceding the be-
ginning of the fiscal year in which the annexation becomes effective i
is subject to municipal taxes as provided in G.S. 160A-58.10. If the
effective date of annexation falls between June 1 and June 30, and
the effective date of the privilege license tax ordinance of the an-
nexing municipality is June 1, then businesses in the area to be
annexed shall be liable for taxes imposed in such ordinance from
and after the effective date of annexation.
(f) For purposes of this section,an area shall be deemed"contigu-
ous"if, at the time the petition is submitted, such area either abuts
directly on the municipal boundary or is separated from the munici-
pal boundary by a street or street right-of-way, a creek or river, or
the right-of-way of a railroad or other public service corporation,
lands owned by the municipality or some other political subdivi-
sion, or lands owned by the State of North Carolina. In describing
the area to be annexed in the annexation ordinance, the municipal
governing board may include within the description any territory
described in this subsection which separates the municipal bound-
ary from the area petitioning for annexation. _
29
(g) The governing board may initiate annexation of contiguous
property owned by the municipality by adopting a resolution stat-
ing its intent to annex the property, in lieu of filing a petition. The
resolution shall contain an adequate description of the property,
state that the property is contiguous to the municipal boundaries
and fix a date for a public hearing on the question of annexation.
Notice of the public hearing shall be published as provided in sub-
section (c) of this section. The governing board may hold the public
hearing and adopt the annexation ordinance as provided in subsec-
tion (d) of this section.
(h) A city council which receives a petition for annexation under
this section may by ordinance require that the petitioners file a
signed statement declaring whether or not vested rights with re-
spect to the properties subject to the petition have been established
under G.S. 160A-385.1 or G.S. 153A-344.1. If the statement de-
clares that such rights have been established, the city may require
petitioners to provide proof of such rights. A statement which de-
clares that no vested rights have been established under G.S.
160A-385.1 or G.S. 153A-344.1 shall be binding on the landowner
and any such vested right shall be terminated. (1947, c. 725, s. 8;
1959, c. 713; 1973, c. 426, s. 74; 1975, c. 576, s. 2; 1977, c. 517, s. 4;
1987, c. 562, s. 1; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 996, s. 3.)
Local Modification. —City of Dur- ment,effective October 1, 1991,and ap-
ham: 1993, c. 342, s. 1; town of plicable only to site specific development
Morrisville: 1989, c. 389, s. 1. plans approved on or after that date,
Effect of Amendments. — added subsection W.
The 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990) amend-
CASE NOTES
Subsection (f)— "Contiguous". — only by virtue of second tract of land
North Carolina annexation statutes do that is being annexed simultaneously.
not permit municipality to annex by vol- City of Kannapolis v. City of Concord,
untary means tract of land that is con- 326 N.C. 512, 391 S.E.2d 493 (1990).
tiguous with its municipal boundaries
§. 16OA-31.1. Assumption of debt.
(a) If the city has annexed under this Part any area which is
served by a rural fire department and which is in:
(1) An insurance district defined under G.S. 153A-233;
(2) A rural fire protection district under Article 3A of Chapter
69 of the General Statutes; or
(3) A fire service district under Article 16 of Chapter 153A of
the General Statutes,
then beginning with the effective date of annexation the city shall
pay annually a proportionate share of any payments due on any
debt (including principal and interest) relating to facilities or
equipment of the rural fire department, if the debt was existing at
the time of submission of the petition for annexation to the city
under this Part. The rural fire department shall make available to
the city not later than 30 days following a written request from the
city, information concerning such debt. The rural fire department
forfeits its rights under this section if it fails to make a good faith
response within 45 days following receipt of the written request for
information from the city, provided that the city's written request
so states by specific reference to this section.
(b) The annual payments from the city to the rural fire depart-
ment on such shared debt service shall be calculated as follows:
(1) The rural fire department shall certify to the city each year
the amount that will be expended for debt service subject
to be shared by the city as provided by subsection(a)of this
section; and
(2) The amount determined under subdivision (1) of this sub-
section shall be multiplied by the percentage determined
30
by dividing the assessed valuation of the area of the dis-
trict annexed by the assessed valuation of the entire dis-
trict, each such valuation to be fixed as of the date the
annexation ordinance becomes effective.
(c) This section does not apply in any year as to any annexed
area(s)for which the payment calculated under this section as to all
annexation ordinances adopted under this Part by a city during a
particular calendar year does not exceed one hundred dollars
($100.00).
(d) The city and rural fire department shall jointly present a
payment schedule to the Local Government Commission for ap-
proval and no payment may be made until such schedule is ap-
proved. The Local Government Commission shall approve a pay-
ment schedule agreed upon between the city and the rural fire
department in cases where the assessed valuation of the district
may not readily be determined, if there is a reasonable basis for the
agreement. (1989, c. 598, s. 2.)
Editor's Note.—Session Laws 1989, nances adopted on or after January 1,
c. 598, s. 13 made this section effective 1990. Section 13 further provided that
with respect to all annexation ordi- the act did not affect pending litigation.
A
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA ATT 31
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY
TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH:
1) We the undersigned owners of all real property located within the area herein
described, request that such area be annexed to the Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina.
2) The area to be annexed is contiguous to the Town of Hillsborough. The
boundaries of such territory are as shown on the metes and bounds description attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
3) A map (no larger than 188 x 240) of the foregoing property, showing its
relationship to the existing corporate limits of the town, is also attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
4) The total acreage of and dwellings units located on this property are as
follows:
1 ;056:13 Acres 59 Dwelling Units
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of May 1994 .
Pro ert Owner's Name Signature Address Tax Map Description
(Type orPrint)
UIaCCS `_lPub �,}.��. •G T/S S Mai, 77
Lot 20
1.�.� ... . Phi
S3 J►I u.e L. �/ �lv����J /Zd 1 A V l n ✓
►l I I1.j�O ✓, 4",c
�'a►4,r,.� . C}ce.�a�d SCR / T/S 4 Map 45
Lot 19
•R 17 1 1(P0,Aly.`o7) T/S d Mai 4S
iydZ �� Lot33
't
JO/_" % �'/cic/�RD 33��'�•.E�P4�iv p/�, T/S 5 Map 27
Ployg n k C. �3U0 . a- zaw�t Lot 14
' 32
Pro ert Owner's Name Signature Address Tax Nap Description
-(Type or rn
� n
,.�i',•9 .�✓'��ez e i�v �� -;Yd IWI, '�'- �`. �'c�i� T/S 5 Map 26
��/7�/�J ,fy�i ��os�W• / A < Lot 83
�G : r
W7x.4� 4�f-�ta�•�H ��,: - ✓ /il LbRCORitN
i 64wk Tx'as r�E ,/L_
• C,'�d.,Ar:� +'ce . . 7tJ/aE' IRA( 6-1-lax
DK�2 �, Nc a7�ol M/S I;ap 2G
Lot 4 t'
q 2S M OCk T/S 7 Map 3
IV Lot 12
. _T/S 7 Map 3
Lot 13
L
I Pr
William Hendrickson �. �" 2219 Lawrence Rd. T/S 5 Map 21
Hillsborough, NC Lot 74A v
T/S 4 Map 45
• Lot 11A
X.Q dl /�[G L
-96 es- f,
T/S 5 Map 2G
Lot 4'/
Ni�iE Cr
2At)17c� GLu;� �� - �. /, ��('� _A_5 Map -27 V
Robert Harndon Lot 17
T/S 5 i;-,1-1 1
Robert Harndon Lot 74
Perry Sloan 5 I'ap ?_1
Perry AC Sloan Addr ss Lot 7 7. V
7 7 ,0 7
33
Pro ert Owner's Name Signature Address Tax Nap Description
(Type or Print)
,5racrs RD. (7 21 PARCELS 13.8;,,13C
PH(WP D. .SCOTT" Rr Z CHAPc'� .
Hti Ak �PcLHIL�._R p
MAP 3
1106306 JZO&W Rjt
cl,g ( K11 t
I , l� ,e,� Town Clerk of the Town of Hillsborough, do hereby
certify that the sul�fic ency of the above-referenced petition has been checked and found
to be in compliance with G.S. 160A-31.
This the 14k day of 199 Y .
Town Clerk, /
34
r
A RESOLUTION WITHDRAWING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FROM THE COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County entered into a
cooperative planning agreement on or about October 14, 1991, the purpose of which
was to establish a method of cooperative and comprehensive planning within the
"cooperative planning area" as defined in that agreement;
WHEREAS, section 1.3 of that agreement provides that it may be terminated
by the withdrawal of either party upon thirty days written notice to the other
party; and
WHEREAS, the town is contemplating the annexation of a tract of
approximately 865 acres, known as the University Station property, together with
various intervening properties; and
WHEREAS, the above described land is designated as part of an "open space
area" under the cooperative planning agreement; and
WHEREAS, the cooperative planning agreement provides that the town may not
annex land located within the open space area while that agreement remains in
effect;
NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
RESOLVES:
Section 1. Pursuant to article 1 section 1.3 of the cooperative planning
agreement between the town and Orange County, the town hereby notifies Orange
County that the town is withdrawing from the cooperative planning area agreement,
effective June 29, 1994..
Section 2. A copy of this resolution shall be delivered forthwith to the
Orange County Manager for distribution to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners.
Section 3. All provisions of any town ordinance or resolution in conflict
with this resolution are repealed.
j
35
Hillsborough) . Articles 3 and 4 of this Agreement shall
become effective upon the execution of this Agreement.
B. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated.
by mutual agreement or by withdrawal of either party.
A party may withdraw from this Agreement at any time
before the adoption of the Cooperative Planning Area Land
Use Plan and the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map
thirty (30) days following written notice to the other
party. Any such withdrawal shall be effective thirty
(30) days following receipt by the party not withdrawing
of the notice of withdrawal. After the adoption of the
Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan and Cooperative
Planning Area Land Use Map, a party may not withdraw
until it holds a public hearing on the proposed
withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party
within thirty (30) days of the public hearing. Any such
withdrawal shall be effective one ( 1) year following
receipt by the party not withdrawing of the written
notice. Subject to termination provisions of this
Agreement, annexation provisions of this Agreement shall
be valid for not more than 20 years and may thereafter
be renewed.
C. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties agree that
each will take, in a timely manner and without
unnecessary delay, all steps (including but not limited
to preparation and adoption of the Cooperative Planning
4
36
ARTICLE 3. LIMITATIONS ON ANNEXATIONS
Section 3. 1 No Annexation Into Open Space Area.
Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County,
Hillsborough agrees that it will not annex into the Open Space
Area (whether by voluntary or involuntary annexation or by any
other method authorized by law) nor shall Hillsborough seek
special legislation accomplishing such annexation.
ARTICLE 4 . LIMITATIONS ON THE EXTENSION
OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER
Section 4 . 1 Extensions of Public Water and Sewer.
A. Subject to Subsection (C) , and except pursuant to the
written consent of Orange County, Hillsborough agrees it
will not extend its public water and sewer into the Rural
Buffer of the Orange County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Joint
Planning Area or into the Upper Eno Watershed.
B. Except pursuant to the written consent of Orange County,
Hillsborough agrees that it will not extend its public
water and sewer into the Open Space Area of the
Cooperative Planning Area except consistent with the
development options for the Open Space Area adopted by
Orange County from time to time.
C. The parties recognize that Hillsborough has already
extended water and sewer lines into the Upper Eno
Watershed, and nothing in this Agreement is intended to
prohibit these existing lines. In addition, the
provisions of Subsections (A) and (B) are not intened to
13