Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-28-1994-IX-E 1 OR AN G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 28, 1994 Action A enda Item # -E SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 6.23.7 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Stream Buffers) ARTICLE 6.23.8 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Sewage Disposal and Watersupply) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X—No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Proposed Amendment Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: OWASA Resolution Hillsborough - 732-8181 Staff Response to Public Hearing Comments Durham - 688-7331 2/28/94 Public Hearing Minutes Mebane - 227-2031 Draft 4/18/94 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251 Memorandum From Environmental Health Resolution from Town of Carrboro Citizen Correspondence PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction in the 150' building setback and 300' septic system setback adjacent to reservoirs and/or streams for lots created prior to January 1, 1994 . BACKGROUND: Article 6.23.7 requires that new structures be located at least 150' from a reservoir, or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Article 6.23.8 requires that septic systems be located at least 300' from a reservoir or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Application of these setbacks may render some existing lots unbuildable. The remedy available at this time is for the property owner to seek a variance of the setback requirements to the extent necessary to develop the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed amendment would allow a reduction in the septic and building setbacks on lots which were created prior to January 1, 1994 to the extent necessary to build on the property, provided that septic system and structures remain outside of stream buffers, and the septic system remains at least 100' from the reservoir (as required by the State mandate) . r 2 Public Hearing Comments Citizen comments both for and against the proposed amendment were received at the Public Hearing on February 28, 1994. The Orange Water and Sewer Authority was opposed to the relaxation of any watershed protection standard, particularly when applied to the Cane Creek Watershed. Several citizens spoke in favor of the amendment because a number of existing lots, particularly those surrounding Lake Orange, are rendered unbuildable by the setback requirements. The Staff response to key questions and issues raised at the public hearing is attached. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendment on the basis that it allows for a more expedient and efficient process for addressing as many as 70 situations which would now require action by the Board of Adjustment. Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on April 18, 1994, and, after considerable discussion, recommended approval by a vote of seven to two. Minutes of the Planning Board meeting are attached. Board of Commissioners Action - May 2, 1994 The proposed amendment was included as an Item for Decision on the May 2, 1994 Commissioners Agenda. Due to the late hour, the discussion was limited to OWASA comments and follow-up questions to Planning Staff. No decision on the amendment was made. The County Manager contacted Planning Staff on May 10, 1994, for clarification of and information related to the key points raised during the public hearing process. The following information was provided: - The amendment affects existing lots only; - The alternative to approval of the amendment is for affected property owners to seek relief from the Board of Adjustment; - It is highly unlikely that there will be any affected properties in the Cane Creek or University Lake Watershed; It is possible that there could be 50 to 70 variance requests for properties surrounding Lake Orange if the amendment is not approved; f 3 Each variance request would result in additional staff time in preparing/presenting reports to the Board of Adjustment; and Each variance would be advertised in a local newspaper, at an estimated cost of $250. Over time, this cost alone could range from $12,500 (50 variances) to $17,500 (70 variances) . Board of Commissioners Action - May 17, 1994 At its meeting on May 17, the Board of Commissioners voted to delay a decision on the proposed amendment to consider the possibility of providing a distinction in the Zoning Ordinance between Class I and Class II reservoirs, and using that distinction as a basis for applying the proposed amendment to only to land surrounding Class I reservoirs. Reservoirs are defined as Class I, II or III in the NC Administrative Code Title 15A (Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) Subchapter 18C (Water Supplies) Sections .0100 through .2100 (Rules Governing Public Water Supplies) . Class I reservoirs are those from which water is directly drawn for treatment. Cane Creek is a Class I reservoir. Class II reservoirs are from which water is not drawn directly, but from a downstream reservoir or stream intake. Lake Orange is a Class II reservoir. Class III reservoirs serve a purpose such as flood control or the generation of electric power, in addition to serving as a raw water source. Requirements found in the Rules include standards related to lot size and septic system setbacks on land surrounding public water supplies. The same standards are applied to Class II reservoirs as are applied to Class I reservoirs. Neither the minimum watershed protection standards mandated by Division of Environmental Management nor the watershed standards considered or adopted by Orange County distinguish between Class I and Class II reservoirs for the purpose of determining the land use controls needed to protect water quality. From the standpoint of the State mandate, equal protection is provided to all reservoirs within watersheds of a particular classification (e.g. WS- II) , regardless of whether water is drawn directly from or downstream from any given reservoir. Similarly, it has always been the approach of the County to provide equal protection to all water supplies by applying development standards to all land area upstream from a water supply. The water supply itself may be a stream intake or reservoir. The upstream area where the land use-related watershed protection measures are required may include upstream reservoirs such as Lake Orange. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the designation of a 3a water supply as Class I or Class II reservoir not be used as a basis for applying varying levels of watershed protection. This recommendation is based on the fact that the two Classes are treated the same by the State Administrative Code. The Administration further recommends approval of the proposed amendment, which is essentially the same as the Planning Board recommendation, with minor editing revisions of the County Attorney. i 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.23.7 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Stream Buffers) ARTICLE 6.23 .8 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Sewage Disposal and Watersupply) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle rx_ Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 28, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow for a reduction in the 150' building setback and 300' septic system setback adjacent to reservoirs and/or streams for lots created prior to January 1, 1994. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Article 6.23.7 requires that new structures be located at least 150 ' from a reservoir, or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Article 6.23 .8 requires that septic systems be located at least 300' from a reservoir or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Application of these setbacks may render some existing lots unbuildable, particularly those which were not subject to any watershed protection standards at the time of their creation. For example, the Bellechene East Subdivision, located adjacent to Lake Orange, was approved prior to the zoning of Cedar Grove Township and the application of watershed protection standards. Eighteen of the 30 lots are located entirely or almost entirely within 300 feet of Lake Orange, and would be unbuildable if the 300' septic system setback were applied. There are a number of other existing subdivision lots surrounding Lake Orange which may be unbuildable if the 300' septic setback and 150' building setback are 5 applied. There may also be lots adjacent to University Lake or Cane Creek which existed prior to the adoption of watershed standards that have not yet been built on. The remedy available at this time is for the property owner to seek a variance of the setback requirements to the extent necessary to develop the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed amendment would allow a reduction in the septic and building setbacks on lots which were created prior to January 1, 1994 to the extent necessary to build on the property, provided that septic system and structures remain outside of stream buffers, And the septic system remains at least 100 ' from the reservoir (as required by the State mandate) . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 6.23.7 STREAM BUFFERS e) Minimum Buffer Width Required DISTRICT MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER WIDTH UNIV-CA The buffer width adjacent to streams shall be calculated for both Method A and Method B, and at any given point along the stream, the width- of the buffer shall be the larger of the two. The same method shall be used to calculate the buffer around the reservoir itself. New structures shall be located at least 150 ' from the reservoir or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater; EXCEPT when the lot was created prior to 1/1/94 and it is shown that application of the 150 ' setback would render the lot unbuildable. In that case, the 150 ' setback may be reduced, but only to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot, provided that the reduced buffer width remains at least as wide as the stream buffer. UNIV-PW The buffer width shall be calculated for both Method A and Method B, and at any given point along the stream, the width of the buffer shall be the larger of the two. 6 DISTRICT MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER WIDTH CANE-CA The buffer width adjacent to streams shall be the U-ENO-CA width calculated using Method A. The same method shall be used to calculate the buffer around the reservoir itself. New structures shall be located at least 150 ' from the reservoir or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater; EXCEPT when the lot was created prior to 1/1/94 and it is shown that application of the 150' setback would render the lot unbuildable. In that case the 150' setback may be reduced, but only to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot provided that the reduced buffer width remains at least as wide as the stream buffer. U-ENO-PW The buffer width shall be as calculated using L-ENO-PW Method A, or 1501 , whichever is less, except BACK-PW where density exceeds 1 du/ac and impervious surface exceeds 12%. Where density exceeds 1 du/ac and impervious surface exceeds 12%, the buffer width shall be calculated as above, but shall not be less than 100 ' . CANE-PW LITTLE-PW HYCO-PW The buffer width shall be the width calculated FLAT-PW using Method A, or 1501 , whichever is less. HAW-PW JORDAN-PW 6.23.11 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNIV-CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems UNIV-PW shall be limited to individual wells and CANE-PW on-site septic tanks systems or individual CANE-CA on-site alternative disposal systems. U-ENO-CA 7 All Watershed No new treatment system will be permitted Overlay Districts where effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation. Repair systems are permitted on a lot other than the lot which is the source of wastewater generation provided that the Orange County Health Department certifies that: 1. The residence or use has a failing system, AND there is not a suitable location for a repair system on the same lot as the residence or use, or 2 . In the case of an unimproved lot . created by recorded deed, valid probated will or recorded plat prior to 6/15/91 for UNIV-CA and UNIV-PW, and 1/1/94 for all other watershed overlay districts, there is not a suitable location for a repair system on the same lot as the residence or use. UNIV-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers, or 300 feet from a reservoir or perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, whichever is further; EXCEPT when the lot was created prior to 1/1/94 and it is shown that application of the 300' setback would render the lot unbuildable. In that case, the septic system setback may be reduced, but only to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot, provided that the reduced buffer width remains at least 100 feet. 8 CANE-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification U-ENO-CA fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 300 feet from a reservoir;_ EXCEPT when the lot was created prior to 111/94 and it is shown that application of the 300' setback would render the lot unbuildab e. In that case. the septic system setback may be reduced, but only to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot provided that the reduced buffer width remains at least 100 feet. UNIV-PW Septic tanks and their nitrification fields CANE-PW shall be located outside of any stream U-ENO-PW buffers and at least 100 feet from a HYCO-PW perennial or intermittent stream as shown LITTLE-PW on the USGS Quadrangle maps. BACK-PW HAW-PW JORDAN-PW L-ENO-PW ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 19, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 9 STAFF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING COIGMTS AND ISSUES Septic System and Building Setbacks from Reservoirs 1. How many of the lots surrounding Lake Orange have been developed? A total of 177 lots surround Lake Orange. Five of these lots consist of large tracts which border the lake for a short distance. The remaining lots generally range from one to two acres in size. Twenty-nine lots are located within 300 feet of Lake Orange in the area between the two major branches of the lake. Seventeen of those lots contain single-family residences. One lot contains a cemetery. The owners of two of the developed parcels also own at least one adjoining parcel and it is unlikely that those adjoining parcels will be developed. The Planning Staff expects that no more than six additional residences would ever be built on the remaining lots along this portion of the lake. Most of the remainder of the lake is surrounded by six existing subdivisions. Bellechene East contains 30 lots, twelve of which are located entirely within the 300, septic setback. A significant portion of six additional lots is located within the septic setback. The Preliminary Plan was approved in late 1993. None of the lots have been developed at this time. A variance from the Board of Adjustment or a administrative setback reduction be needed in order to build on 12 of the lots, and may be needed for several other lots which are only partially within the setback area. Deer Run contains 25 lots, all of which have a significant portion of the lot area within the 300 ' septic setback. Four of the lots have been developed. Of the remaining lots, two have been sold, and the new owners are planning to build in the near future. The owners of both properties have contacted the Planning Department regarding the placement of the residence and septic field. In one case, it was determined that both the septic and building setbacks could be met, even though the resulting house site was not the preferred location of the property owner. In the other case, it is unlikely that a septic system can be installed entirely outside of the 300, septic setback, and a variance from the Board of Adjustment or a administrative setback reduction will be needed in order to build on the 10 property. The same situation can potentially be encountered on each of the remaining 19 lots. Arrowhead contains 15 lots, thirteen of which are developed. Two of the property owners also own an adjoining lot, and it is unlikely that those lots will be developed. Just-a-Mere Landing Section B contains 27 lots, A large portion of 25 of the lots is located within the 300' septic setback. Two of the lots are developed. An addition two lots have been sold to a single owner. The property owner has contacted the Planning Department regarding the placement of the septic system and residence. A variance from the Board of Adjustment or an administrative setback reduction may be needed for placement of the septic system, and possibly for the residence itself on 21 of the remaining 23 lots. Just-a-Mere Landing Section A contains 14 lots. A significant portion of each lot is located within the 300' septic setback. None of the lots have been developed. A variance from the Board of Adjustment or an administrative setback reduction be needed for placement of the septic system, and possibly for the residence each of the 14 lots. Walker's Landing contains 15 lots. About 1/2 of each lot is located within the septic setback. Six of the lots are developed. Four of the property owners also own an adjacent lot. Development of lots which are located almost entirely within the septic setback cannot occur without a variance from the Board of Adjustment, or with approval of an administrative setback reduction (if this amendment is approved) . Lots which are located partially within the setback area may or may not be developable without a variance, depending largely on the location of suitable soils. Approximately 70 lots surrounding Lake Orange could potentially require a reduction in the septic and/or building setback in order for the lots to be developed. Planning Staff estimates that the need for a variance is highly likely for about 50 of those lots. 2. What lot sizes and development patterns surround Cane Creek? The development pattern surrounding the Cane Creek reservoir is characterized by large lots, most ranging from more than 10 acres to more than 100 acres. OWASA owns all of the property within 50 feet of the reservoir, as well as a considerable amount of additional acreage adjacent to some portions of the reservoir (map attached) . 11 Five privately-owned lots less than ten acres in size have been identified adjacent to or within 300 feet of the reservoir. The smallest two of these lots ( 1.0 acres and 2 .0 acres) are already developed, so compliance with new setback regulations is not an issue. The remaining three lots (5.2 , 5.9 and 7.0 acres) are not developed. The Planning Staff also identified three lots, each containing about 'll acres, where the shape of the lot could create difficulty in meeting setback requirements. Compared with minimum lot size requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, even the smallest of the undeveloped lots surrounding Cane Creek are relatively large. It is unlikely that any of the lots would qualify for a reduction in either the building or septic system setback due to the size of the lot (5.6 acres and above) . In order for a variance or administrative setback reduction to be approved, it would have to be shown that the lot could not be built on without encroaching into the setback area. Site constraints of that magnitude on large lots are not a common occurrence. 3. What effect will the proposed amendment have on water quality? The proposed amendment would have no effect on the amount of development which could occur, and no effect on the water quality that will result from development if the proposed amendment is not approved. The amendment addresses the PROCESS used in the approval of building permits on EXISTING lots which are not deep enough to accommodate setback requirements. 4. now will development potential be affected if the amendment is not approved? The proposed amendment would have no effect on development potential. It is assumed by staff that a variance would be granted by the Board of Adjustment if it were shown that an existing lot was rendered undevelopable by the application of septic and building setbacks adjacent to reservoirs. The same criteria which would be used by the Board of Adjustment would be used at the staff level if the proposed amendment is approved. The proposed amendment would provide administrative relief from setback requirements only to the extent necessary to allow the lot to be developed. (However, the setback for septic systems could not be reduced to less than 100 feet due to Environmental Health requirements. ) If the proposed amendment is not approved, then the only option available to the property owner would be to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment if the septic system could not be located entirely outside of the 300 ' setback from the reservoir, and/or if the residence could not be located at 12 least 150 ' from the reservoir. The septic system would have to be laid out and approved by Environmental Health in a location which encroached as little as possible into the setback. A variance would be recommended only to the extent of that encroachment. Once the location of the septic system was identified, the areas available for construction could be identified. If there were adequate area for construction outside of the 150, building setback, then a variance for the building setback would not be recommended. If there were not adequate area for construction outside of the 150' setback, then a variance would be recommended, but only to the extent of the encroachment necessary to allow development of the property. It is unlikely that a variance would be denied if the effect of that denial would be to prohibit any use of the property. Implementing regulations which would prohibit development of an existing lot for a public purpose (such as watershed protection) without compensation could raise the issue of a property taking. The only real issue involved in the amendment is the process by which development of the existing lots would be reviewed and approved. A variance requires that the applicant pay a $180 fee and that the Planning Staff prepare a report to present to the Board of Adjustment. The hearing before the Board of Adjustment must be advertised in a newspaper of local circulation. The minimum cost of advertising a single item for a Board of Adjustment meeting is about $250. The per- variance cost of advertising would decrease if more than one variance were being presented at the same meeting, and would increase with the number of lines in the advertisement. A notice must also be sent to each property owner within 500' of the property. In addition, a sign advertising the variance must be posted on the property. If the amendment is approved, the decision would be make at the staff level rather than by the Board of Adjustment. The information on which a decision would be made, and the criteria used to evaluate that information, would be the same, regardless of who makes the decision. Staff recommends a process which is more simple, and less costly to both the applicant and the County. 4. what are the implications of applying the proposed amendment to selected watersheds only? Staff anticipates that setback reductions will only occur on the lots surrounding Lake Orange. The development pattern around Cane Creek consist of much larger lot sizes. It is because of the number of small lots surrounding Lake Orange that the amendment has been proposed. 13 It is possible (although unlikely) that a setback reduction could be needed on some of the existing lots surrounding Cane Creek (see #2 above) . In the event that a reduction was needed, a property owner adjacent to the Cane Creek reservoir would be subject to a more costly and lengthy process than a property owner adjacent to Lake Orange. As discussed above, there would be no additional watershed protection offered by the more difficult process. 0554 14 ` EXISTE\TG LOTS } SURROUNDING LAKE ORANGE Vellerh6n� t• ; _....---• Approximate 300' Septic System Setback I ���• DEER RUN t L • WALKER'S f • �\ LANDING I {i i r ARROWHEAD JUST-A- LANDING SECTION A JUST-A-MERE LANDING SECTION B t y J N � N V Q d J P. d C6. •r N O V j O O so) � 5 td .z �o r P y a co Ok- WQ� aeon Oa r Change County 94edtk T( epantment 16 Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION `seat? N PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION P 0. Box 8181 • 306C Revere Road ^i� DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION v� ! P 0. Box 8181 • 300 W Tryon Street P 0 Box 8181 • 304 Revere Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 Hillsborough. NC 27278 iT W HILLSBOROUGH CHAPEL HILL *,I+ ��% 1b MEBANE DURHAM 919.732-8181 919.967.9251 l�c 919.227.2032 919688-7333 MEMORANDUM April 18, 1994 TO: Mary Willis FROM: Ron Holdway RE: Stream Buffers Tom Konsler and I spoke with you last week about the location of houses and septic systems when stream buffer requirements are in effect. More specifically, whether it is practical in most situations to even have a 150 ' setback requirement when all the components of the septic system are mandated to be outside the 300' setback line. In designing septic systems for these cases, houses have to be placed at or very near the 300' line in order to run the plumbing from the house to the septic tank. The only situations that could be permittaid with a house being a good distance away from the 300' line are those where the slope of the land actually falls away from the stream and those where a "grinder pump" setup is placed within a basement or foundation of the home. Because of a rule change in recent years, a grinder pump located outside of the foundation wall of the house must be treated as a septic system. We in Environmental Health are not advocating a change in the rule at present, but just wanted to educate you and the Planning Board of the practicality of the situation so that you would be more aware if questioned about the matter. Please let me know if you have questions about this situation. SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr Mill Mail • Suit 225 • 100 N.Greensboro Street • Carrboro.NC 27510 • 919.968.2022 A l ;7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CO MENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF CO.' ZMQSIONERS REGARDING WATERSHED PROTECTION REQUIREME.'�"TS FOR UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CREED RESERVOIR NNMEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on February 28, 1994 for the purpose of receiving comments on proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, several of the proposed changes pertain to watershed protection requirements for University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority opposes changes to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance that would reduce setback requirements for new structures and septic systems to the extent proposed by the subject amendments, and reaffirms its position of November 11, 1993 on this issue: z . . "Ekisting setback requirements of 300 feet for septic systems and 150 feet for structures should remain in place along the shorelines of University Lake and the Cane Creek Reservoir and along the perennial streams discharging to these impoundments." 2. That the Board supports the continued prohibition of individual offshe septic system casements in the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds and opposes amendments that would allow such easements in either watershed. By this prohibition the Board does not mean to oppose the establishment of septic system easements held in common by the property owners in a clustered development. 3. That the Board hereby authorizes and directs its Chairman and staff to pursue these recommendations, as further justified in the OWASA staff memorandum dated February 17, 1994 and attached hereto, through appropriate contact with County officials. 4. That copies of this Resolution and attachment be transmitted to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and Chapel Hill Town Council, Adopted the 24th day of February 24, 1994. Julianne M. Andresen, Chairman ATTEST: Riley Wilson Secretary-Treasurer ?. 2 RE[EIUED FROM 9199694421 18 TOWN OF CAR B R R O O NORTH CAROLINA The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Randy Marshall and duly seconded by Alderman Jay Bryan. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COXXZNTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COX=S8IONERS REGARDING WATERSHED PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIVERSITY LAKE AND CANE CRZER RESERVOIR Resolution No. 44/93-94 WHEREA8, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board held a public hearing on February 28, 1994 for the purpose of receiving comments on proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town of Carrboro understands that any comments that it may have will be accepted by the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board through April, 1994; and WHEREAS; several of the proposed changes pertain to watershed protection requirements for University Lake and Cane Creek ' Reservoir; and WEEREAs; University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoirs are water supplies for Carrboro Citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO RESOLVES: Section 1. That the Town of Carrboro opposes changes to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance that would reduce setback requirements for new structures and septic systems to the extent proposed by the subject amendment: "Existing setback requirement of 300 feet for septic systems and 150 feet for structures should remain in place along the shorelines of University Lake and the Cane Creek Reservoir and along the perennial streams discharging to these impoundments. " Section 2. That the Town of Carrboro supports the continued prohibition of individual off-site septic system easements in the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds, opposes amendments that would allow such easements in either watershed, and reaffirms its November 16, 1993 and November 23, 1993 position of requiring individual on-site water wells and wastewater disposal --- systems only. P.O. BOX 020 • 701 WCST MAIN SYMCCT.CAA0190 10.NC 27510 • c*111 1A1.4S41 • PAX 11tH 044-7737 • TOO 11111 040.7717 AN LOUAL OPPORTUNITY CiAPLOYCA 19 Section 3 . That the Town of Carrboro hereby authorizes and directs the town manager to pursue these recommendations through appropriate contact with Orange County .officials. Section 4. That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, orange County Planning Board, OWASA, and the Chapel Hill Town Council. The foregoing resolution, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994: AYES: Michael Nelson, Randy Marshall, Hank Anderson, Eleanor Rinnaird, Frances Shetley, Jacquelyn Gist, Jay Bryan NOES: None ABSENT/EXCUSED: None 1, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, North . Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on Tuesday, March 15, 1994. V, OWn ' Z % ~� �� P. IP o lop �� '2 ;�, rn to n rn R. i �! O , i rG ♦ V f± N N ♦ i ♦ ... ✓. "S' �`. C :+ .+•. v r .. �. h ..r h f: t. O i � �'• i ♦.N+• i y O � � �• �.: �•1 i r N .i r �. _ .. .s V . C E O O ♦.i ". v � i:�' 1 "'t i �• O tf• a i i i y ro ,G+i ^ i ce :� � O + �. .. •.0 O N .♦ O i ~ r i i ^ i O Or .rte row r i ,r v ♦ O O .+ o- R +► N ♦ ro a �• 0 O N ♦ f: O r� G .+ R i i Q O O '. d'+ . 7 S. Zo OM ♦ +^ ^V+ L i < ♦ NO Or r i ,+r r r y r 0 r ro O n R �• r tiC .�i �' 4 y O O ✓ i P. i R ro �!• ro ,. j ♦ .► a N y f4 ` O i. a .ri i R ""y ve1♦' i � �' i N i r y R ".• i• (+ Q i q��� � � y Q :f r �' t` � � QQ r ! O Or Orn� f i C: QG r •; ^ C r i• ±, �9 � � n ^ � O "+ wG � �•' O < y � � � f: R C i 0 y i+ R N .rG tD � �. A � '!.;• n * N /; O '+ m i i i % y ✓ O ..» K C i �' it tN'C ♦' ',�r R ^r. i ro I► N c ^ � , : yam' � K ,•% C CQG •".G � ^* y O' C r'J ro '� y i �• r N 0' 14 14 m CD Lam•, i "..• �. .+r � '�. � Q .► r� R ro R R E N O � �• O ✓ !•• ~ f+'. .•%! C Ni* r O 'r b' ,O.. ?r N .^.0 O Cf'D • C boo IA ft 0 0 i 0 z ^ R n .. o Q ,, ,.n N `° ?. RR -+ ro �. roy m '� o �!+ o f: aG Ra�:.3 !�. •-� .4 y ♦. yt n r ^ .� ui ro '•rr � `t' � � N i fop i• O '� r• � +' R N �.C "� y .i ' �..ol ♦ �. ►, !� ro O+ A i r 4.5 �.0 " r+ ro O ro�' O n N ro + �+ s � :•. n � 7 � � q � ro �'� ro o % �� o Nom " �.� LP ro Q a Q N r ft ' fY Q Q G` n , �r O�y O d ro n fl. of - N. � I�t eD , Ip 3r'r •^C"�3 Vj fr+'4^ '� O i i. i + R + R , R _ fy O. O r O �a � o ro ,r. ,♦ R r + o y C O � r 3 a N "'� � .. 'f �' t✓D tv C tv es fo =0' tad OL'. N O p a A t Let Nir i ^ -01, a tv o ro ?. fu � ft3 eoo ^' ro ^~e ro tti d ,: r O .-,� dr.? Cr � ^,,e " ' N y N • '.� O y O R' n� i a�+• O h �' f:oy^R p n? to ro rT C ? h ^ y ^ t C i A ryt A ro fi r GCr♦•�•'q N :. N i t WO i+ .�i ^ tc Or O h "• r�rl w A d a ^ O� ? n h N %c= N %c" " i �-a •+ G :.p y f• n y O 5 .5 R V 4n � � � rry O yoYO ; o ra� t'+o ..,.0 C ' o roN dy ' v. R O ^ O •• '•='R t - rb O ro N D 3 3 y A v K ? ^ c° i N �. �' ro n G;O N 7 p O to C7. ro .�..• +S� t: r. •- w ^ ' y r ..• .y w O• ..• i .. r n fi t~'. Q .�' „U.s j i O �. i '..� N ? y 0 -i r+ Q i•R .� '?� 0 d '� V� A Q ro + '•� ��y �,�, v ► v U R •ry _ G V. i ^ fD R ro U :r. r i? U C r O n y ry U y .• �", "'i tom•. N .Cy N ry C L rr IL, n ^ ...+^t ? ry .~+ r;: U iii +•+i i O y ,,,.✓ O h ro i`.� U•i i G► i •:S�ro y O 'ir. i'L H i yi „!C O M �' �t v V ? A A fi i i 1 G i y p+ y t6 A i ry f.1 i �-4 4 .� . 0 ro a n � d�"C ►•Gi. i ^ O ,.� .0 'J^ O O f•vim`? h -' ✓� ,4 p: + ro �. 6 D i y ro •O h O ro N K t9 r+• O i n�t0 O r r N p ry 4 h ♦ ^ < i h ♦ i CO+h� ro O'f' �' p S/� •, x nyo ry G , ro ohro O o ;• o A •+ +-� ry G• r9 y Oti :. ..., •+ O O P�M. M 15L Z p2612tT 21 aum Orange County Citizens for Watershed Protection March 7, 1994 TO: Orange Country Commissioners and Planning Board RE: Zoning Ordinance, Test Amendment Article 6.2 3.8 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities After reviewing this proposal, Protect Our Water (POW), an Orange County citizens committee active on water quality and watershed protection issues, recommends that you not adopt this amendment for the following reasons: ❑ It is a large step backwards from the level of watershed protection which has been adopted by general consent in Orange County over the last several years. ❑ Violating the established buffers to place septic systems closer to water supplies makes no sense. Off-sits septic systems are likely to be more trouble than on site ones. The reasoning in the Agenda Packet that failures of such systems "would be reported and corrected more quickly' flies in the face of common sense and experience. ❑ The purpose of the proposed amendment is clearly to allow more ' intense development of land than is compatible with wise watershed _ protection. It suits special development interests rather than the public interest of clean, safe water supplies over the long run. ❑ With the results of the previous University Lake Watershed Study recommending against such provisions, and the new Cane Creek Watershed Study now in progress, it is unwise and unsound public policy to carve out such an important exception. ❑ OWASA opposes this change. Thank you for consideration of this request. Protect Our Water POF 115 Vest Main Street, Carrbero, Borth Carolina 27510 22 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 28, 1994 1 2 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planninc 3 Board met on February 28 , 1994 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the New County Courthouse, 4 Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 5 6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis, and 7 Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. 8 9 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:, Chair Moses Carey, Jr. 10 11 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Hoecke, Elizabeth Walters, Joan Jobsis, 12 Kent Scott, Jean Hamilton, Clint Burklin, Karen Barrows, Betty Eidenier, 13 Larry Reid, and Carol Cantrell. 14 15 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Virginia Boland, and William Waddell 16 17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill ' STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Planning Director Marvin. 20 Collins, Planner Mary Willis, and Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker. 21 22 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN 23 Vice-Chair Halkiotis called the meeting to order and welcomed the 24 Planning Board members and citizens in attendance. He indicated that Joan 25 Jobsis, Vice-Chair of the Planning Board would Chair the remainder of this 26 Public Hearing. 27 28 B. PUBLIC CHARGE 29 Vice Chair Halkiotis dispensed with the reading of the Public 30 Charge. 31 32 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 33 010 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 34 a. Article 6.23.7 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts 35 (Stream Buffer Requirements) 36 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of 37 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to 38 allow for a reduction in the 150' building setback and 300' septic system 39 setback adjacent to reservoirs and/or streams for lots created prior to 40 January 1, 1994. 41 42 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD IF ai COMMISSIONERS AND/OR PLANNING BOARD 4:) Commissioner Gordon requested information regarding the 2 average size of the lots and the time frame in which they were created. Als 2 she inquired about the outcome if these situations were heard by the Board c 3 Adjustment. 4 5 Ms. Willis indicated that the lots were all at least one acre 6 and that the majority had been approved prior to the adoption of subdivisio- 7 regulations. They were not subdivided using the current system. The Boar-. 8 of Adjustment could find the lot unusable. If that was the finding 9 variance would be sought. If the variance was granted it would indicate than 10 the setback for the septic field was varied to accommodate the dimensions oL 11 the lot. Staff is requesting that the procedure be changed because of the_ 12 number of lots involved. Each lot would be reviewed on a case by case basis 13 and would be varied only to the degree necessary. There are four findings 14 which must be met for a variance to be granted. 15 16 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT 17 18 Steve Yuhasz, an Orange County land surveyor, spoke in support. 19 of this proposed ordinance amendment. He indicated that this amendment is 20 needed to allow these non-conforming lots to be built upon without. 21 unnecessary delays. The passage of this amendment would help the staff, the 22 Board of Adjustment and owners of the lots and would not cause degradation tc 23 the water quality. 24 Callie Warner spoke against this proposed amendment. She indicated that the possibility of failing septic systems is an ongoing 27 problem. She asked that the Board of Commissioners not locate these systems 28 in water sensitive areas. 29 30 Ann Tarton, a Lake Orange property owner, spoke in support of 31 the proposed amendment. She purchased land on Lake Orange in 1991. At that 32 time an approved house site with two approved septic systems was shown on 33 this property. The new setbacks allow them to meet the 300 foot setback for 34 the septic tank with less than 6% permeable surface limit. The stream buffer 35 can be met. This amendment would allow for a much more efficient system for 36 . granting variances. 37 38 Everett Billingsley, Executive Director of OWASA, commented 39 that he understood this proposal would apply to Cane Creek as well as Lake 40 Orange. He asked that this be changed so that it applies only to Lake 41 Orange. University Lake and Cane Creek need more restrictive measures. He 42 feels that if landowners on University Lake or Cane Creek need a variance it 43 would be best for them to request those variances on a case by case basis 44 before the Board of Adjustment. 45 46 Mary Willis indicated that the staff would look at the 47 implications of having this proposed amendment apply only to Lake Orange. 48 49 b. Article 6.23 .8 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Water supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities) 5t This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of 1�4�1n�nCt _V_�Ogr'a 24 In a cluster subdivision, the lot size can be as ' small as one acre, but the overall density cannot exceed two acres. Willis indicated the open space that would make up the difference in the lot sizes of one acre. Waddell asked if was a restriction against further subdivision of Lot 8. Willis responded that because the whole development is a cluster, there can be no further subdivision. Jobsis asked about septic easements. Willis noted that since this tract is not in a protected watershed, the option for a septic easement does exist. It was noted that the pump and water tower for Heartwood Subdivision is near the property line. Waddell asked if there would be any kind of protection barrier for the pump and tower. Willis responded that concern could be addressed as a condition of approval at the Preliminary Plan stage. Waddell indicated he would like to have such a condition added. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval with the added condition for protection of the pump and water tower for Heartwood community water system. Seconded by Barrows. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Reid - stated he is a member of the Heart Foundation Institution Board which will ., receive monetary gain from this subdivision) . AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (2/28/94) a. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (Copies of the proposed amendments are attachments to these minutes on pages . ) Presentation by Mary Willis. ( 1) Article 6.23.7 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Stream Buffers/Building Setbacks) (2) Article 6.23.8 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (Stream Buffers/Septic System Setbacks) This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction in the 150' building setback and 300' septic- system setback adjacent to reservoirs and/or streams for lots created prior to January 1, 1994. 25 Article 6.23.7 requires that new structures be located at least 150 , from a reservoir, or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Article 6.23.8 requires that septic systems be located at least 300, from a reservoir or outside of the stream buffer, whichever is greater. Application of these setbacks may render some existing lots unbuildable. The remedy available at this time is for the property owner to seek a variance of the setback requirements to the extent necessary to develop the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed amendment would allow a reduction in the septic and building setbacks on lots which were created prior to January 1, 1994 to the extent necessary to build on the property, provided that septic system and structures remain outside of stream buffers, and the septic system remains at least 100 ' from the reservoir as required by the State mandate. Citizen comments both for and against the proposed amendment were received at the public hearing on February 28, 1994 The Orange Water and Sewer Authority were opposed to the relaxation of any watershed protection standard, particularly when applied to the Cane Creek Watershed. Several citizens also spoke in favor of the amendment because a number of existing lots, particularly those surrounding Lake Orange, are rendered unbuildable by 'the setback requirements. Willis provided information on the subdivisions around Lake Orange and the number of lots which are still undeveloped which is a part of the Staff Response (an attachment on page ) . She reviewed the lots that would be unbuildable due to present requirements/restrictions. Willis reminded the Board that these lots preexist the current regulations and the owners have a right to build on them. If they cannot be built on, that could constitute a "taking of property" . She further indicated that such situations are the reasons for the existence of the variance procedures. It is unlikely that a variance would be denied if the effect of that 26 denial would be to prohibit any use of the ' property. Willis continued that the only real issue involved in the amendment is the process by which development of the existing lots would be reviewed and approved. The variance application procedure is very costly to the applicant and the County (application fee of $180.00, advertising costs, staff time and posting the property) . With the number of lots that may be affected, this could be very expensive to the County as well as the applicant. If the amendment is approved, the decision would be made at the staff level rather than by the Board of Adjustment. The information on which a decision would be made, and the criteria used to evaluate that information, would be the same, regardless of who makes the decision. Staff recommends a process which is more simple, and less costly to both the applicant and the County. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the 'f amendment on the basis that it allows or a more expedient and efficient process for addressing as many as 70 situations which could otherwise }, require action by the Board of Adjustment. (A copy of the Staff response to key questions and issues raised at the public hearing is an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) Rosemond asked how many lots would actually be' unbuildable? Willis responded that- in order to give a definite number, the Health Department would have to go to the .lots, lay out the systems and measure the distance from the reservoir. A general review of the dimensions of the lots and distance from the reservoir, indicated that about 50 lots are probably unbuildable. It is possible that the number could be as highs as 70 lots. Using a sketch of the lots around Lake Orange, Willis indicated those lots most likely to be unbuildable. She noted that the lots would have to be reviewed on a case-to-case basis as owners apply for septic and building permits. Brown asked the number of lots that have been developed. Willis responded noting the sketch that indicated the lots on which homes had been built. Brown continued asking why the lots in such an old subdivision had not been sold and developed. Willis responded that all of the 1 ots 27 were created in the late 701s, but she was not aware of reasons why more had not been developed. Reid asked if the Staff would be determining the size of home that could be built. Willis responded that the number of bedrooms determines the size of the septic system. Unless there was a limitation on the size of the septic system, the staff would be responding to what the owner wanted to build. Willis noted that a cutoff point could be included in the ordinance. Hoecke asked if impervious surface standards could address the concern of Reid. Willis responded that the impervious surface would not help to address Reid's concern. Discussion continued trying to determine what would qualify as to what the owner would feel was "buildable" before seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Reid suggested that something be placed in the ordinance to address the size home that could be built to avoid further encrtiachment into the setbacks. Reid asked what the recourse would be for homeowners if Lake Orange should overflow. Willis responded giving the pool contour and the flood easement. If there should ever be a change in the elevation of the dam, the lots would have to be reviewed and that could result in a change in lot lines or loss of lots. Reid asked what safety mechanism is in place if, at some point it is determined that the septic tanks and/or septic easements are contaminating Lake Orange. Willis responded that the State Watershed requirement for setback of septic systems from the reservoir is 100 ' and that of the County in the Zoning Ordinance is 300 ' . Under no conditions, can a septic system be nearer the reservoir than 1001 . Walters agreed with Reid that there should be some provision to prevent a very large house from being built on such lots or be the reason for a request for a variance. She continued urging the Board not to consider less than three bedrooms because lending institutions will not make loans for less than a three-bedroom house. If a requirement was made for a two-bedroom house that would also make the lot "unbuildable" . Willis 28 responded that it would be simple to add the - .. wording "that needed to accommodate a three- bedroom house" before appealing to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Brown asked about the lot sizes. Willis responded that the majority of the lots are 1 to 1 1/2 acre lots. There are some 2-acre lots. Reid reiterated his concern that there should perhaps there should be a definite number of bedrooms that Staff could approve before application to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Jobsis responded that, if a definite number is to be proposed, she would suggest 4 bedrooms. Waddell stated that he felt there was a consensus that the concept of having a limitation on what would automatically be approved by the staff without having to apply to the Board of Adjustment be based on the number of bedrooms. He continued that discussion had indicated that less than three is impossible, three is an absolute minimum, four is a more workable number; however, more than four seems to be beyond the scope of what is reasonable to be automatic. Reid agreed that was his opinion. Rosemond asked Reid for clarification of his comment regarding impact and bedrooms noting that the impact would be people not bedrooms. The response was that the Health Department uses the number of bedrooms and/or what could be used as a bedroom to determine size of the septic system. Willis asked for clarification: Does the Planning Board want to limit staff approval to the number of bedrooms (4) , or just simply use the setbacks - if more bedrooms could be built and not encroach into the setbacks more than a 3 or 4 bedroom house, could staff approve using only the issue of setbacks. Burklin asked the inspection frequency of conventional septic systems. Ron Holdway, Environmental Health, responded that there are no required inspections on conventional gravity systems. He continued that there is a five-year frequency on conventional pump systems. on low pressure systems, the State requires a management contract for inspections twice a year and the Health Department inspects low pressure systems once every three years. Holdway added that the 29 question of four or five bedrooms having the same setbacks is probably not practical because four is the maximum number for the Health Department for lots of record. Once you go from four to five bedrooms on a lot of record prior to 1982, the requirement for repair area would apply. Waddell noted that it seemed then that four would be the number of bedrooms for Staff approval, and, beyond that, application to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Brown expressed her concern with all watersheds. She noted she was more concerned with the "whole vision" . She stated that she would like the recommendation to state that none of this applies except to Lake Orange and that the other watersheds remain under the regulations that the County passed January 1, 1994. Waddell asked if the owners wished to have setbacks changed, they would apply directly to the Board of Adjustment and Brown said yes. Reid expressed concern with that recommendation because there are a few lots left in University Lake there were platted several years ago. He continued that he knew some of those lot owners and that it would be a hardship for them to apply to the Board of Adjustment. Brown asked if Reid knew how many lots that would be involved. He responded three. Walters stated that according to the information in the agenda packet and previous information, there are very few small lots of record in University Lake and Cane Creek. Since there are so few, she felt that they would not be detrimental to the water supply. She cautioned members again to be sure' that they did not make those lots unbuildable unless they were willing to make provisions to purchase them. Brown responded that could be addressed by stating that those old lots of record could be handled by the Planning Staff. Barrows noted that she felt that was what has been said. Brown responded that she did not feel that septic easements should not be allowed at all in University Lake and Cane Creek. Waddell stated that septic easements was not the issue being discussed at this time. Brown stated that it was all a part of it. Brown stated that the Cane Creek Reservoir Study is an on-going study and that what the 30 recommendations for protection of that reservoir will be we don't know. She continued that having any of this apply with the Cane Creek Reservoir is something that should be reviewed after the study. The University Lake study has been done and recommendations made for several years, so, she felt that this should not be applied in University Lake. She noted that she felt it should not be done on the other watersheds either. Walters indicated that she understood that the only thing under discussion at this time are grandfathered-in lots. Willis responded that what is being discussed are lots that existed before January 1, 1994. Any new lots will be required to meet the new regulations. Also, for University Lake and Cane Creek, that condition is already in place in the critical areas. We have never had a request for a variance in either of those two watershed for this purpose. Willis continued that she felt the likelihood of the remaining small lots in University Lake and Cane Creek Watersheds needing such a variance is very remote. The Planning Staff has reviewed this and the lot sizes in University Lake and Cane Creek Watersheds are such that they do not feel there would be any need to request a variance. That situation is centered around Lake Orange. Willis continued that after the comments at public hearing from OWASA, the Staff had considered treating the Lake Orange Reservoir differently. There have been more studies done and there is probably more awareness of Cane Creek and University Lake due to public concern - about those areas. However, the basic issue of watershed protection is 'the same for all of these areas and in order to protect the water quality, the Planning Staff feels that each reservoir should be treated the same with regard to this issue. The staff is recommending that the process for the landowner be the same, and should not be based on the watershed in which his property is located. Brown stated that her concern was to address the longtime property owner and the situation at Lake Orange only. Willis responded that most of the lots around Lake Orange had all been platted prior to Subdivision Regulations. Bellechene East Subdivision was created in 1993. Brown asked it the developer knew of the proposed watershed regulations when Bellechene East was 31 created. Willis responded yes. Burklin stated that he felt the Board should proceed cautiously, but he did like the direction of the proposals. He also noted that he would like to be sure that Hillsborough is aware of the large number of lots (50%) that might possibly be applying for a variance since this involves Hillsborough's water supply. He suggested that inspections be made annually, or, at least every two years in order that failures could be found early and, if necessary, Hillsborough might consider extending water and sewer lines earlier than they had intended. He suggested that since all lot owners would have the option to apply for a variance, inspections would help with the process. He felt it would be important to the Town of Hillsborough. He indicated he felt that inspections would address some of OWASA's concerns. Willis reminded the Board that requirements could not be placed in the Zoning Ordinance for inspections by Environmental Health. They are governed by the Board of Health. A requirement could be made of the developer to have systems inspected, but, could not require them of another department/agency through the Zoning Ordinance. Reid stated that he wished to rescind his recommendation for four-bedroom lot size since it will be remedied/addressed by the Health Department. Brown stated that she understood these amendments are to apply not only to existing lots, but lots created in the future which may need septic easements. Willis responded that this issue is not about septic easements. That is a separate amendment/agenda item. Even though they are inter-related, septic easements is an amendment that does not apply to the existing lots around Lake Orange. Brown referred to a program that has been proposed by Environmental Health, Wastewater Treatment Oversight Program (WTOP) . She asked if this proposed amendment could be delayed until that program is approved so that an inspections program would be in place as a safeguard. Jobsis asked Willis if approving these amendments would stay within the standards and guidelines of the County Health Department. Willis responded 32 yes; the amendment simply determines whether the ' Planning Staff or Board of Adjustment approves the variance. The outcome will be the same. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff with no changes or additions. Seconded by Reid. Burklin asked why OWASA thought there would be a difference in safety between a staff and Board of Adjustment recommendation. Willis responded that she did not know what the specific technical concerns are. She felt that there is a perception that any flexibility or change will result in more development than can occur at the present. Burklin asked what process do we go through to get feedback from Hillsborough. Willis responded that she did not specifically contact the Town of Hillsborough but they do receive copies of the agenda. She continued that the amendment is more of process rather than substance. Burklin asked that Hillsborough be informed of the finding that 50% of the lots might be building closer to the reservoir than Orange County Standards even though it would still be within the State y standards. Waddell noted that the Planning Board comments might influence the Health Department as to making inspections of these lots, yet recognizing the fact that the Planning Board does not have any power to proposed ordinance changes affecting the Health Department. Burklin asked that the report included in the agenda on Lake Orange lots be specifically made available to Hillsborough. Willis agreed to do so. Brown brought to the Board's attention the resolutions included in the agenda packet from OWASA, Town of Carrboro and the Citizens Group Protect Our Water. She continued that she felt this is a health issue and she could not support the motion unless it excluded University Lake and Cane Creek Watersheds. VOTE: 7 in favor. 2 opposed (Brown - as a health issue, supports the recommendation of the Town of Carrboro, the OWASA Board that this should not apply to Cane Creek Watershed out of respect for the ongoing 33 Cane Creek Reservoir Study and the already established University Lake Study which established water quality protection for that lake. Hoecke - opposed due to the opposition of OWASA) . Burklin also expressed concern as a health issue but did see this as procedure and asked that the Commissioners consider the health issue with the Health Department. (3) Article 6.23.8 - Watershed Protection Overlay Districts (W&S Facilities/Off-Site Septic Easements) Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of septic easements as needed in all protected watersheds except the University Lake Watershed. On December 21, 1993, the Board of Commissioners adopted amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Atlas, Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Plan to implement mandated watershed protection standards and to extend zoning to Little River and Cedar Grove Townships. Those amendments included prohibition of off-site septic easements (except for repair area) in all protected watersheds. Prior to adoption of the amendments, the prohibition of septic easements applied only in the University Lake Watershed. ' There was little discussion of septic easements - at the Commissioner's meetings after the August public hearing, however, Zoning Ordinance amendments adopted on December 21, 1993, included the prohibition of septic easements in all watersheds. After receiving comments from citizens after the adoption of the amendments, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners requested that the Planning Staff present an amendment for public hearing in February 1994 so that this specific provision can be revisited. Given the lack of specific discussion, and the magnitude and complexity of the amendment package adopted on December 21, the Planning Staff is unsure as to whether the restriction on septic easements was deliberately incorporated as a part Ell 34 5 ' 8 Director to Senior Public Health Educator. The salary grade of 69 was unchanged. F. CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNC SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY AND THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR THE SMART START GRANT The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the contract between the UNC School of Dentistry and the Orange County Health Department for the Smart Start grant for the coordination of a dental screening program for 0-5 year old children funded by Smart Start. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA APPOINTMENTS FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Cheryl A. Howie to the Orange County Board of Adjustment as an alternate member for a term ending June 30, 1997. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Insko to appoint Saragene G. Boericke to the Orange County Planning Board for a term ending March 30, 1997. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IX. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA A. ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CENTERS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the preparation of an Orange County senior centers development plan as proposed in the agenda. There is no commitment to build anything. VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS This proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would allow for a reduction in the 150' building setback and 300' septic system setback adjacent to reservoirs and/or streams for lots created prior to January 1, 1994. If this amendment is approved, it would allow staff approval of a reduction in the setbacks to the extent needed in order to develop existing lots. There are a number of cases in which the 150' building setback and the 300' septic system setback would render lots unbuildable. This amendment will only affect existing lots and only those that could not be built upon without a reduction of these setbacks. The alternative to approval of the amendment would be for the property owners to seek relief from the Board of Adjustment. It is highly unlikely that this amendment would affect property around Cane Creek Reservoir or University Lake. With regard to the property surrounding Lake Orange, there is a possibility of 50 to 70 variances that could be requested over time. Each variance requires additional staff time and cost about $250. 35 V � Li u-tJ LLLIII 9 Mary Willis explained the process that is followed by the Board of Adjustment in considering a variance. The same process would be followed except it will be approved by the staff instead of the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Gordon questioned if the Board of Adjustment would make the same findings as the staff. Also, she feels that each lot approved is impacting negatively on the quality of Lake Orange. Geoffrey Gledhill explained that the Board of Adjustment will consider if the lot can be used for any other purpose. The variance power is a constitutional safety valve which allows dimensional requirements to be varied so that a piece of property can be used. What often happens is that a developer will sell a lot and the owner of the lot then must apply for a variance. There is no way to force a developer to resubmit a redesigned subdivision. Commissioner Gordon suggested limiting the number of bedrooms for each dwelling so that less effluent is generated. Chair Carey stated that the issue is whether the Board should approve the reduction so this can be handled as a staff function or comply with the current ordinance which means the owners would have to go to the Board of Adjustment is order to get approval. Commissioner Willhoit made reference to differentiating between the different watersheds. Cane Creek is a primary source of water and Lake orange: is secondary. He asked if they could differentiate on the basis of primary and secondary supply. Everette Billingsley suggested categorizing each reservoir as either type "A" or type "B" . A type "A" reservoir is one where water is drawn directly while a type "B" reservoir is one where water is drawn indirectly like Lake Orange. The type "A" reservoirs could then be exempted from this regulation. In answer to a question from Chair Carey on reducing the setback from 300' to 2001 , Mary Willis said that it would help because there would be some lots that would fall in that range. the County Commissioners postponed this item for further discussion, and the possibility of incorporating into the watershed regulations the type "A" and type "B" language. C. NORTH CAROLINA STATE - COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE PARTNERSHIP ACT A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Chair Carey to authorize the formation of a workgroup composed of a Commissioner from Chatham and Orange Counties, the two County Managers, the two County Sheriffs, the District Attorney, and the Executive Director of OPC Mental Health to determine the feasibility and desirability of Chatham and Orange Counties pursuing multi-county programs under the Act and to report to the respective Boards within 45 days. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. PINEY MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION UTILITY SERVICE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS The three agreements presented are related to the extension of: sewer service to the Piney Mountain Subdivision and are necessary to satisfy local planning/utility extension concerns, State high unit cost construction grant requirements and construction administration/short term construction: