HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-26-2015 - C-41
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. C -4
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment —Impervious Surface
Regulations
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Outline Form -
Sign Amendments (UDO /Zoning 2015-
02)
2. March 3, 2015 Information Item on
Impervious Surface Regulations and
Standards
3. Review Comments
4. Excerpt of Draft Ordinance Review
Committee (ORC) Meeting Notes
5. Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Harvey Planner 111,(919) 245 -2597
Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2585
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text amendments regarding impervious surface regulations.
BACKGROUND: Staff and Board members have received numerous inquiries related to
increasing allowable impervious surface area.
Staff provided the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) with an information item at its
March 3, 2015 regular meeting (Attachment 2) summarizing the issues and possible solutions.
The BOCC approved the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Outline
Form (Attachment 1) at its March 17, 2015 regular meeting authorizing the initiation of
amendments based on the conclusions and recommendations detailed within the
aforementioned information item.
The proposed amendment seeks to allow for a potential increase in allowable impervious
surface area on a given parcel of property through the development and incorporation of an
infiltration based stormwater feature, consistent with State allowances. For more background
information please refer to Section B.1 of Attachment 1.
Outreach: In addition to the typical peer review of the proposed amendment, staff presented
the proposal to the Orange County Commission for the Environment (CFE) and the Orange
Water Sewer Authority (OWASA) board. The item was presented to the CFE at its April 13,
2015 regular meeting and to the OWASA board at its April 23, 2015 regular meeting. Their
comments on the proposal are contained within Attachment 3.
JPA Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this text amendment was
sent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for review and comment. A response was
received from the Town of Carrboro at it is included in Attachment 3.
In summary, while various entities expressed support for the proposal there was a universal
concern the County lacks the staff resources to properly monitor and inspect these stormwater
features in perpetuity to ensure their continued viability.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
1. Receive the request,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the BOCC in time for its June 16, 2015 regular meeting.
4. Adjourn the public hearing until June 16, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2015 -02
UDO Text Amendment(s) allowing for the modification of impervious surface area
within Watershed Protection Overlay Districts through the installation of permeable
pavement
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From:
To:
❑ Zoning Map-
From -
To
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text-
Section(s)-
❑ UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
❑UDO Development Standards
❑UDO Development Approval Processes
�ection(s): 1. 4.2.8 Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio
of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
❑ Other:
0
1. Purpose /Mission
K
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated text amendment(s) to modify existing regulations governing processes
M
allowing for the modification of allowable impervious surface area.
There has been an increase in inquires and interest from local residents and property
owners with respect to increasing allowable impervious surface area on parcels of
property including:
• Increasing allowable impervious surface percentages in Watershed Protection
Overlay Districts in accordance with State standards,
• Allow additional impervious surface area on property based on the installation
of a stormwater feature, and
• Exempt gravel from being considered an `impervious surface area'.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners'.
The amendments are necessary to address current concerns our impervious surface
limits are too restrictive and unnecessary limit development of property and to provide a
mechanism for modifying said limits consistent with current State policies.
Staff generated an information item on this topic, which was provided to the BOCC at
its March 3, 2015 regular meeting (please refer to Attachment 2).
As detailed within this information item, in certain circumstances the State allows the
installation of a stormwater feature, commonly referred to as a Best Management
Practice (BMP), providing an opportunity for the installation of additional impervious
surface area.
At this time the State only recognizes the use /installation of permeable pavement as
a means of receiving additional impervious surface area on a parcel. The State is in
the process, however, of revising their policies with respect to the types of features
where additional impervious surface could be permitted based on the installation of a\
BMP designed to capture and allow for the infiltration of stormwater. The result could
be the expansion of the types of features allowing for an additional allotment of
impervious surface area.
The proposed amendment(s) seeks to incorporate the use of infiltration
based /designed BMPs as a means of modifying allowable impervious surface area
within the County. This is consistent with current, and anticipated, State allowances.
The review of these requests will have to be done on a case -by -case basis with the
property owner assuming the responsibility for completing the necessary engineering
studies justifying the modification as well as the responsibility for the maintenance,
inspection, and upkeep of said BMP in perpetuity.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques, and /or
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
March 17, 2015
b. Quarterly Public Hearin
Mav 26. 2015
c. BOCC Updates /Checkpoints
March 17, 2015 - Approval of the UDO Amendment Outline Form.
April 1, 2015 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
May 26, 2015 — Quarterly Public Hearing.
June 16, 2015 - Receive Planning Board recommendation.
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
April 1, 2015 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
The ORC met on April 1, 2015 to review this item. There was general
discussion over the implications of the proposed amendment and the
process by which a property owner would obtain additional impervious
surface area. A synopsis of the comments from this meeting are contained
in Attachment 4.
June 3, 2015 — Recommendation.
b. Advisory Boards:
Commissioner for the Environment
(CFE). The CFE reviewed this item at
its April 13, 2015 regular meeting.
Comments from this meeting are
contained in Attachment 4.
c. Local Government Review:
Staff transmitted the proposed
amendment to the Towns of Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough for
courtesy review. To date only the
Town of Carrboro has provided
comments. Please refer
to Attachment 4.
Staff transmitted the proposed
amendment to OWASA staff and
presented the item to its Board on
April 23, 2015. Please refer
to Attachment 4.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement published in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
e. Outreach:
❑ General Public:
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup:
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Modification of existing language will not require the outlay of additional funds by the
County. Processing of the amendment shall be handled by staff utilizing existing
budgeted funds.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
The amendment will allow for an additional process, in accordance with State
regulations, allowing for the modification of impervious surface limits throughout the
County.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please refer to Attachment 5.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245 -2597
mharvey @orangecountync.gov
Attachment 2
INFORMATION ITEM
Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245 -2575 - Suite 201
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) a� „,�'°��,,'4' -,,�� i E r,,,,,Mf ,,,.����,,,�� �� i -,,,�F P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov i," ORFI I C R'. LIN0 Hillsborough, NC 27278
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Bonnie B. Hammersley, County Manager
FROM: Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Wesley Poole, Erosion Control /Stormwater
CC: John Roberts, County Attorney
James Bryan, County Attorney
DATE: March 3, 2015
SUBJECT: INFORMATION ITEM — Response to Petition Impervious Surface
Issues
Please accept the following memorandum responding to a property owner inquiry over
impervious surface allocations within Orange County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The County is, for the most part, more restrictive than the
State with respect to established impervious surface limits. There are no impervious
surface limit(s) for properties not located within a `protected' or `critical' Watershed
Protection Overlay District.
There has been an increase in requests, both at a staff and elected official level, from
property owners seeking additional impervious surface allotments beyond established
limits. The State allows for the installation /use of a stormwater feature, commonly
referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs), allowing additional impervious
surface area on a given property in certain circumstances.
The use of a BMP is not, however, universally applicable throughout the County and
can be limited based on soil composition, drainage, and topography. There are
concerns related to establishing a program allowing for additional impervious surface
area through the use of a BMP, as well as the perpetual maintenance costs of such
infrastructure, causing staff to believe the option has limited viability.
7
1
BACKGROUND: In accordance with NC General Statute 143 Chapter 21, Orange
County adopted watershed management standards in the late 1980's early 1990's
establishing regulations to prevent significant future water quality deterioration in
`existing or potential future drinking water reservoirs'. This included the adoption of
impervious surface limits for properties designated as being located within either
`protected' or 'critical' watershed areas.
Impervious surface is defined within Article 10 Definitions of the UDO as:
A surface composed of any material that impedes or prevents the natural
infiltration of water into the soil. Such surfaces include concrete, asphalt, and
gravel surfaces. These include, but are not limited to streets and parking
areas, sidewalks, patios, and structures that cover the land.
Large amounts of impervious surface on a parcel of property impacts water quality by
limiting the availability of undisturbed natural area allowing for the infiltration and
treatment of stormwater runoff. To address this issue, the County adopted limits on the
total cumulative amount of impervious surface(s) that can be developed thereby
encouraging the preservation of natural area and allowing for more on -site infiltration.
Impervious surface limits vary based on a properties location within a Watershed
Protection Overlay District. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a chart breaking down
current impervious surface limits in each district. Please note there are no impervious
surface limits on those properties not located within a `protected' or 'critical' Watershed
Protection Overlay District. This includes areas north of Chapel Hill, around the Town of
Hillsborough, and a portion of land area within the Bingham Township. For more
information on the location of various overlay districts, please refer to Attachment 2.
ISSUE: Staff and Board members have received numerous inquiries related to
increasing allowable impervious surface area including:
• Increasing allowable impervious surface percentages in Watershed Protection
Overlay Districts,
• Allow additional impervious surface area on property based on the installation of
a stormwater feature, and
• Exempt gravel from being considered an `impervious surface area'.
The County already has procedures in place, specifically contained Section 4.2.8 of the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), allowing for a property owner to modify the
allowable impervious surface area for a parcel, specifically:
a. Applying for a variance
STAFF COMMENT: Obtaining a variance from existing impervious
surface limits is extremely difficult as the property owner has to
demonstrate there is a unique hardship on the property.
b. Proposing the establishment of a conservation easement on an
adjacent parcel of property. This conservation easement would allow
for a defined area to remain in a natural, undeveloped, state while
allowing for the transfer of the impervious surface area to the subject
parcel to facilitate development.
3
It should be noted in 2014 the State Legislature adopted a temporary rule eliminating
certain types of gravel from being classified as an impervious surface. This rule,
however, was rescinded resulting in all forms of gravel being considered an impervious
surface and calculated as same.
STATE ALLOWANCES: The State has produced a stormwater manual, denoting
required design elements, which can be viewed at: http:t" ortal.n rar.or /web /Ir/ rr�p�..
manual. Property owners proposing a certain level of disturbance are required to
comply with established stormwater provisions as detailed within the LIDO.
In certain circumstances the State allows the installation of a stormwater feature,
commonly referred to as a Best Management Practice (BMP), providing an opportunity
for the installation of additional impervious surface area. As of the writing of this
memorandum, the State recognizes only one BMP option allowing for additional
impervious surface allocation, specifically:
Permeable pavement - allows stormwater to infiltrate through void spaces
for temporary storage and, ultimately, to be infiltrated into the soil. The
total amount of additional impervious surface allotment is based on the
soil type.
Viability of permeable pavement is determined on a case by case basis
with no guarantee(s).
According to the manual, permeable pavement has the following general
advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
• Replaces built upon area with
materials that allow for infiltration
of stormwater.
• Eliminates standing water on
pavement.
• Helps to reduce pollutant runoff
concerns from a parcel of
property.
Disadvantages
• Without proper maintenance it
can become clogged by
sediment, compromising its
effectiveness.
• Not applicable for all site
conditions.
• Higher costs (i.e. installation
and perpetual maintenance)
County regulations, as contained in Section(s) 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 of the UDO, prohibit the
use of BMPs as satisfying, or allowing for an increase in allowable, impervious surface
area.
UPDATE: Staff would like to offer the following:
1. Members of the Planning Department and Erosion Control /Stormwater are
scheduled to review various elements of the existing stormwater program and
possible use of BMPs to allow for additional impervious surface area with State
officials on February 25, 2015.
2. Staff is developing potential amendment(s) to existing regulations requiring
developers to address the comprehensive impact of development with respect to
impervious surface limits and stormwater management.
9
FU
Our goal is to offer an option whereby a developer of a subdivision could install
the necessary infrastructure to off -set runoff from roadways and /or developed
parcels thereby relieving future property owners from accepting responsibility for
the installation and maintenance of individual stormwater management controls
on a lot by lot basis. This, in turn, may result in additional impervious surface
allocations for each proposed lot within a subdivision.
We are also looking to establish a policy to address older subdivisions,
developed prior to the adoption of impervious surface limits, where impervious
area within roadways are calculated as being within part of individual lots.
3. Staff is looking for direction from the BOCC on the need to establish impervious
surface limit(s) on those areas of the County not located within a Watershed
Protection Overlay District.
4. In addressing inquiries made by Dr. Janel Sexton at the December 9, 2014
BOCC meeting, the County could:
a. Amend existing impervious surface limits within the various Watershed
Protection Overlay Districts to be consistent with current State allowances
as detailed in Attachment 1.
This would result in a net increase for some residents in the total
cumulative amount of permitted impervious surface area allowed on their
property.
STAFF COMMENT: It would be incumbent on local property
owners to work with staff to record new plats and
declarations of development restrictions to reflect this
increase in allowable impervious surface area.
The property owner would absorb any expense in the
creation of these document(s).
There will be a finite number of property owners who will be
able to take advantage of this provision.
b. Amend the UDO to allow for the placement of additional impervious
surface area on property with the installation /use of a BMP consistent with
State regulations. In staff's opinion this amendment would include, at a
minimum, the following elements:
i. Consistent with State policy, requiring a property owner to hire an
engineer to complete a stormwater assessment of the current
property identifying its infiltration rates and carrying capacity. This
would include the completion of a comprehensive soil assessment
for the property.
STAFF COMMENT: State officials have previously indicated
soils in our area do not universally lend themselves to being
viable candidates for the installation of a BMP and receiving
additional impervious surface allotments. Lots have to be
reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
10
5
Even if we implement the program described herein,
opportunities for local property owners to participate in such
a program may be limited.
ii. Have an engineer develop a BMP to `treat' runoff thereby allowing
for additional impervious surface.
STAFF COMMENT: We would recommend the
establishment of a cap on the total amount of additional
impervious surface allowed per Watershed Protection
Overlay District through this method.
For example, we may allow for an additional 50% of
impervious surface area in the University Lake
Protected /Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
beyond the established 6% threshold (i.e. maximum of 9 %).
This translates to a 2 acre parcel of property, normally
allowed 5,227 sq. ft. of impervious surface area (43,560 x 2
x 0.06) to have 7,840 sq. ft. (43,560 x 2 x 0.09).
iii. Establish a maintenance /inspection /certification policy where the
property owner will have to ensure the perpetual viability of the
approved BMP. We would also require documents to be recorded
within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds office detailing same.
STAFF COMMENT: This has the potential to be costly. The
property owner will be required to absorb the cost of:
1. Maintaining the installed BMP,
2. The cost of an engineer's annual /bi- annual
inspection certifying the BMP is working properly,
and
3. The annual /bi- annual inspection by the County as
required within the LIDO.
iv. Review the need for the posting of a bond or a letter of credit
allowing for the removal of the system, and excess impervious
surface area, if the property owner fails to properly maintain the
system.
v. Require the property owner to record documents detailing new
impervious surface limits in the Orange County Registrar of Deeds
office (i.e. new subdivision plat(s), impervious surface declaration,
stormwater operational /maintenance agreement, etc.).
STAFF COMMENT: There are subdivisions in the County
with locally established impervious surface limits enforced by
a homeowners association.
Unless these limits are also modified the property owner will
be unable to take advantage of any County approved
increase.
11
12
ATTACHMENT 1 — COUNTY AND STATE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS: 6
Watershed
Overlay District
Impervious Surface Limits —
Residential
Impervious Surface Limits —
Non - residential
State Allowanoes
University Lake —
6%
6%
Low Density Option:
Protected
Lots existin g p rior to April 2,
Lots existin g p rior to April 2, 1990
6% limit with minimum lot size
(STATE
1990 subject to sliding scale —
subject to sliding scale — See
of 1 acre
Classified WS -II
See Section 4.2.5.2 of LIDO
Section 4.2.5.2 of LIDO
OR
Watershed Area)
Density in this area is limited to
Density in this area is limited to 1
® 12% limit with minimum lot size
1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres
dwelling unit for every 5 acres of
of 2 acres.
of property.
property.
Certain parcels in existence
Certain parcels in existence prior
High Density Option: 2
prior to October 2, 1989 qualify
to October 2, 1989 qualify for a
If new development exceeds low
for a density bonus of a
density bonus of a maximum of 5
density option, engineered
maximum of 5 dwelling units for
dwelling units for every 2 acres of
stormwater controls required with
every 2 acres of property with
property with any future
development limited to either 24%
any future development being
development being held to the 1
to 30% impervious surface area 3
held to the 1 unit for 5 acre
unit for 5 acre density limit.
A of 10% of the
density limit.
maximum
watershed outside of a Critical
Area can be developed up to 70%
impervious with a structural BMP.
University Lake —
6%
6%
SAME AS ABOVE
Critical
Lots existing prior to April 2,
Lots existing prior to April 2, 1990
(STATE
1990 subject to sliding scale —
subject to sliding scale — See
Classified WS-11
See Section 4.2.5.2 of LIDO
Section 4.2.5.2 of UDO
Watershed Area)
Density in this area is limited to
Density in this area is limited to 1
1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres
dwelling unit for every 5 acres of
of property.
property.
Certain parcels in existence
Certain parcels in existence prior
prior to October 2, 1989 qualify
to October 12, 1989 qualify for a
for a density bonus of a
density bonus of a maximum of 5
maximum of 5 dwelling units for
dwelling units for every 2 acres of
every 2 acres of property with
property with any future
any future development being
development being held to the 1
held to the 1 unit for 5 acre
unit for 5 acre density limit.
density limit.
1 Property within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts is also located
within the Rural Buffer (RB) general use zoning district. In developing the RB zoning district, which was done prior
to the development and adoption of Watershed Overlay standards, the County chose to require a 2 acre minimum
lot size. We then chose to impose the more restrictive impervious surface limit in an effort to ensure the
protection of the Chapel Hill /Carrboro water source.
Z There was a conscious decision made as reflected in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, Joint Planning Land Use
Plan Agreement, and adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan to keep the area within the RB zoning district at a low
density. Changing this policy will require the amendment of the aforementioned document(s). Non - residential
development(s) are held to the 6% impervious surface limit.
3 Critical areas, under high density, are limited to 24% while protected areas are limited to 30% impervious surface.
13
Watershed
Overlay District
Impervious Surface Limits —
Residential
Impervious Surface Limits —
Non - residential
State Allowances
Cane Creek —
6% 4
12%
Low Density Option:
Protected
Lots existing prior to January 1,
Lots existing prior to January 1,
® 6% limit with minimum lot size
1994 subject to sliding scale —
1994 sliding scale — See Section
of 1 acre
(STATE
Classified WS -II
See Section 4.2.5.2 of UDO
4.2.5.2 of UDO
OR
Watershed Area)
Density in this area is limited to
5 acre minimum lot size
12% limit with minimum lot size
1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres
50% impervious surface limit for all
of 2 acres
of property.
fire stations and solid waste
High Density Option:
Certain parcels in existence
collection centers (with stormwater
If new development exceeds low
prior to October 19, 1999
feature)
density option, engineered
qualify for a density bonus of a
stormwater controls required with
maximum of 5 dwelling units for
development limited to either 24%
every 2 acres of property with
to 30% impervious surface area
any future development being
held to the 1 unit for 5 acre
A maximum of 10% of the
density limit.
watershed outside of a Critical
Area can be developed up to 70%
impervious with a structural BMP.
Cane Creek —
6%
6%
SAME AS ABOVE
Critical
Lots existing prior to April 2,
5 acre minimum lot size
(STATE
1990 subject to sliding scale —
Lots existing prior to April 2, 1990
Classified WS -II
See Section 4.2.5.2 of UDO
subject to sliding scale — See
Watershed Area)
Density in this area is limited to
Section 4.2.5.2 of LIDO
1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres
of property.
Certain parcels in existence
prior to October 19, 1999
qualify for a density bonus of a
maximum of 5 dwelling units for
every 2 acres of property with
any future development being
held to the 1 unit for 5 acre
density limit.
4 The Cane Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District originally had a 12% impervious surface limit for
residential developments. It appears to have been changed to be consistent with State standards.
5 There is no High Density Option currently available in the Cane Creek Critical Watershed Protection Overlay
District.
14
Watershed
Impervious Surface Limits —
Impervious Surface Limits —
State Allowanoes
Overlay District
Residential
Non- residential
$
Upper Eno —
12% for properties outside of
70 % in Economic Development,
Low Density Option:
Protected 6, 7
Transition Areas
Commercial, and Commercial
® 6% limit with minimum lot size
30% for properties located
Industrial Transition Activity Nodes
of 1 acre
(STATE
within Transition Areas where
with development of a BMP.
Classified WS -II
density exceeds 1 dwelling unit
50% for all fire stations /solid waste
OR
Watershed Area)
per acre
collection centers outside of these
® 12% limit with minimum lot size
70% for residential land uses
Activity Nodes with development of
of 2 acres
developed at'high densities'
a BMP
High Density Option:
(R -5, R -8, R -13). A BMP shall
12% for all other non - residential
If new development exceeds low
be required in this scenario
development outside of Activity
density option, engineered
Density in this area is based on
Nodes.
stormwater controls required with
underlying general use zoning
development limited to either 24%
designation
to 30% impervious surface area
A maximum of 10% of the
watershed outside of a Critical
Area can be developed up to 70%
impervious with a structural BMP.
Upper Eno —
6%
6% limit
SAME AS ABOVE
Critical a
Density in this area is limited to
2 acre minimum lot size
(STATE
1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres
Classified WS -II
of property.
Watershed Area)
Lots smaller than 5 acres
existing prior to 6/1/2010
subject to sliding scale — See
Section 4.2.5.2 of UDO
Little River —
6%
2 acre minimum lot size
SAME AS ABOVE
Protected
Lots existing prior to January 1,
50% for all fire stations /solid waste
1994 subject to sliding scale —
collection centers outside of these
(STATE
See Section 4.2.5.2 of LIDO
Activity Nodes with development of
Classified WS -II
a BMP
Watershed Area)
Density in this area is limited to
12% for all other non - residential
1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres
development.
of property.
6 Per Section 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 of the UDO a structural BMP is required in some cases where density exceeds 1
dwelling unit per acre.
The County chose to institute the High Density Option within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection
Overlay District.
8 The County's Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District is larger than the State recognized critical area.
15
Watershed
Overlay District
Impervious Surface Limits —
Residential
Impervious Surface Limits —
Non - residential
State Allowances
9
Back Creek —
12% for properties outside of
70 % in Economic Development,
Low Density Option:
Protected
Transition Areas
Commercial, and Commercial
® 6% limit with minimum lot size
30% for properties located
Industrial Transition Activity Nodes
of 1 acre
(STATE
within Transition Areas where
with development of a BMP.
Classified WS -II
density exceeds 1 dwelling unit
50% for all fire stations /solid waste
OR
Watershed Area
per acre
p
collection centers outside of these
12% limit with minimum lot size
70% for residential land uses
Activity Nodes with development of
of 2 acres
developed at'high densities'
a BMP
High Density Option:
(R -5, R -8, R -13). A BMP shall
12% for all other non - residential
If new development exceeds low
be required in this scenario
development outside of Activity
Nodes.
density option, engineered
Density in this area is based on
stormwater controls required with
underlying general use zoning
development limited to either 24%
designation
to 30% impervious surface area
A maximum of 10% of the
watershed outside of a Critical
Area can be developed up to 70%
impervious with a structural BMP.
16
Watershed
Overlay District
Impervious Surface Limits —
Residential
Impervious Surface Limits —
Non - residential
State Allowances 10
Flat River —
12%
50% for all fire stations /solid waste
Low Density Option:
Protected
Density n this area is limited to
y
collection centers
Density limit of 2 dwelling units
(STATE
1 dwelling unit for every 40,000
12% for all other non - residential
per acre or 20,000 square foot
Classified WS -III
sq. ft. (0.92 acres) of property.
development.
minimum lot excluding roadway
Watershed Area)
right -of -way
OR
® 24% impervious surface limit for
residential /non - residential
developments
High Density Option:
If new development exceeds low
density option, engineered
stormwater controls required with
development limited to 50%
impervious surface area
South Hyco
12%
50% for all fire stations /solid waste
SAME AS ABOVE
Creek —
Density in this area is limited to
collection centers
Protected
1 dwelling unit for every 40,000
12% for all other non - residential
(STATE
sq. ft. (0.92 acres) of property.
development.
Classified WS -III
Watershed Area)
17
Watershed
Impervious Surface Limits —
Impervious Surface Limits —
State Allowances
Overlay District
Residential
Non- residential
11
Lower Eno —
24% for project with curb and
70 %, with a BMP required when
Low Density Option:
Protected
gutter
an impervious surface exceeds:
Density limit of 2 dwelling units
(STATE
36% for project without curb
24% for project with curb and
per acre or 20,000 square foot
Classified WS -IV
and gutter
gutter
minimum lot excluding roadway
Watershed Area)
70% for residential land uses
OR
right -of -way
developed at'high densities'
36% for project without curb and
OR
(R -5, R -8, R -13). A B M P shall
be required in this scenario
gutter
®24% impervious surface limit for
residential /non - residential
Density in this area is based on
development
underlying general use zoning
designation
OR
® 3 dwelling units per acre
OR
® 36% impervious surface limit for
residential /non - residential
development without curb and
gutter street systems
High Density Option:
If new development exceeds low
density option, engineered
stormwater controls required with
development limited to 70%
impervious surface area.
Jordan Lake —
24%
24%
SAME AS ABOVE
Protected
Density in this area is based on
(STATE
underlying general use zoning
Classified WS -IV
designation
Watershed Area)
Haw River —
24%
24%
SAME AS ABOVE
Protected
Density in this area is based on
(STATE
underlying general use zoning
Classified WS -IV
designation
Watershed Area)
Attachment 2 1 10
Orange County Watersheds 12
N
pply Watersheds:
Protected
unprotected
Critical
ier Basin Boundary
itersheds
'earns
inicipal Jurisdiction
3 4
� Miles
= 2.75 miles
replaces previous versions.
County Zoning ordinance
2 adopted June 1, 2010
g & Im�tlons Ik�vlmenl
d Fy Mlnam Coleman
n:5tate Plane
Ih American 193
,4 D..:Nm emFec 2IX W,...
Z4MI5
LPNM60_9�'
May 6, 2015
Attachment 3
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
.4 public, non - profit agency providing water, seiner and reclaimed water services
to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill community.
Chair Earl McKee
Board of County Commissioners
County of Orange
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
SUBJECT: OWASA Comments on Orange County's Draft Changes to the Unified
Development Ordinance Regarding Impervious Surface Limits in Water
Supply Watersheds
Dear Chair McKee:
Michael Harvey presented Orange County's draft changes to its unified development ordinance
(UDO) to modify the impervious surface thresholds in water supply watersheds at the April 23,
2015 OWASA Board of Directors meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
consideration to amend the UDO. OWASA and its customers have long benefitted from the
progressive watershed protection requirements implemented by Orange County and Carrboro in
the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds. Those efforts have been guided by the
technical evaluations and recommendations from local watershed management studies funded by
OWASA. Orange County has planning and zoning control over about 90% of the University Lake
and Cane Creek watersheds; therefore, the County's requirements will be a primary factor
affecting the long -term quality of our community's existing drinking water supplies.
We commend the County's protection standards for our two watersheds as set forth in the County's
UDO, as we recognize those include some of the most restrictive development densities, riparian
buffer requirements, and impervious surface limits in the State. They far exceed the State's
minimum statewide watershed protection requirements established under North Carolina General
Statute 143 -214.5 and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources'
(DENR) regulations at 15A NCAC 02B .0214.
It is our understanding that the County's UDO allows landowners to exceed their impervious
surface requirements through a variance process or by transferring allowable impervious surface
requirements from a neighboring property through the establishment of a conservation easement.
The County is proposing to add a third option to modify the impervious surface limits in response
to citizen requests to allow modest increases in the allowable limits.
19
As we understand it, this third potential process — if approved — would generally increase the
allowable impervious surface limit for the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds
from the current 6% limit to as much as 9 %, provided that the property owner:
400 Jones Ferry Road Equal oppoilunin Employer Voice (919) 968 -4421
Carrboro, NC 27510 -2001 Printed on Recycled Paper n'n'n'.onasa.org
P
OWASA's Comments on Orange County's Draft Changes to the UDO Regarding Impervious
Surface Limits in Water Supply Watersheds
May 6, 2015
Page 2
a) implement an infiltration best management practice (BMP) approved by DENR;
b) hire an engineer to evaluate the infiltration capacity of the soil and design the BMP in
accordance with the State's stormwater manual;
c) complete a stormwater operation and maintenance agreement and have the document
recorded with the Register of Deeds; and
d) assume all financial and legal responsibility for the BMP.
The County staffs draft amendments also include an increase in the allowable impervious surface
limit for non - residential development within the Protected Watershed area in the University Lake
watershed, which would make such requirements uniform for both the Cane Creek Reservoir and
University Lake watersheds.
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE UDO
1. OWASA does not believe the County's consideration to amend the UDO as currently drafted
will result in "backsliding" from current water supply protection efforts. We believe the draft
changes are consistent with early recommendations from watershed management studies for
the University Lake and Cane Creek Reservoir watersheds, and meet the Cane Creels
Watershed Management Study's two highest goals which are protecting public health, and
minimizing impacts on County residents who are not OWASA customers. This conclusion is
predicated on the assumption that development densities and riparian buffer requirements are
not relaxed. The draft amendments would limit impervious surface at thresholds higher than
currently allowed only with an infiltration BMP that would mimic the existing hydrology of
the land. This combination of strategies could be as protective of water quality in the water
supply reservoirs as current requirements assuming the BMP is properly designed, constructed,
and maintained. Since the draft ordinance revision requires an engineer to design the BMP, it
is likely that the associated BMP would be designed properly.
2. While the draft UDO requires the landowner to develop a maintenance agreement and record
it with the Register of Deeds, it is critical to ensure that the required annual inspections occur.
We strongly recommend that Orange County implement an ongoing program and provide the
funding and staff resources necessary to ensure that the mandatory inspections and
maintenance of such BMPs will occur. The program should include a process that would occur
if a BMP no longer functioned properly and the owner decided not to repair or replace the
BMP. We also recommend that the County evaluate staffing and funding periodically to
possibly include a landowner- funded inspection program; more landowners may enroll in the
program over time, and more BMPs may require repairs or replacement.
3. We recommend that 4.2.8(C)(3) clarify that a licensed engineer be required to design the BMP.
This would help ensure that a professional engineer with expertise in stormwater management
would design the BMP and sign and seal the design.
4. We commend Orange County for including both a protective density requirement and stringent
impervious surface requirement, and believe both should remain. The density /minimum lot
size provisions are the foundation of our successful local water supply protection program.
21
OWASA's Comments on Orange County's Draft Changes to the UDO Regarding Impervious
Surface Limits in Water Supply Watersheds
May 6, 2015
Page 3
5. We agree that if the County moves forward with this proposal, it should credit only infiltration
BMPs, as proposed, that mimic the existing hydrology of the site.
6. We strongly support Orange County's approach that allows only low - density development
options in our water supply watersheds. We believe this helps protect water quality as well as
maintain the rural character of the County. We oppose the high- density options allowed by
state regulations, other than those currently allowed for fire stations and the solid waste
collection center.
7. We support the proposal to make the University Lake impervious surface limitation for non-
residential development consistent with that for the Cane Creek Reservoir watershed.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed UDO changes as well as the
County's ongoing efforts to protect our drinking water supplies. Please let me know if OWASA
can provide additional information. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact
Ruth Rouse, OWASA's Planning and Development Manager, at 919 -537 -4214 or at
rrouseL,-i,) owasa.org.
Sincerely,
Jsa A. Young, Chair
OWASA Board of Directors
c: Ms. Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager
Mr. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
Mr. Michael Harvey, Orange County Current Planning Supervisor
Ms. Lydia Lavelle, Mayor, Town of Carrboro
Mr. David Andrews, Manager, Town of Carrboro
Mr. Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill
Mr. Roger Stancil, Manager, Town of Chapel Hill
Mr. Tom Stevens, Mayor, Town of Hillsborough
Mr. Eric Peterson, Manager, Town of Hillsborough
OWASA Board of Directors
Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director
Robert Epting, OWASA General Counsel
22
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To: Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw
Date: May 6, 2015
Subject: Proposed Changes to Orange County Rules that Limit Impervious Surfaces
At your April 13 meeting the CFE received a presentation on proposed changes to the County's
rules that limit construction of impervious surfaces on properties in water supply watersheds.
CFE asked many questions as part of its discussion with the Planning staff (Michael Harvey and
Craig Benedict). The CFE decided to reconsider the matter in May and decide whether to
formulate comments for the Planning Board and BOCC consideration.
On April 23, 2015 the OWASA Board of Directors received a similar presentation from the
Orange County Planning staff. According to the OWASA's meeting summary, OWASA's
comments on the proposed changes will be submitted by letter to the County, and they will
include the need for the County to have adequate technical resources and enforcement.
The following is a summary of the discussion at the CFE April 13 meeting:
Michael Harvey (Current Planning Supervisor, Orange Co. Planning & Inspections Dept.) provided an
overview of proposed amendments to Orange County's rules that limit the amount of impervious surfaces
for new development. Harvey said staff was directed to initiate a process to amend the ordinance to
include additional opportunities for residents to modify established impervious surface limits.
Harvey said under the current rules there are two processes for allowing changes to impervious surface
thresholds: 1) approval of a variance request (only one approved in the past 10 years), or 2) transferring the
allowable impervious surface area from an adjacent property by way of a conservation easement.
Harvey said under certain circumstances the State of North Carolina allows a larger area of impervious
surfaces on a property through the installation and continued maintenance of on -site stormwater
retention measures, such as permeable pavement. Such a device would be designed to capture runoff and
allow it to infiltrate the soil. Harvey said permeable pavement is not counted as totally impervious,
which translates to an allowance for installing additional "impervious surface area."
Harvey said the board of county commissioners has directed Planning staff to evaluate how the County
might incorporate language similar to what the State uses for the treatment of permeable pavement in its
impervious surface calculations. He said the County considers gravel, asphalt, and concrete, along with
more impenetrable building surfaces (roofs, etc.), within its current definition of impervious surfaces.
Harvey said the proposed amendment to County rules would allow permeable concrete and some other
permeable surfaces to be counted as 50 percent toward the impervious surface area. The County would
require an engineer to certify there would be no net increase in the stormwater runoff leaving the
property. The County would also require an operations agreement be signed and recorded at the Orange
County Registry. The County would also require there be annual inspections and reporting of
maintenance. Finally, Harvey said the County would obtain a permanent access easement to the
property in order for staff to monitor and enforce the UDO standards.
23
Harvey said it is his impression that a property with 8% impervious cover that includes certain best
management practices would result in less stormwater runoff than a property with 6% impervious cover.
Craig Benedict (Orange County Planning Director) noted that the current watershed overlay districts
were established in 1994 and in many areas of the county the standards are more stringent that the State
guidelines for watershed protection areas. He agreed with Harvey that the intent of the rule change was
for there to be no net increase in stormwater runoff from any permitted site.
Harvey and Benedict responded to questions from CFE members:
• Hintz noted that such devices always fail at some point. Harvey said the County would
require a binding operations and maintenance agreement, and possibly also a letter of credit
with no expiration date.
• Davis asked what would happen if a device failed after 10 years. Harvey said the County
would issue a notice of violation. If the landowner did not take corrective action the County
would remediate the site at the owners' expense.
• Welch asked what difference do 6% and 12% impervious limits have on water quality.
Harvey said he feels the proposed allowance of increased impervious surfaces in the form of
permeable concrete would not harm water quality. Benedict added that Orange County is
the most restrictive in the state in terms of watershed protection.
• Becker asked what's motivating the County to change the rules. Benedict said many
residents had complained that the rules are too stringent in some watersheds, notably the
University Lake, Little River, and Cane Creek districts. He explained how quickly 6% of a
property could be covered with impervious surfaces — especially if roads and driveways are
included. Benedict said he did not expect a lot of extra staff time would be required to
implement the proposed rule change.
• Neal asked if the rule applies to commercial developments, such as shopping centers. Harvey
said such developments are allowed up to 70% impervious surfaces as long as there are
stormwater BMPs installed to hold the runoff.
Benedict noted that his staff is also considering developing some variation of a transfer of development
rights program —or in this case a transfer of impervious surfaces.
• Sassaman said he is aware of a product ( "Ecoraster ") used for construction of roads and
driveways that requires little maintenance over 20 years. He showed a small prototype model
of the product. Harvey said he is familiar with "GeoWeb" and other products that could be
used if they were certified by an engineer.
• Gronback asked what incentive would landowners and developers have to use pervious
concrete or similar products. Harvey said they would be permitted to develop more parts of
their property than would otherwise be allowed. He said this rule change would provide
landowners with more options. Harvey said the intent is not to provide incentives to do the
right thing for protecting water quality.
Harvey said the Planning staff would be making similar presentations to OWASA and the towns of
Carrboro and Chapel Hill. They plan to take the draft rule change to the May 26 quarterly public
hearing, then back to the Planning Board in June or July, and finally back to the board of county
commissioners for consideration and potential approval.
Harvey said he and the Planning staff would welcome comments from the CFE. Sassaman asked staff to
prepare a summary of this presentation and discussion for CFE consideration and development of
potential comments at the May meeting.
The CFE thanked Harvey and Benedict for their presentation.
/.'
TOWN OF CARRBORO
�O
NORTH CAROLINA
W W W.TOWNOFCARRBORO.ORG
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL
TO: Michael D. Harvey, Orange County Current Planning Supervisor — Planner III
FROM: Patricia J. McGuire, Planning Director
DATE: May 1, 2015
DELIVERED VIA EMAIL
SUBJECT: Request for Peer Review — Proposed Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) Text Amendment on allowable modifications to impervious surface limits
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to the UDO relating to
impervious surface limits. Town staff has read through proposed changes and offer the following
comments.
1) Overall, the proposal to allow permeable pavement seems to offer county residents a reasonable
way to gain some additional impervious surface for low density uses.
2) Since permeable pavement is a stormwater best management practice (BMP), design and
installation by a licensed engineer seems critical. Strengthening the language under subsection
4.2.8(C)(3) to specify a licensed engineer for these activities, and requiring either a licensed
engineer or a certified BMP inspector for the completion of annual inspections and the
supervision of required maintenance activities, such as vacuuming, would seem a good way to
reinforce this point.
3) Some mechanism to ensure that future homeowners are well aware of these BMPs and their
annual maintenance requirement is important. The proposal to place these areas under the
umbrella of easements seems to be one way to accomplish this task, but there may be other
methods, such as a notation within tax records, where real estate agents and future home buyers
would be able to learn about the presence and location of these devices, and be alerted to the
maintenance responsibilities, prior to purchase.
4) The maintenance aspect is an important one, critical to the correct performance of permeable
pavement and essential to allowing this measure within water supply watersheds. Does the
county have sufficient staff and funding to review annual reports submitted by a
homeowner /engineering team and regularly inspect projects installed under the new provisions?
Maintenance based on complaint- driven enforcement after a failure may be problematic.
5) Finally, should the Board of County Commissioner decide to adopt this amendment, it will be
interesting to learn how many residents choose to use this stormwater management device, once
they understand the complexities and expense of proper installation and the associated challenges
with annual maintenance considering leaf debris and potential soil erosion, particularly for long
driveways in large lot rural settings. Town staff looks forward to learning more about the
County's experience with this effort over the long term.
XC: Henry Wells, Town Engineer
Christina Moon, Planning Administrator
301 WEST MAIN STREET, CARRBORO, NC 27510' (919) 918 -7327' FAX (919) 918 -4465* TDD (800) 826 -7653
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDER
25
Michael Harvey
From:
James Bryan
Sent:
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:09 PM
To:
Michael Harvey
Cc:
Anne Marie Tosco
Subject:
RE: Internal Peer Review - Proposed IMpervious surface amendments
We can talk tomorrow after our meeting, but below are our initial comments on the amendment.
Clarify language in Table 4.2.5.1 Footnote 2 and Table 4.2.6 Footnote 2.
The footnote reads that a BMP shall be required. I think it may be intended that requirement is that the BMP complies
with state and local standards. But if not, then it should be clarified as to when or why the BMP is required.
Question on scope.
The amendment outline says this is to incorporate the use of permeable pavement as a means of modifying the
allowable impervious surface. Footnote 5 regarding table 4.2.6 states that staff would like to discuss modifying the
provisions. I'm uncertain on the impact of these changes and their implications.
Redundancy in Table 4.2.5.1 re: state standards.
Several districts have a statement added that requires 2 -acre parcel with a notation that this is in order to be consistent
with current State allowances. Footnote 2 requires the BMP to be in accordance with State standards. Recommend
keeping only the footnote (by keeping the reference it automatically updates if the State changes their standards,
whereas the other would need to be amended).
4.2.8 C 1
Remove second sentence. This explains, but does not regulate.
4.2.8 C 5
What are the departments reviewing for? Additional review creates delays and openings for liability if there aren't
standards to go by. If the agreement is in accordance with state regs, then there shouldn't be review necessary beyond
that.
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:00 AM
To: Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E. Moncado; Howard W. Fleming; Wesley Poole; Steve J
Kaltenbach; Patrick R. Mallett; Sam M. Schultz; John Roberts; James Bryan; Anne Marie Tosco
Subject: Internal Peer Review - Proposed IMpervious surface amendments
The Planning Department has completed an initial draft of a LIDO text amendment related to allowing for additional
opportunities for property owners to modify impervious surface area. The BOCC authorized staff to initiate this process
at their March 17, 2015 regular meeting. I am attaching the approved Amendment Outline form for additional context.
Put simply the amendment would allow property owners to increase impervious surface area beyond established limits
if they install a stormwater feature, recognized by the State, promoting the capture /infiltration of runoff from the
property.
Staff is slated to present the item at the May 26, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
We are asking for your comments on the proposed amendment(s) to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. April 17, 2015.
P
Michael Harvey
From: Howard W. Fleming
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:28 PM
To: Michael Harvey
Cc: Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E. Moncado; Wesley Poole; Steve J
Kaltenbach; Patrick R. Mallett; Sam M. Schultz; John Roberts; James Bryan; Anne Marie
Tosco
Subject: RE: Internal Peer Review - Proposed Impervious surface amendments
Attachments: HWF- Edit_Pgs197- 203- ImperviousSurfaceAmendments041315 .pdf
Please see my comments appended to your draft text amendments, as requested.
I was uncertain as to whether your intent was to force the use of a registered PE; therefore, I used the term "qualified"
engineer in my comment, as UDO Article 10, Definitions, does not contain a definition for "engineer" as being a
"registered professional engineer ". PE's are barred from signing and sealing work for which they are not qualified. My
preference is that we add such a definition for "engineer" to Article 10 and then specify elsewhere, when such a level of
competence is not required, by stating "...or other qualified professional ".
Sincerely,
Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE
Engineering /Stormwater (Division) Supervisor
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane (P.O. Box 8181)
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2586 (W)
(919) 357 -7748 (M)
hfleminP @orangecountync.gov
NOTE: Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132,
correspondence sent and received from this account is a
public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:00 AM
To: Craig Benedict; Tom Altieri; Perdita Holtz; Ashley E. Moncado; Howard W. Fleming; Wesley Poole; Steve J
Kaltenbach; Patrick R. Mallett; Sam M. Schultz; John Roberts; James Bryan; Anne Marie Tosco
Subject: Internal Peer Review - Proposed IMpervious surface amendments
The Planning Department has completed an initial draft of a UDO text amendment related to allowing for additional
opportunities for property owners to modify impervious surface area. The BOCC authorized staff to initiate this process
at their March 17, 2015 regular meeting. I am attaching the approved Amendment Outline form for additional context.
Put simply the amendment would allow property owners to increase impervious surface area beyond established limits
if they install a stormwater feature, recognized by the State, promoting the capture /infiltration of runoff from the
property.
Staff is slated to present the item at the May 26, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
We are asking for your comments on the proposed amendment(s) to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. April 17, 2015.
ATTACHMENT 4
Excerpt of draft April 1, 2015 DRAFT - SUMMARY NOTES
ORC meeting notes ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 1, 2015
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey (Vice- Chair), Chapel
Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township
Representative
STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Ashley
Moncado, Special Projects Planner
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS — IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to modify the existing
regulations pertaining to impervious surface
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey: Reviewed text amendment.
Tony Blake: Are they aware they have to record an easement?
Michael Harvey: That is covered in the BMP Manual.
Tony Blake: You might want to mention that.
Michael Harvey: I will talk to Wesley Poole to see if I can figure out a way to address that. Yes it is covered, but a
reference would be reasonable.
Lisa Stuckey: I always thought BMPs were those ponds? Referenced page 25 regarding permeable pavement. Is
that a state BMP?
Michael Harvey: Out of fifty BMPs, only one gets credit for additional built upon area (i.e. additional impervious) and
that is permeable pavement. A permeable surface has to be maintained. There is a heightened level of expense
associated with the project. Keep in mind we may be looking at allowing additional stormwater features where you
can get an impervious surface increase if that features is based on an infiltration model. What I mean is that
stormwater is captured and allowed to infiltrate naturally rather than runoff into a ditch to be conveyed off -site. We
still do not know how the State will look at this so we are proceeding cautiously.
Paul Guthrie: What is an impervious surface?
Michael Harvey: By current county definition, gravel qualifies, asphalt, concrete, structure, house roof, etc. The state
is looking at modifying its definition of built upon area.
Lisa Stuckey: Is this something the BOCC initiated?
Michael Harvey: They approved our outline form.
27
ATTACHMENT 4
Excerpt of draft April 1, 2015 DRAFT - SUMMARY NOTES
ORC meeting notes ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 1, 2015
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey (Vice- Chair), Chapel
Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township
Representative
STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Ashley
Moncado, Special Projects Planner
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS — IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to modify the existing
regulations pertaining to impervious surface
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey: Reviewed text amendment.
Tony Blake: Are they aware they have to record an easement?
Michael Harvey: That is covered in the BMP Manual.
Tony Blake: You might want to mention that.
Michael Harvey: I will talk to Wesley Poole to see if I can figure out a way to address that. Yes it is covered, but a
reference would be reasonable.
Lisa Stuckey: I always thought BMPs were those ponds? Referenced page 25 regarding permeable pavement. Is
that a state BMP?
Michael Harvey: Out of fifty BMPs, only one gets credit for additional built upon area (i.e. additional impervious) and
that is permeable pavement. A permeable surface has to be maintained. There is a heightened level of expense
associated with the project. Keep in mind we may be looking at allowing additional stormwater features where you
can get an impervious surface increase if that features is based on an infiltration model. What I mean is that
stormwater is captured and allowed to infiltrate naturally rather than runoff into a ditch to be conveyed off -site. We
still do not know how the State will look at this so we are proceeding cautiously.
Paul Guthrie: What is an impervious surface?
Michael Harvey: By current county definition, gravel qualifies, asphalt, concrete, structure, house roof, etc. The state
is looking at modifying its definition of built upon area.
Lisa Stuckey: Is this something the BOCC initiated?
Michael Harvey: They approved our outline form.
27
Attachment 5 Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts28
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
(e) The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the
minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the criteria in a)
through (d).
4.N Land Use Restrictions
All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the
exceptions:
4.2.4 Residential Density
Maximum residential density shall be as ndic ed in the Table in this subsection, or as required
by the underlying zoning district, whicylgubver is INS.
TABLE 4.2.3 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
DISTRICT
RESTRICTIONS
UNIV -CA
No new landfills are permitted.
UNIV -PW
No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except fo/wiin rcial development, in
CANE -CA
accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, locatestablish ed Nodes as
U- ENO -CA
detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
o new golf courses are permitted
UNIV -CA
which ould be created from each lot of record.
CANE -CA
No sidual (sludge /biosolids) application is permitte .
U- ENO -CA
Lo of record existing on October 19, 1999 may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as
CANE -PW
all as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of record existing o October 19, 1999 may be
U- ENO -PW
combined into one parcel for development. The number of two -ac lots and the total
HYCO -PW
number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of th number of lots which
LITTLE -PW
No disc\1andfills perm/Indu use is limited to no nhazardous light
BACK -PW
industrid by less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic
FLAT -PW
water (2e) and r heating and air conditioning) .
HAW -PW
1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre)
L -ENO -P W
JORDAN -PW
4.2.4 Residential Density
Maximum residential density shall be as ndic ed in the Table in this subsection, or as required
by the underlying zoning district, whicylgubver is INS.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -5
TABLE 4.2.4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
DISTRICT
MAXImum DENSITY
1 du /five acres
Lots of recor existing on October 2, 1989 may o, but no more than, five lots
UNIV -CA
with a dens' of one du /two acres. Contiguous rd existing on October 2, 1989
\Tnumber
UNIV -PW
may be c biped into one parcel for developm of two -acre lots and the
total nu ber of lots in the combined parcel canhe sum of the number of lots
which ould be created from each lot of record.
1 d five acres
Lo of record existing on October 19, 1999 may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as
CANE -CA
all as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of record existing o October 19, 1999 may be
CANE -PW
combined into one parcel for development. The number of two -ac lots and the total
number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of th number of lots which
could be created from each lot of record.
U- ENO -CA
1 du / 2 acres
LITTLE -P
HYC/0W ,W
1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre)
FLA
O -PW
O -PW
Maximum density is as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
-PW
A
Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1 dwelling unit pe
AN -PW
acre. Refer to Section 4.2.5.
K -PW
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -5
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts29
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
4.2.5 Impervious Surface and Detention Pond Requirements for Residential Uses
1 Staff is editing existing notes throughout the Section to address existing typographical and reference errors. In
the existing text an asterisk (' *') in certain cases was used to denote information while in other cases it was not.
There was also a [1] used to identify certain watersheds requiring a BMP in the Neuse River Basin. Unfortunately
the watershed overlay districts identified are not in the Neuse River Basin. The proposed amendments address
these issues and clarify the essential information.
z Staff is suggesting language mandating a 2 acre minimum lot size in order for a parcel within identified watershed
overlay districts to request a modification of impervious surface area through the installation of a stormwater
feature. The rationale for the suggestion is that State regulations currently allow governing bodies to require either
a 1 acre minimum lot size, limited to a 6% impervious surface threshold, or a 2 acre minimum lot size limited to a
12% impervious surface threshold. In these identified watershed overlay districts the County made a conscious
decision to follow the more restrictive option. We are recommending the condition to ensure those properties
subject to a modification request meet minimum State standards with respect to required lot size. Please refer to
Attachment 2 for additional information on State requirements associated with the establishment and
enforcement of impervious surface thresholds.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -6
TABLE 4.2.5.1:
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for all lots which existed prior to 4/2/90, which are subject to impervious surface
limits as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious
UNIV -CA
Surface Ratios — Univ, Cane, and Little). [1]_-[21 nm Q ^o , .,,,+ ho used. +„ satisfy watershed
rfo
UNIV -PW
Feq6IiFeMeRtS.
Parcels shall be a minimum of 2 acres in area, exclusive of any right -of -way or access
easement, to qualify for additional impervious surface allocation as detailed in Section 4.2.8
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots smaller than two acres which existed prior to 1/1/94, which are subject to
impervious surface limits as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for
CANE -CA
Residential Impervious Surface Ratios — Univ, Cane, and Little). [11• [21
CANE -PW
Parcels shall be a minimum of 2 acres in area, exclusive of any right -of -way or access
easement, to qualify for additional impervious surface allocation as detailed in Section 4.2.8
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots smaller than five acres which existed prior to 6/1/2010, which are subject to
U- ENO -CA
impervious surface limits as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for
Residential Impervious Surface Ratios — Upper Eno). [11• [21
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots which existed prior to 1/1/94, which are subject to impervious surface limits
as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious Surface
Ratios - Univ, Cane, and Little). [11. [21
LITTLE -PW
Parcels shall be a minimum of 2 acres in area, exclusive of any right -of -way or access
easement, to qualify for additional impervious surface allocation as detailed in Section 4.2.8
(C)
FLAT -PW
12% impervious surface limit for new and existing lots. [11, [21
* ❑MPs n l.+ he i sed b. satisfy watershed impewiGus irfaSO r n +S
HYCO -PW
12% impervious surface limit for existing and new lots outside of Transition Areas as
U- ENO -PW
designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. [11• [21
BACK -PW
BI ADS n be to impei'ViGUS r n +S
[1] et used satisfy ate Fshed u FfaGe
30% impervious surface limit for developments which exceed a density 1 du /acre within
1 Staff is editing existing notes throughout the Section to address existing typographical and reference errors. In
the existing text an asterisk (' *') in certain cases was used to denote information while in other cases it was not.
There was also a [1] used to identify certain watersheds requiring a BMP in the Neuse River Basin. Unfortunately
the watershed overlay districts identified are not in the Neuse River Basin. The proposed amendments address
these issues and clarify the essential information.
z Staff is suggesting language mandating a 2 acre minimum lot size in order for a parcel within identified watershed
overlay districts to request a modification of impervious surface area through the installation of a stormwater
feature. The rationale for the suggestion is that State regulations currently allow governing bodies to require either
a 1 acre minimum lot size, limited to a 6% impervious surface threshold, or a 2 acre minimum lot size limited to a
12% impervious surface threshold. In these identified watershed overlay districts the County made a conscious
decision to follow the more restrictive option. We are recommending the condition to ensure those properties
subject to a modification request meet minimum State standards with respect to required lot size. Please refer to
Attachment 2 for additional information on State requirements associated with the establishment and
enforcement of impervious surface thresholds.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -6
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 30
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
(A) Hillsborough Economic Development District
(1) The Hillsborough Economic Development District is located n the Lower Eno
- Unprotected watershed. Within the Hillsborough Eco is Development
District, as designated in the Land Use Element e Comprehensive Plan, the
imum impervious surface ratio is 50% detention ponds.
Cells in black Db6'9OT apply to the Upper Eno
3.1 9.8
3.0 10.0
3 This references the Section of the UDO where are now recognizing a State provision allowing for the additional
allotment of impervious surface area through the use of specific BMPs.
4 The County enforces land disturbance thresholds for erosion control and stormwater permits, specifically a
certain amount of land disturbance will require the submittal of either an erosion control permit and /or a
stormwater permit application. While a BMP may be installed on a parcel of property as part of a proposed
modification of allowable impervious surface area, the County also enforces standards requiring a BMP on
property being developed for residential purposes based on the proposed amount of land disturbance. This
requirement has nothing to do with the total amount of impervious surface area proposed or any request to
modify same. Land disturbance thresholds vary for each district. We are adding language to the UDO clarifying
when a BMP is required based on these existing disturbance thresholds.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -7
IMPERVIOUS • POND REQUIREMENTS
DISTRICT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
Transition Areas as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. Structural BMPs are
required if impervious surface exceeds 12 %.
70% impervious surface limit for residential uses developed at "high intensity" densities (R-
5, R -8, and R -13) in an Economic Development District as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high- density option) with structural BMPs if ISR
exceeds---12 %.
24% impervious surface limit with curb and gutter.
36% impervious surface limit without curb and gutter.
[11, [21 [1] BMPS n r.# be used- to satisfy watershed impervieus 1rfaGe r Rts
70% impervious surface limit for residential uses developed at "high intensity" densities (R-
L- ENO -PW
5, R -8, and R -13) in an Economic Development District as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high- density option), with structural BMPs required
when impervious surface exceeds:
24% (w/ curb and gutter); or
36% w/o curb and gutter).
HAW -PW
24% impervious surface limit. [11, [21
watershed impeMeus irfa
r c nf
fI] BMPS n be d- to
JORDAN -PW
L annet use satisfy Ge
[1;;"Awed
Allowable impervious surface area may be modified in accordance with Section 4.2.8 of the LIDO. 3
121 Regardless of the proposed amount of impervious surface area, a stormwater feature /best management practice
(BMP) may still be required based on the proposed amount of land disturbance on a given parcel of property in
accordance with applicable Orange County Erosion Control and State Stormwater regulations.
(A) Hillsborough Economic Development District
(1) The Hillsborough Economic Development District is located n the Lower Eno
- Unprotected watershed. Within the Hillsborough Eco is Development
District, as designated in the Land Use Element e Comprehensive Plan, the
imum impervious surface ratio is 50% detention ponds.
Cells in black Db6'9OT apply to the Upper Eno
3.1 9.8
3.0 10.0
3 This references the Section of the UDO where are now recognizing a State provision allowing for the additional
allotment of impervious surface area through the use of specific BMPs.
4 The County enforces land disturbance thresholds for erosion control and stormwater permits, specifically a
certain amount of land disturbance will require the submittal of either an erosion control permit and /or a
stormwater permit application. While a BMP may be installed on a parcel of property as part of a proposed
modification of allowable impervious surface area, the County also enforces standards requiring a BMP on
property being developed for residential purposes based on the proposed amount of land disturbance. This
requirement has nothing to do with the total amount of impervious surface area proposed or any request to
modify same. Land disturbance thresholds vary for each district. We are adding language to the UDO clarifying
when a BMP is required based on these existing disturbance thresholds.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -7
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts31
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
i,
4.2.6 Impervious Surface, Detention Pond, and Lot Size Requirements for Non - Residential Uses
Unless otherwise noted in the Table below, minimum lot sizes shall be in conformance with the
underlying zoning district.
5 -acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record September 1,
UNIV -CA 2015 (University Lake) or October 19, 1999 (Cane Creek); AND
CANE -CA 6% impervious surface limit.
5 Staff is recommending modifying these provisions to ensure consistency amongst the various watershed overlay
districts. We believe it would be more appropriate to make the regulations more consistent with other, similar
overlay districts as denoted herein.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance
Page 4 -8
TABLES
LOT SIZE (PNCRES)
W00-1100 M ',%),g
4.2.5.2 & 4.2.5.3: SLIDING SCALE
UNIV, CANE, LITTLE,
ISR SQUARE FEET
NOT apply to the Upper Eno
FOR RESIDENTIAL IMPERVIOUS
AND UPPER ENO
LOT SIZE (ACRES)
SURFACE
ISR
RATIOS –
A
SQUARE FEET
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2.
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
13,107
13,138
13,159
13,172
13,177
13,172
13,159
13,138
13,101
_�_®
—/
.�
�-
1•
1 •
1
• 1
1•: -
-�
1
®1
1
i,
4.2.6 Impervious Surface, Detention Pond, and Lot Size Requirements for Non - Residential Uses
Unless otherwise noted in the Table below, minimum lot sizes shall be in conformance with the
underlying zoning district.
5 -acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record September 1,
UNIV -CA 2015 (University Lake) or October 19, 1999 (Cane Creek); AND
CANE -CA 6% impervious surface limit.
5 Staff is recommending modifying these provisions to ensure consistency amongst the various watershed overlay
districts. We believe it would be more appropriate to make the regulations more consistent with other, similar
overlay districts as denoted herein.
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance
Page 4 -8
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 32
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
6 Unlike residential development, State regulations require a stormwater feature for all non - residential projects
exceeding established impervious surface thresholds for the watershed protection overlay district in which the
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -9
IMPERVIOUS TABLE 4.2.6: • POND REQUIREMENTS
DISTRICT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
2 -acre minimum lot size AND
U- ENO -CA
6% impervious surface limit. [11, [21
5 -acre minimum lot size with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record September 1, 2015
(University Lake) or October 19, 1999 (Cane Creek) ( rneRded 10 19 99); AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND
UNIV -PW
12% ISR for all other non - residential uses, AND
on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND
CANE -PW
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non - residential use (139 acres in CANE -PW).
[11 [2[ WARS n r.+ ho i od +r. satisfy watershed i iirFono r n +c FRe L JiLL
2 -acre minimum lot size AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND
12% ISR for all other non - residential uses, AND
LITTLE -PW
on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non - residential use (406 acres in LITTLE -PW).
f11 i [21 WARS A n+ he i ed +n satisfy watershed i 614ar.o r n +c
L JL�
70%
ISR in Economic Development, Commercial and /or Commercial- Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high- density option) with structural BMPs if ISR;:—exceeds 12 %; AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers outside of Commercial and /or Commercial -
Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, with structural BMPs if ISR
U- ENO -PW
exceeds 12 %; AND
BACK -PW
12% ISR for all other non - residential uses outside of Commercial and /or Commercial - Industrial Nodes as
designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
;AND
on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND
A limit of 1,151 acres of non - residential use throughout U- ENO -PW (5.0 %) and 163 acres throughout BACK -PW
(1%). [11, [21
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND
12% ISR for all other non - residential uses; AND
HYCO -PW
on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff-AND
FLAT -PW
limit of 1% of the watershed for non - residential use (37 acres in HYCO -PW, 66 acres in FLAT -PW).
f11 f71 DRADc nnnnnt ho i ised +n satisfy watershed impervieus iiraGe r n +c
70% impervious surface, with structural BMPs required when impervious surface exceeds:
L- ENO -PW
24% (w/ curb and gutter); or
36% (w /o curb and gutter). [11, [21
HAW -PW
24% impervious surface limit.
JORDAN-
[1], [21 DnnDs , n+ ho usod. +n satisfy watershed i 66IFfaGe r +�
PW
[I BMP's as mandated
by the StArmwater
f11 Allowable impervious surface area may be modified in accordance with Section 4.2.8 of the UDO.
121 For non - residential developments a stormwater feature /best management practice (BMP) shall be required in accordance with
applicable local and State standards based on proposed land disturbance and /or a project exceeding impervious surface
thresholds as identified herein.
NOTE: Non - residential use impervious acreage limits in watershed with such limits are calculated using the actual amount of
impervious surface for non - residential uses throughout the watershed, not by the overall number of acres of non - residential
parcels located in a particular watershed.
6 Unlike residential development, State regulations require a stormwater feature for all non - residential projects
exceeding established impervious surface thresholds for the watershed protection overlay district in which the
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -9
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts33
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
(A) Hillsborough Economic Development District
(1) The Hillsborough Economic Development District is located wit M the Lower Eno
- Unprotected watershed. Within the Hillsborough Econom),vUevelopment
\District, as designated in the Land Use Element of the prehensive Plan, the
maximum impervious surface ratio is 50% with dete9k6n ponds.
4.2.7 Placement of Streams, Driveways, and Buildings
(A) Streets, driveway , and buildings or other struc es shall be located, to the extent
reasonably possible, as to take full adva ge of the absorptive capacity of the soils
on which they are to be s ated and to id the following environmentally sensitive
areas:
(1) Stream buffer zones as red by Section 6.13;
(2) Wetlands as defin by the U.S. rmy Corps of Engineers;
(3) Land with sl s greater than 15 %; a
(4) Natural eas as identified in the Inventory atural Areas and Wildlife Habitats
of O nge County, NC.
(B) To avo. creating lots that will be difficult to build upon in com 'ance with the standards
Of t i Section, the preliminary plan shall show proposed building velopes and
proximate driveway locations for all lots within subdivisions.
(1) A zoning compliance permit shall not be issued for the constructio f buildings
or driveways outside the areas so designated on the preliminary plan ess the
Planning Director makes a written finding that the proposed location comp i s
with the provisions of this Section and Sections 6.13 (Stream Buffers) and 6.
(Stormwater Management).
4.2.8 Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio
Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratios may be requested through one of the following
provisions:
(A) Through variance procedures of the Board of Adjustment, as described in Section 2.10.
(B) Through approval and recordation of a conservation agreement, as provided in Article 4
of Chapter 121 of the N.C. General Statutes, between Orange County and a land owner
that prohibits development of land in a protected watershed in perpetuity, subject to the
following:
(1) A modification of the required impervious surface ratios may be approved
administratively but only to the extent that additional land in the same watershed
is conserved or protected from development.
(2) The land which will be subject to a conservation agreement must be adjacent to
the land proposed for development and for which a modification of the
impervious surface ratios is sought.
(a) As an example, a person owning a 40,000 square foot lot and subject to
a 12% impervious surface ratio would be limited to 4,800 square feet of
impervious coverage. If the person's plans called for 5,500 square feet
of coverage (a difference of 700 square feet), the recording of a
conservation easement on 5,833 square feet of contiguous property
would satisfy the impervious surface ratio requirements. (12% of 5,833
square feet is 700 square feet.)
project is located. This is the reason why language for note 2 within Section 4.2.6 is different from the same note
in Section 4.2.5.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -10
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts34
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
(b) The conservation easement shall describe the property restricted in a
manner sufficient to pass title, provide that its restrictions are covenants
that run with the land and, be approved in form by the County Attorney.
(c) The conservation easement shall, upon recording, be in the place of a
first priority lien on the property (excepting current ad valorem property
taxes) and shall remain so unless, with the approval of Orange County, it
is released and terminated.
(d) Orange County shall require the priority of the conservation easement to
be certified by an attorney -at -law, licensed to practice law in the State of
North Carolina and approved to certify title to real property.
(e) Orange County approval of a release or termination of the conservation
agreement shall be declared on the document releasing or terminating
the agreement. The document shall be signed by the Orange County
Manager, upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. No
such document shall be effective to release or terminate the
conservation agreement until it is filed for registration with the Register of
Deeds of Orange County.
(C) Through the installation of a stormwater feature, consistent with the minimum design
standards as detailed within the State BMP Manual.
(1) The proposed feature must be recognized by Orange County and the State as
allowing for an increase in impervious surface area through an infiltration
stormwater feature.
(2) Under no circumstances may impervious surface area be increased by more
than 3% of the total allowable area on the subiect parcel throuah this process.
(3) The property owner shall provide a stormwater assessment, completed by a
licensed engineer, of the current property identifying its infiltration rates and
carrying capacity as well as a comprehensive soil assessment for the property.
4) The develooment/desian of the feature shall be in accordance with established
design criteria as embodied within the State stormwater manual and shall be
completed by a licensed engineer with expertiese in stormwater management.'
Additional allowable impervious surface area shall be based on the soil
composition of the property consistent with State regulations.
t(5) The property owner shall be responsible for the completion and submission of a
stormwater operation /maintenance and access agreement detailing the perpetual
maintenance, inspection, and upkeep of the approved BMP in accordance with
County and State regulations.
The Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the agreement by
qualified representatives of the Cointy and other agencies or offficials as
appropriate. Once approved, the document shall be recorded in the Orange
County Registrar of Deeds office.
The property owner assumes all financial and legal responsibility for the
perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the approved BMP.
(6) The property owner shall assume all costs associated with the preparation and
7 Language added to address OWASA concern(s) over the UDO explicitly requiring a licensed engineer, with
expertise in stormwater management, completed the design on the BMP.
8 The County Attorney's office has expressed concern over the language with this Section, specifically there is a
concern over liability issues due to the lack of defined standards associated with said review. Unfortunately we
have received numerous review comments from our planning partners (i.e. OWASA, the Towns, etc.) requesting
additional level of detail. While we understand the nature of the Attorney's concern staff is finding it difficult to
make everyone comfortable.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -11
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 35
Section 4.3: Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
recordation of new plats) /development restrictions detailing the allowable
impervious surface limit(s) for the property after the BMP has been approved by
the County.
4.2.9 Water Supply / Sewage Disposal Facilities
4.3.1 Intent
The intent of is overlay district is to promote public health, safety, and Nneral welfare and to
minimize p lic and private losses due to flood conditions within flood pron areas by provisions
,wb designed/o:
(A) Restrict or prohibit uses, which are dangerous to health, safety, and pro erty due to
water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosio flood heights
or velocities;
Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities, which serve such uses, be
protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
(C) Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of flood waters;
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -12
DISPOSAL TABLE 4.2.9: WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE
DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL I FOP
^V-CA
Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to individual well and on -site
UNI W
septic tanks systems or individual on -site alternative disposal s stems.
No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent dispos/Lance. n a separate lot
All Watershed erly
from the source of wastewater generation; provided, however, off ms shall be
Districts
permitted in all Watershed Overlay Districts except the University ected
Watershed (UNIV -PW) and Critical Area (UNIV -CA) when located ble Development
subdivision approved in accordance with Section 7.13 of this Ord
tic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located tside of any stream buffers,
UNIV -CA
et from a reservoir or perennial or intermittent stre as shown on the USGS
\Quangle
maps, whichever is further
New sep i tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenanc shall be located outside of any
stream bu rs and at least 100 feet from a perenni or intermittent stream as shown on the
CANE -CA
USGS Quadr gle maps, and at least 150 feet fr a reservoir.
U- ENO -CA
New nitrificatio ields shall be located outside any stream buffers and at least 100 feet
from a perennial intermittent stream as sh non the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at
least 300 feet from reservoir.
CANE -PW
Water supply and se ge treatment Sys ms shall be limited to individual wells and septic
CANE -CA
CANE-CA
tanks or individual on -si alternative d posal systems; provided however, off -site systems
shall be permitted when I ated in a lexible Development subdivision approved in
accordance with Section 7. of t Ordinance.
UNIV -PW
CANE -PW
U- ENO -PW
HYCO -PW
LITTLE -PW
New septic tanks and th r nitrification elds shall be located outside of any stream buffers
i
BA W
and at least 100 feet fr m a perennial o termittent stream as shown on the USGS
HAW -PW
W-P
Quadrangle maps.
JORDAN -PW
L -ENO -P W
FLAT -PW
4.3.1 Intent
The intent of is overlay district is to promote public health, safety, and Nneral welfare and to
minimize p lic and private losses due to flood conditions within flood pron areas by provisions
,wb designed/o:
(A) Restrict or prohibit uses, which are dangerous to health, safety, and pro erty due to
water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosio flood heights
or velocities;
Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities, which serve such uses, be
protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
(C) Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of flood waters;
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -12