Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-21-2016 - 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Recreational Land Uses - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 21, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment — Recreational Land Uses - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Michael Harvey, Planning, (919) 245-2578 Ordinance Outline Form - Recreation Craig Benedict, Planning, (919) 245-2592 Amendments (UDO/Zoning 2015-04) 2. Excerpt of September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes 3. Sheriffs Response to Complaints Related to the Discharge of a Firearm 4. Excerpt of October 7, 2015 Planning Board Minutes 5. Excerpt of November 4, 2015 Planning Board Minutes 6. Excerpt of December 2, 2015 Planning Board Minutes 7. Planning Board Approved Statement of Consistency 8. Statement of Consistency 9. Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) initiated by the Planning Director to revise existing regulations governing the development of recreational land uses. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing (materials available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/150908.pdf). Minutes from the meeting are included within Attachment 2. 2 As indicated during the hearing, staff and the Attorney's office determined existing definitions and classification methodology for recreation uses were outdated. The proposed amendments are necessary to update existing regulations governing the development of recreational land uses and establish new land use regulations governing the discharge of firearms. During the hearing there were several questions related to how shooting incidents were addressed, specifically when there was "rapid fire" of fire arms and noise-related issues. Staff suggested the Sheriff's Office be asked to comment on its procedures for reviewing such incidents. This response is contained within Attachment 3. For background information on the proposal please refer to Section B.1 of Attachment 1. The Planning Board began review of this item began at its October 7, 2015 meeting (materials available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/Full Agenda Packet PB 10 7 15.pdf). Minutes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 4. Review continued at the November 4, 2015 (materials available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/PB Full Agenda Package 110415.pdf) and concluded at the December 2, 2015 regular meeting (materials available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/PB Full Agenda Packa ge 1222015.pdf). Minutes from these meetings are contained in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 respectively. Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of proposed text amendment and further recommends approval of the: i. Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 8, indicating the proposed text amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, is reasonable, and in the public interest, and ii. The text amendment as contained in Attachment 9. Planning Board Recommendation: At its December 2, 2015 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendment package as contained within Attachment 9. The Planning Board's signed Statement of Consistency is included within Attachment 7. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals is applicable to this agenda item: GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES 3 The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments; and 4. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within Attachment 8 and the Ordinance amending the UDO contained within Attachment 9 as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. Attachment 1 4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENT OUTLINE UDO /Zoning-2015-04 Revision(s) of existing definitions and regulations governing the development of recreational facilities within the County. A. AMENDMENT TYPE Map Amendments n Comprehensive Plan — Future Land Use Element Map: From: - - - To: - - - n Zoning Map: From: - - - To: - - - n Other: Text Amendments n Comprehensive Plan Text: Section(s): M UDO Text: fUDO General Text Changes L UDO Development Standards f UDO Development Approval Processes Section(s): Section(s): 1. 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses— General Use Zoning Districts; 2. 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses— Economic Development Districts; 3. 5.2.3 Table of Permitted Uses— Conditional Use Districts; 4. 5.7 Standards for Recreational Uses, and 5. Article 10 Definitions. n Other: 1 5 B. RATIONALE 1. Purpose/Mission In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has initiated a text amendment to revise existing regulations and definitions of recreational uses. While reviewing an issue with the Attorney's office it was determined the County's existing definitions and classification methodology for recreation uses (i.e. relying on the profit/non-profit status of said operation) was not appropriate and inconsistent with acceptable legal practice. The regulation and permitting of recreational uses should be based anticipated impacts of said use rather than on its `tax status'. 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'. Recreational uses are defined as follows within the UDO: • Recreation Use, Non-Profit: An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by a not-for-profit corporation, according to the laws of North Carolina. • Recreation Use, Profit: An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by an entity other than a not-for-profit corporation. Recreation Use, Non-profit land uses are allowed, through the issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit (i.e. reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Adjustment) in: 1. All residential zoning (i.e. Rural Buffer (RB), Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R-1), Low (R-2), Medium Residential (R-3, R-4), and High Intensity(R-5, R-8, and R-13) districts. 2. Commercial zoning (i.e. Local Commercial (LC-1), Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2), Community Commercial (CC-3), General Commercial (GC-4), and Office Institutional (01)) districts. 3. All industrial (i.e. Light Industrial (I-1), Medium Industrial (1-2), Heavy Industrial (I- 3)) districts. 4. Within a Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. Recreation Use, Profit is allowed within the Community Commercial (CC-3), General Commercial (GC-4), and Light Industrial (I-1) zoning districts as a permitted use (i.e. administrative review and approval by staff). Within the Buckhorn and Eno Economic Development districts both Recreation Use, Profit and Non-profit land uses are only allowed within both the Low and High Intensity general use zoning designations with the review and approval of a Conditional Use (i.e. rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit) application by the BOCC. There are specific recreational land uses, including a golf driving range, 2 6 listed as a permitted use of property within these districts. Staff has been working to address local resident concern(s) over the purported development of commercial shooting ranges. Currently the County has no land use standards governing the development of such uses (i.e. setbacks, development of protective berms to absorb bullets, etc.). Staff is proposing to over haul our current regulations by: a. Establishing new definitions for recreational uses; b. Reviewing the types of recreational land uses permitted in each zoning district and suggesting revisions; c. Developing new standards governing the development of recreational land uses; and d. Developing standards governing the discharge of firearms from both a commercial business and personal enjoyment standpoint. The amendments are necessary to address outdated regulations governing the development of recreational land uses, update existing development standards and requirements, complete a review of acceptable recreational land uses throughout the County, and establish land use regulations governing the discharge of firearms. Nothing within the proposed amendments will impact the development of parks/recreational amenities by Orange County. 3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. 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 May 5, 2015 b. Quarterly Public Hearing September 8, 2015. The amendment was reviewed at the September 8, 2015 3 7 Quarterly Public Hearing where the following questions/comments were made: • There was general consensus that proposed amendments to the Buckhorn and Eno Economic Development Districts permitted use table, allowing for recreational facilities to be a permitted use of property within the high intensity zoning designations (i.e. EDB-2 and EDE-2), are acceptable. • A BOCC member asked why there were different setback standards for gun ranges developed as an accessory use to a residential use of property or a recreational facility. STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommended a shooting range developed as an accessory use to a residence observe a setback of 300 feet from all property lines. For a shooting range developed as a recreational facility we recommended a setback of 600 feet from all property lines. The rationale for the different standards is based on the anticipated intensity of use, with a private recreational amenity having a perceived lower potential impact versus a facility designed to be used by the general public (i.e. more weapons being discharged at any given time). • A BOCC member asked what the typical minimum lot size would have to be to comply with proposed setback standards for a shooting range. STAFF COMMENT: A residential property would have to be roughly 8 1/2 acres in area to accommodate a designated shooting area while a recreational facility would have to be roughly 33 acres to accommodate a non-residential outdoor shooting range. • A BOCC and Planning Board member asked if the proposed setbacks for a gun range would be sufficient to ensure bullets remain on the property. STAFF COMMENT: Discharged projectiles can travel upwards of 1/2 mile or farther depending on the caliber of the weapon. If our goal is to rely solely on setback standards to ensure discharged projectiles remain on the property, they would have to be more extensive. Staff does not believe this option is consistent with concerns expressed at the public hearing. This proposal combines required setbacks with additional standards mandating shooting and/or targeting activities be oriented in such a manner to keep projectiles on the property and directed into a permanent backstop. This is intended to mitigate the need for more restrictive setback requirements. • Both BOCC and Planning Board members suggested hour limitations be established concerning the discharge of firearms on residential property. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will add language to the proposed text amendment. • A BOCC member asked if we were being overly restrictive with the proposed amendments as they relate to the discharge of firearms. STAFF COMMENT: Staff understands the concern. The proposal is an 4 8 attempt to address complaints from property owners related to the discharge of firearms on neighboring properties while protecting an individual's right to engage in shooting activity and/or discharge a firearm on their property. • BOCC and Planning Board members suggested shooting ranges/facilities ought to have similar setback requirements. • A BOCC member asked staff to invite those individuals who had previously submitted complaints and concerns over the discharge of firearms to the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting to express their concerns. STAFF COMMENT: Staff sent notices inviting individuals who had submitted complaints to attend the October regular Planning Board meeting on September 28, 2015. One resident attended the meeting. • A BOCC member suggested revising Section 5.7.2 Recreational Facilities of the proposed text amendment to combine recreational uses played on a court into a single category. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will combine the uses as suggested. • A BOCC member asked why the proposed text amendments did not address the number of people discharging a firearm at a given moment or limit the number of times a firearm could be discharged in a given time frame. STAFF COMMENT: Staff indicated such regulations would be difficult to enforce and hard to verify as part of a land use enforcement investigation. • A Planning Board member expressed concern the amendment would overly restrict the use of private recreational accessory uses. Specifically there was concern over staff's statement a private recreational use could not be used by neighbors/friends in the owner's absence. STAFF COMMENT: The amendment is an attempt to develop a threshold making it easier to identify instances where a recreational land use is either a private or a public amenity. As indicated during the public hearing, staff is investigating complaints over the purported establishment of public recreational facilities without required permits (i.e. Class B Special Use Permit). As the ordinance is currently written it is difficult to make a determination either way. Our goal is not to overly regulate private recreational accessory uses but to ensure we have an appropriate methodology to identify those instances where such uses become, or are truly, a public recreational amenity requiring a heightened permit review and approval process. • There was a general discussion amongst Board members and staff outlining how they responses to complaints associated with the discharge of a firearm, including noise issues and concerns over the rapid discharge of weapons. Staff suggested the Sheriff's Office provide a response. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3. 5 9 c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints May 5, 2015 —Approval of UDO Amendment Outline Form July 1, 2015 — Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) (BOCC receives materials) September 8, 2015 — Quarterly Public Hearing January 21, 2016 — Receive Planning Board Recommendation d. Other N/A 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County ordinance requirements a. Planning Board Review: July 1, 2015 — Ordinance Review Committee (ORC). The ORC reviewed this item at its July 1, 2015 meeting where the following comments/questions were made: • Could a resident, on his own property, sponsor a club in his name and finance play on the field under this proposal? STAFF COMMENT: As the Ordinance is currently written, and proposed, the property owner would have to get a special use permit as the proposed recreational land use is intended to serve the needs of the general public or members of a club/organization. • Could I develop a putting green on my property? STAFF COMMENT: You can have a recreational facility on your property and use it for recreational purposes, including a putting green. When a recreational amenity is opened up for public use/access, however, the nature of the use of property changes and becomes more than a simple accessory use. Staff argues it becomes a recreational facility used to satisfy the needs of the general public, which requires a heightened level of permit review to operate. • Could a farmer donate land to a non-profit organization to allow for the development of a recreational facility? STAFF COMMENT: Yes but they would have to obtain a Class B Special Use Permit for the use. This is the current requirement and we are not recommending a change to the existing process. • Is the intent with this regulation to control the development of gun ranges 6 10 specifically? STAFF COMMENT: The amendment seeks to make it easier to identify instances where a recreational land use is a private or a public amenity. The text amendment also proposes the adoption of new development standards for recreational activities, including standards for shooting ranges/facilities. The proposed amendment is not solely geared to address the regulation, or establishment, of gun ranges. • Could a local homeowners association develop a recreational land use on HOA owned property for local residents to take advantage of? STAFF COMMENT: This text amendment will not preclude that. The homeowners association would, however, have to amend the previously approved subdivision final plat to incorporate the new recreation amenity in accordance with the UDO. • Will this proposed amendment impact County parks? STAFF COMMENT: No. October 7, 2015 —The Planning Board reviewed this item at its October 7, 2015 meeting where the following comments/questions were made: 1. Board members were concerned the required backstop included materials which could cause bullets to ricochet (i.e. steel). STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified Section 5.7.1 (A) (2) eliminating references to specific materials for a backstop and, instead, require the backstop to be `projectile proof'. 2. A suggestion was made that proposed language be modified to require shooting activities to occur in a low lying area of the property as a means of further keeping projectiles on the property. STAFF COMMENT: As indicated during the meeting relying on topography can be problematic. On one end of the spectrum you may have a property owner whose land may not have sufficient slope to allow for shooting activities thereby requiring excavation to create same. On the other end of the spectrum topography can be altered after the fact creating a potential Ordinance violation. From staffs standpoint it would be more prudent to rely on a projectile proof backstop and strongly urge existing topography be taken into consideration with respect to its location rather than to mandate same as a development standard. 3. A comment was made the proposed text amendment did not adequately address skeet shooting. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified the proposal to include language concerning skeet shooting activities. 7 11 4. A Board member asked if the regulations would address the types of weapons that could be discharged. STAFF COMMENT: The County does not have the legal authority to restrict the type of weapon that can be discharged from private property from a land use standpoint. It needs to be remembered the adoption of land use regulations governing the discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local, State, or Federal regulations concerning the discharge of firearms. If, for example, it would be illegal to discharge a specific class of firearm on private property under State law this amendment does not preempt enforcement of same by the appropriate law enforcement agency. 5. There was general concern over proposed standards detailing the number of times per month incidental shooting could occur on a parcel without being considered a regulated shooting activity requiring the development of a backstop. STAFF COMMENT: Staff understands the concern and has reduced the number of times incidental shooting activities can occur per month from 3 to 2. There needs to be some allowances made for a property owner who inadvertently engages in shooting activities to not be faced with a notice of violation from the County. Staff will also reiterate the adoption of land use regulations governing the discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local, State, or Federal regulations concerning same. If a property owner is discharging a weapon in such a manner creating a threat to public safety (i.e. a property owner shooting at a neighbor's house) action can be taken to address the problem. This enforcement action can occur today with or without the adoption of proposed standards. November 4, 2015— The Planning Board reviewed this item at its November 4, 2015 meeting where the following comments were made: 1. The Board wanted more information on the County Attorney's thought(s) on removing setback and projectile-proof backstop standards from the UDO and placing them within the County Code of Ordinances before making a recommendation. 2. A Board member indicated there ought to be regulations requiring a property owner to collect all the brass and residue of shots on a parcel of property to ensure there are no environmental issues. STAFF COMMENT: This issue was discussed at the public hearing and previous Planning Board meetings where staff indicted such a regulation would be difficult to enforce. December 2, 2015 — The Planning Board reviewed this item and voted unanimously to recommend approval. 8 12 b. Advisory Boards: Orange County Parks Advisory Board — DEAPR staff. Staff Transmitted copies of the proposed text amendments as part of peer review on July 10, 2015. As of this date we have not received any comments. c. Local Government Review: Staff transmitted copies of the proposed text amendments to our planning partners in the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough for their review and comment on July 10, 2015. The Orange County Sheriffs office was sent the proposed text amendment on July 10, 2015. As of this date staff has not received any comments on the proposed amendments from our planning partners. On September 24, 2015 staff received a memo from the Sheriff's office outlining how they respond to complaints related to shooting activities. d. Notice Requirements Legal advertisement was published in accordance with the provisions of the UDO. e. Outreach: 1 General Public: Consistent with NC State General Statutes and Orange County Ordinance requirements. At the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing the BOCC requested staff invite individuals who previously submitted concerns related to the discharge of firearms to the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Notices were sent on September 29, 2015 with a copy of the proposed regulations for review at the October Planning Board meeting. 9 13 n Small Area Plan Workgroup: ❑ Other: 3. FISCAL IMPACT Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid from FY2015-16 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment. D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS The amendment will revise existing, outdated, regulations governing the categorization and development of recreational land uses and proposes the adoption of new development standards. E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Please refer to Attachment 8. Primary Staff Contact: Michael D. Harvey Planning (919) 245-2597 mharvey @orangecountync.gov 10 Attachment 2—Excerpt of 14 September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes APPROVED 10/20/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2015 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on September 8, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs, Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Laura Nicholson, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, James Lea, Tony Blake PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land uses, including shooting ranges. Michael Harvey, Planner III, reviewed the following Planning Board Ordinance Committee Notes: July 1, 2015— Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) STAFF COMMENT: the ORC reviewed this item at its July 1, 2015 meeting where the following comments/questions were made: • Could a resident, on his own property, sponsor a club in his name and finance play on the field under this proposal? STAFF COMMENT: As the Ordinance is currently written the property owner would have to get a special use permit. The reason being the field is intended to serve the needs of the general public, even if they are members of a club or other similar organization, with respect to providing the use of a recreational facility. • So I can't develop a putting green on my property? STAFF COMMENT: You can have a recreational facility on your property and use it for recreational purposes. This would include a putting green. From my standpoint the problem occurs when you open the recreational amenity up for public use/access. When this occurs you change the nature of the use of property and, I believe, it becomes 15 more than a simple accessory use to your residence. It becomes a recreational facility used to satisfy the needs of the general public. • Could a farmer donate land to a non-profit organization to allow for the development of a recreational facility? STAFF COMMENT: Yes but they would have to obtain a Class B Special Use Permit for the use. This is the current requirement and we are not recommending a change to the existing process. • Is the intent with this regulation to control the development of gun ranges specifically? STAFF COMMENT: We are adopting regulations and development standards associated with them but the proposed amendment seeks to do more than just establish regulations on public or private gun ranges. • Could a local homeowners association develop a recreational land use on HOA owned property for local residents to take advantage of? STAFF COMMENT: Yes. This text amendment will not preclude that. The homeowners association would, however, have to amend the previously approved subdivision final plat to incorporate the new recreation amenity in accordance with the UDO. • Will this proposed amendment impact County parks? STAFF COMMENT: No. Staff and the County Attorney's office have determined existing definitions and classification methodology for recreation land uses (i.e. relying on the profit/non-profit status of said operation) is inappropriate and inconsistent with acceptable legal practice. The current methodology has concerned staff for some time and has even complicated recent enforcement efforts relating to the discharge of firearms on private property and addressing the purported establishment of an outdoor recreational field off of Old Greensboro Highway. Staff is proposing to overhaul our current regulations by: a. Establishing a new definition for a recreational land use with no reference to its tax status; b. Reviewing the types of recreational land uses permitted in each zoning district and suggesting revisions to ensure consistency; c. Developing new standards governing the development of recreational land uses for both private and commercial purposes; and d. Developing standards governing the discharge of firearms from both a business and personal enjoyment standpoint. Michael Harvey said with that frame of reference, staff began re-tooling the ordinance to draw distinction between personal and commercial recreational activities on one's property. He said staff has been locked in an enforcement effort over the purported operation of a commercial cricket field. He said it is hoped that this proposal will address mounting concerns. Michael Harvey said part of the reason for this proposal is to address two long-standing enforcement issues: 16 1. Discharge of firearms, from a land use standpoint. 2. A longstanding issue of concerns and complaints, regarding the operation of what could best be construed as motor cross facilities. Michael Harvey said a new definition of recreational facilities is being proposed. He referred to page 91. He said distinguishing between personal and commercial uses is the purpose of the amendment. Michael Harvey referred to page 80-81 and said linguistic changes will refer to facilities simply as recreation facilities. He said the words non-profit and profit are being removed. Michael Harvey said it is still being recommended that these facilities be processed in the residential areas through a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) process, being reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. He said it is also recommended that there still be permitted uses in several commercial districts, where they are currently listed. Michael Harvey said in Economic Development Districts, it is recommended that recreational facilities be considered permitted uses in the high intensity districts. He said the rational for this is that recreational amenities are already allowed in many of these districts, and it is not believed that further specification is needed. Michael Harvey referred to page 85 and said language is being added to formalize a County Planning Department interpretation that has existed since before his tenure. He said this states that recreational land uses developed on residentially zoned property (i.e. pool, pool deck, tennis court, basketball court, etc.) are accessory uses, thus needing to meet all the applicable set back standards. He said the typical residential set back is a 40-foot front, 20-foot side, and 20-foot rear. He said language is being added here to formalize this interpretation. Michael Harvey referred to page 86 that established standards for recreational uses as accessory uses. Recreational Uses as Accessory Uses5 (A) General Standards (1) Accessory recreational uses shall not be open to the public or be designed to serve as a recreation amenity for other lots.6 (2) Amenities, equipment, and/or facilities intended for spectators such as bleachers or public address systems shall not be permitted.' (3) Outdoor sports field lighting, as detailed within Section 6.11, shall be prohibited. 5There have been issues in the past with property owners allowing for the use of recreation amenities on their property to serve others. To address this issue staff is recommending the imposition of various standards to ensure this use does not become some form of commercial operation. 6 Staff is not trying to say a property owner cannot have friends over who use a pool or basketball court. What we are attempting to avoid is the de-facto expansion of an accessory use on a parcel property to serve other lots recreational needs. Please note this will not prohibit subdivision developers from establishing a recreational amenity for their projects. That is addressed in Section 7.11 of the UDO. ' Staff has received concerns from various property owners over the years with respect to a private landowner's ability to erect amenities, primary athletic field lights, to expand the use of 17 their accessory recreation use. Staff is recommending language that would prohibit the installation/use of equipment allowing for the expanded use of a recreation amenity beyond what is considered customary for a residential setting. 8 This would prohibit the erection of sports field lights for accessory recreational land uses. Commissioner Price asked if this applied to Home Owner's Associations. Michael Harvey said no, it does not. Commissioner Price asked if there was an example where this would apply. Michael Harvey said if someone wanted to put a pool or basketball court on their property, they would be able to do so, but could not put outside lighting in a residential area. Michael Harvey said the next issue pertains to the discharge of firearms on private property. He said the following standards have been established: B. Specific Standards (1) Shooting activities (a) All shooting or targeting activities shall be designed or oriented to keep projectiles on the property. (b) A projectile-proof backstop consisting of concrete, steel, earth or any combination thereof, a minimum 15 feet in height and 30 feet in depth shall be required behind all target and/or shooting areas. All shooting activities shall be directed into this protective backstop. (c) Shooting activities and required backstop shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from all property lines, rights-of-way, or access easements and 1,000 feet from occupied dwelling units external to the property. (d)Warning signs indicating shooting activities are occurring on the property shall be posted at one hundred-foot intervals along the perimeter of the property. (e) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed within Section 6.8, shall be required around the perimeter of the portion of property where shooting activities occurs. (f)The use of exploding shells, targets, or other similar materials shall be prohibited. This will preclude hunting activities. (g) Nothing within Section 5.7.1 shall be construed as limiting or otherwise restricting hunting activities or the use of fireworks. 9 There have been issued associated with the discharge of firearms on private property, focusing on noise and public safety issues. Staff is attempting to establish reasonable land use regulations to address safety concerns by requiring discharged items remain on the subject parcel and for those areas where a gun is discharged to be set distances from a property line and occupied dwelling units. 10 This will require either the erection of a land use buffer, or preservation of existing vegetation, around the area of the property where shooting activities are occurring. Chair McKee referred to the section regarding shooting ranges versus shooting activities, and he noted differences in the backstop heights and set backs from adjacent properties. Michael Harvey said the reason for the distinction is that shooting activities are meant to be in a residential setting. He said if the public is going to be present, then the nature of the use becomes commercial, and the setback requirements et al will change. 18 Chair McKee said emails about this issue do not distinguish between a commercial range, and a residential back yard target. He said the concern is about the safety, and he is not so sure that there should be the same requirements for this issue. Michael Harvey said the intent is to distinguish back yard recreational enjoyment versus a paid, commercial, open-to-the-public range. Chair McKee said he would question how it would be justified to have two people over to target shoot on large open property with no neighbors, and not allow that same right to someone that lives on two acres in another township. Michael Harvey said there would be properties that will be unable to conform to whatever standard is imposed. He said this is regrettable. He said in more densely populated areas with smaller lots, there would need to be acceptable limitations. Chair McKee said the acceptable limitations should be the higher. Commissioner Pelissier referred to the requirement that public shooting ranges can only operate between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. She asked if there could be a similar limit placed on private landowners. She said the noise of a group of friends target shooting on the weekend is the same as that of a commercial range. Michael Harvey said firearms are exempt within the Orange County Noise Ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs thanked Michael Harvey for trying to revise this ordinance. He suggested inviting the many residents who have complained repeatedly about the shooting ranges to a Planning Board meeting. Commissioner Jacobs noted the standards for commercial shooting ranges of 600 feet from any property line, and asked if there is a similar standard for a personal shooting target. Michael Harvey said 300 feet. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is then a minimal lot size that would be required in order to accommodate this standard. Michael Harvey said he did not know, but would find this out. Commissioner Jacobs said it might also be useful including slope on these ranges. Michael Harvey said when trying to create uniform standards, it is difficult to allow flexibility regarding slope of property as there could end up being many more problems. He said on-site land differences cannot be taken into account, as it results in people being treated differently. Paul Guthrie said in his neighborhood there are both kinds of ranges, and the Sheriff's office does come out to make sure that weapons are being discharged safely. He also said other states allow the shooting of explosive targets. Michael Harvey said this text amendment prohibits exploding targets, and does not preempt the Sheriff's office from their duty of insuring safety. 19 Commissioner Jacobs said the way the Sheriff's measure decibels has never stopped anyone from shooting, as the noise is measured from the property line and typically dissipates enough by that point. He said he does agree with the possibility of reasonable hours being enforced. Commissioner Price asked if the warning signs will have a uniform look, and if the Planning Board deems placing them at 100-foot intervals sufficient. Michael Harvey said he did not recall the distance being a concern, and that the signs are simply to serve as a warning of shooting activity. Commissioner Price said she is concerned as to whether the time of day, or the decibels of the noise, is a more effective enforcement. She said the lay of land would have an impact on this. Michael Harvey said if the Planning Board and the BOCC would like to see a reasonable time limit he could pursue it, but he would prefer the issue of decibel levels be discussed directly with the Sheriff. Lisa Stuckey asked if it required that the backstops be maintained, in order to avoid degrading. Michael Harvey said the ordinance does not specify this, but if a permit is issued indicating that the backstop will be maintained, it must be complied with. Chair McKee asked what would happen if a member of the public purchased a new rifle and went on his 10 acres of land to practice shooting, without a backstop or any type of buffer. Michael Harvey said if someone complains to him, he would meet with the landowner where the shooting occurred, and try to enforce this issue. He said it is a valid concern, and this is an opportunity to educate the public on what the ordinance requires. He said ordinances are living and breathing documents that can be changed. Chair McKee said he appreciated this effort on the shooting issue. He said he hears about repetitive shooting in the same areas over and over again. Maxecine Mitchell asked questions and clarifications on issues surrounding residential versus commercial recreational areas and Michael Harvey responded. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a limit on the number of people that may shoot at a residential property at the same time. Michael Harvey said there is no limit built into this ordinance to say how many people can be at a place and discharging a firearm. Michael Harvey said a distinction has been established between the recreational accessory uses versus a non-residential land use activity. He said the Planning Board had a lot of concerns at the ORC regarding his draft definition of a recreational facility. He said he met with the Attorney's Office, and a workable definition, that can be enforced, was created. 20 Commissioner Price referred to the top of page 90, and said she had concerns about the required frontage. She said there are properties in the County that are accessed by an easement. Michael Harvey said the goal of this provision is to stipulate that if one is going to have a heightened level of traffic to access, what amounts to a commercial facility, then it ought to be done through a public road rather than a private road of a subdivision. He said if there is an easement, access across it should be properly negotiated. Commissioner Jacobs suggested amending the list of general standards for evaluation for recreational facilities from listing a variety of courts to using a global statement that covers multiple courts. Commissioner Price suggested further explanation be given to "turkey shoots, and other similar activities". Michael Harvey referred to page 89 where it says there is "nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the holding of turkey shoots or other similar activities as a fundraiser or community event." He said the idea is a shooting event or fundraiser that can be held no more than twice a year on a given parcel of property. Commissioner Price asked if there are specifics that are seeking to be regulated. Michael Harvey said fund raising activities are not being regulated. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve: 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for its November 5, 2015 regular meeting. 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 21 Attachment 3 OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF r vQP Sheriff Charles S.Blackwood 106 East Margaret L<me Hillsborough,North Carolina 2727 Hillsborough Chapel Hill Fax (919)644-3050 (919)942-6300 (919)732 6403 Memorandum To: Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Planning Board From: Sheriff Charles S. Blackwood Date: September 24, 2015 Re: Response to September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing Questions regarding the Discharge of Firearms When Central Communications relays a call for service associated with the discharge of firearms, the Orange County Sheriff's Office's ("Sheriff's Office") standard operating procedure requires the response of the appropriate area deputy. Once the deputy arrives at the property which is the subject of the complaint, he or she will attempt to locate and make contact with any individuals who may be there. If successful, the deputy informs them of the complaint and engages them in conversation to better assess the situation. A criminal history may be conducted of the individuals located at the property and firearms' serial numbers may be checked. If weapons are being discharged at a shooting range on the property, the deputy will inspect the backstop to determine whether it provides adequate protection for the ammunition being fired. The deputy may suggest improvements be made to the backstop. At the end of the encounter, the deputy thanks the individuals he or she spoke with for their time and clears the property. Often, the deputy's visit to the property sufficiently addresses the complaint and minimizes the likelihood of future calls for service to the property. Enforcement The Sheriff's Office is charged with enforcing the Orange County Noise Ordinance, Chapter 16, Article 3. The Ordinance prohibits, inter alia, "unreasonably loud and disturbing noise" as defined therein. Maximum permissible standards by receiving land are established for continuous, regular, frequent, or intermittent source of sound produced by any activity. Sound level meters are used to determine compliance with the Ordinance. The discharge of firearms, however,is exempted from the standards but only as permitted by state law and county regulations. Absent an allegation 22 of criminal activity connected with the use or possession of a firearm, the Sheriff's Office is unable to require an individual to cease discharging a firearm. If the County were to decide to regulate the discharge of firearms, clear standards are necessary to allow for enforcement. Noise and rate of fire regulations are extremely difficult and almost impossible to enforce given the brief duration of the sound. Instead, the Sheriff's Office seeks to gain the cooperation of the individual whose discharge of a firearm is the subject of the complaint. Consistent with the Sheriff's Office's philosophy of community policing, deputies encourage County residents to be considerate of their neighbors when discharging firearms in addition to talking with one another about such matters. With regard to shooting ranges, the North Carolina General Assembly amended The Shooting Range Protection Act of 1997 to include any recreational shooting range, regardless of when it began operating. Effective July 1, 2015, a person who owns or operates a recreational shooting range in North Carolina is not able to be prosecuted criminally or sued civilly in any lawsuit related to noise or noise pollution resulting from the use of the shooting range, so long as the range is being operated in compliance with noise control laws in effect at the time the range began operating. See An Act to Amend Various Firearm Laws, 2015 N.C. Sess. Laws 2015-195 (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-409.46). 1 Examples of such activity may include bullets striking a home or personal property, possession of a firearm by a felon, a victim's statement alleging the commission of a crime involving the discharge of a firearm, or discharge of a firearm on educational property. Attachment 4 23 Approved 11/4/15 Excerpt of Approved October 7, 1 2015 Planning Board Minutes 2 PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 7,2015 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 7 Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 8 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 9 Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, 10 At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large 11 Chapel Hill Township; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: None 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 16 Planning Systems Coordinator;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT:Phil Koch, PE Earth Centric Engineering, Inc.; Tom Heffner, Developer Heffner Properties, Inc.; 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT-To make a recommendation 21 on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land 22 uses, including shooting ranges. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly 23 public hearing. 24 25 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 26 27 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 28 29 Michael Harvey:We have a standard in here that stipulates a discharged shell be directed into a backstop which 30 would consist of concrete, steel,wood, or combination. The concern is can any consideration be given to a property 31 owner who locates a shooting area in low lying area and takes advantage of topography to reduce to scope of 32 backstop. Since topography can be altered I am worried about relying on that as a means of guaranteeing a 33 reasonable backstop. 34 35 Herman Staats: I have a shooting range on my property with an earth backstop.The shooting range I have built on 36 my property does not meet the definition of suitable. I believe it is safe and I think some consideration should be 37 given to these other factors despite my own personal range.The other issue I have is that concrete and steel are not 38 ideal for a backstop if you have ricochet issues and there needs to be some consideration for that as well. Lastly, this 39 broadly specifies shooting activities and does not address shooting clay pigeons in the air. 40 41 Tony Blake: I agree. Steel is very dangerous. 42 43 Michael Harvey:What I am hearing from comments is if we could reconfigure the back stop standards and provide 44 distinction for skeet shooting? 45 46 Buddy Hartley: I think the earth backstop is obviously your best option. 47 48 Tony Blake:The Sherriffs letter seems to indicate that he has standards for backstops and for safe shooting and I 49 was wondering if it would be a good idea to coordinate with the Sheriffs Department. 50 51 Michael Harvey:The Sheriff does not have ordinance for stablishing regulations for a backstop.What they do is go 52 out and make a determination if the activity is safe, but they do not have specific standards.The Sherriff has 1 24 Approved 11/4/15 53 reviewed this. Also I would like to remind the Board the proposed text amendment indicates target shooting activities 54 are governed by the Ordinance. I would interpret that to mean skeet shooting as well. 55 56 Lisa Stuckey:Are there any state laws on this? 57 58 Michael Harvey:There are state laws, but they do not get specific to the construction of a backstop.There is 59 nebulous language in the general statutes, but not definite state law regulating the backstop. 60 61 Paul Guthrie:Are there any considerations on what type of weapons are being fired? 62 63 Michael Harvey: No. From a land use stand point we do not have the legal authority to tell people they cannot shoot a 64 certain weapon. 65 66 Herman Staats:This language on page 123 is the distinction of the times per month for shooting? 67 68 Michael Harvey:Yes on page 123 we added language with the direction of the County Attorney indicating that if you 69 are a property owner and are discharging your gun on your property three days or less a month that is not going to 70 be considered an activity that warrants you to build a backstop. 71 72 Lydia Wegman: For clarification, someone could go out on their property three times a month and target shoot all day 73 long? 74 75 Michael Harvey: Unfortunately, that is exactly what that means. 76 77 James Lea:And not only can they target shoot, but they can shoot any gun they want? 78 79 Michael Harvey:They can shoot any gun they want anyway, period. 80 81 Lydia Wegman: Does this exemption also exempt them from the hours of the day. 82 83 Michael Harvey:Yes because it would not be considered a shooting activity per this ordinance. 84 85 Lydia Wegman:That is why I am concerned because this seems overly broad as an exemption. 86 87 Lisa Stuckey: Do you have to keep the bullets on the property? 88 89 Michael Harvey:Yes. 90 91 Lisa Stuckey:The exemption that was added is kind of confusing.What exactly is exempted? For three days you can 92 shoot your bullets into your neighbor's yard? 93 94 Michael Harvey:We may need to add language that says all bullets must be kept on the property. 95 96 Michael Harvey continued review of abstract. 97 98 Michael Harvey:We are recommending that all rec facilities, private or public, have frontage on public roads.The 99 reason being you don't want a facility in the middle of nowhere on a private road and create hardship for neighbors 100 who maintain that road. 101 102 Paul Guthrie:As long as the use is on the same land it can be anywhere from one foot to five thousand feet from the 103 road? 104 105 Michael Harvey:The property has to have frontage and that's where access is going to have to be provided. 2 25 Approved 11/4/15 106 107 Michael Harvey: I am recommending to review the proposed standards based on comments received tonight 108 regarding the backstop and exemption and bring it back to you. 109 110 Pete Hallenbeck: I do not think we are going to be able to agree on a statement of consistency tonight. 111 112 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to bring this item back to the November Planning Board meeting.Tony Blake 113 seconded. 114 VOTE: Unanimous 115 116 AGENDA ITEM 11: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 117 A. Board of Adjustment 118 None 119 120 B. Orange County Transportation 121 None 122 123 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT 124 125 Motion to adjourn made by Lisa Stuckey. Pete Hallenbeck, Chair 3 Attachment 5 26 Approved 12/2/15 Excerpt of Approved November 4, 1 2015 Planning Board Minutes 2 PLANNING BOARD 3 NOVEMBER 4,2015 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At- 7 Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove 8 Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 9 Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; 10 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Herman Staats,At-Large; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, 15 Special Projects Coordinator, Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner, Meredith Pucci,Administrative Assistant II 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT-To make a recommendation 19 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding 20 recreational land uses, including shooting ranges.This item was heard at the September 21 8, 2015 quarterly public hearing and was discusses at the October 7, 2015 Planning 22 Board Meeting 23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 24 25 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and mentioned that the attorney's office may decide to take some of the 26 shooting range language out of the UDO and put it in the general code of ordinances. 27 28 Lydia Wegman:What would be the process for putting it somewhere else? 29 30 Michael Harvey:The County Attorney's office would have to draft the ordinance and take it to the County 31 Commissioners and they would have to approve it but it would be in the general county code of ordinances. It 32 wouldn't be a land use ordinance. So you all as an example wouldn't get to see it or comment on it because it's not a 33 land use ordinance. 34 35 Lydia Wegman:Who would get to comment on it? 36 37 Perdita Holtz:Anybody can show up at the BOCC meeting and sign up to speak. 38 39 Paul Guthrie: One issue that might keep you slightly in the process would be that the applicant had to be able to 40 police all the brass and residue of shots off the property. It's changing the character of the land use. 41 42 Michael Harvey:That was discussed and quite honestly the thought was that its ancillary component of the shooting 43 activity and while it may be an important one the issue is the safety with respect to the discharge of the firearm. 44 There are probably going to be regulations that will be enforced by other departments and agencies. 45 46 Paul Guthrie: Have you begun to think through how you can link all of these organizations together for discussion of 47 these issues? 48 49 Michael Harvey:All the agencies we talked about have completed peer review of these regulations and have said 50 that they have no concerns or comments. 51 52 Lisa Stuckey: Do they care what we think? It seems to me that the enforcement of shooting regulations should be 53 done by the Sheriff's Office. 1 27 Approved 12/2/15 54 55 Michael Harvey:The County Commissioners care because they asked you to comment on it. 56 57 Buddy Hartley: The Sheriff Deputies are going to come out to any call. If you call and say my neighbor is shooting 58 they have got to come out. One thing that I don't want to see happen out of this is the Sheriff Department having 59 more problems with frivolous things. 60 61 Michael Harvey:At the October 7th meeting you were provided with a memorandum from the Sheriffs Office that 62 basically said here is our SOP when it comes to discharge of guns and that's exactly what they do. 63 64 Buddy Hartley: Do we need to wait and see what the Attorney decides? 65 66 Michael Harvey:You have a couple of options. In my mind your options are that you can ask that this be delayed until 67 you hear what the County Attorney wants to do,you can all make the statement that you concur with the county 68 attorney and if that's the decision you will support it. 69 70 Paul Guthrie: It seems to me that the Sheriff's Department is not going to be enforcing the land use that is disturbing 71 a neighbor or potential harm to the neighbor. It's going to be a question of noise and stuff like that so what you're 72 saying to me is that there will be absolutely no regulations except the discharge of a firearm regulations. 73 74 Michael Harvey:The Sheriffs Office is not being asked to enforce a land use component. 75 76 Lydia Wegman:Won't the minimum back stop be ignored? 77 78 Michael Harvey: I don't know if they are going to exist or not because the County Attorney will be doing the 79 recommendation. 80 81 Peter Hallenbeck: I suggest that in regard to the item on page 34 at some point we go around the room and people 82 just address what they think otherwise we will be here talking back and forth. If two and three go away then the 83 Sheriff Deputies have to decide is it safe. 84 85 Michael Harvey:Well in conclusion let me just say everything else about the ordinance is going to stay the same 86 including the non-residential activity. Please note, on page 40 we added language in consultation with the County 87 Attorney's office. So if you're going to be active with this tonight I ask that replacement page 40 become a part of 88 your official action. 89 90 Paul Guthrie:You have no standard in the rest of the material if you're giving it all to the Sheriff. 91 92 Michael Harvey:We are not giving it all to the Sheriff because recreational facilities are the non-residential activity 93 and the shooting standards will remain in that section for recreational facilities.The only thing coming out is for 94 private shooting. 95 96 Peter Hallenbeck: We have to remember where this came from.We had definitions based on profit and non-profit. 97 98 Tony Blake: So there is no distinction between profit and non-profit? 99 100 Michael Harvey:Well the problem is from a language standpoint the impacts are the same. 101 102 Tony Blake: Right, so there is no leniency with one or the other. 103 104 Michael Harvey: I know it's a lot for you all to take in. I certainly don't want to try to tell you how you should respond 105 to what could potentially happen to the regulations with respect to shooting on private property but again I feel you 2 28 Approved 12/2/15 106 need to know it's certainly within your purview to say you want to see what the County Attorney does before we make 107 a recommendation. 108 109 Peter Hallenbeck: I would like to go around the room and let everyone comment and then we can have some general 110 discussion. 111 112 Buddy Hartley: I would like to see what the attorney decides. 113 114 Paul Guthrie: I don't think we should be making a formal presentation until we have seen how it's being fitted out 115 through the rest of the county. 116 117 James Lea: I too would like to hear what the attorney has to say. 118 119 Maxecine Mitchell:We should just sit and wait to see what the attorney says. 120 121 Lisa Stuckey: I agree with everybody else. 122 123 Andrea Rohrbacher: I agree with everybody else. 124 125 Tony Blake: Overall I agree with everybody else but I think what really needs to happen is they need to consider the 126 source of the complaint but let's hear what the attorney has to say first. 127 128 Lydia Wegman: I agree with waiting for the attorney but I would like to have these set back requirements enforced in 129 some way. 130 131 Peter Hallenbeck: I am a little concerned about the two incidents a month; I think that's too low for rural areas. I think 132 I would be more concerned that target practice happens during daylight hours than I would how many times it 133 happens. I like the simplification on page 34 that just says that the set-up is designed to keep the projectiles on the 134 property. I think that's something that gives the Sheriff some discretion. I would not be opposed to some setbacks in 135 regard to safety. I like the change on page 40, I think it strikes to the reason we are doing this. Meaning getting away 136 from the profit and non-profit and simply saying is this going on for compensation.We need a big picture with respect 137 to other agencies and how they work together because we keep running into this with planning ordinances. I would 138 now like to open up the floor for any more comment. 139 140 Michael Harvey: It sounds to me like the board would rather not make a decision until it gets something definitive 141 from the County Attorney so my recommendation is that your motion be that this be continued to the December 142 regular meeting and that you ask the county commissioners to extend the public hearing to the first meeting in 143 January. 144 145 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to move continue item to December meeting and request the public hearing be the 146 first meeting in January. Buddy Hartley seconded. 147 VOTE: Unanimous 148 149 Michael Harvey:Just as a heads up we are due to go before the Board of County Commissioners tomorrow night and 150 extend the public hearing so originally we asked it to be extended to the December 7th meeting,we will ask that it be 151 adjourned until the first meeting in January. 152 153 Peter Hallenbeck:Are there any opposed? 154 155 Peter Hallenbeck: Okay so it is a unanimous decision to wait and not deal with this statement of consistency tonight. 156 3 Attachment 6 29 Excerpt of Approved December 2 Approved 1/6/2016 1 2015 Planning Board Minutes 2 PLANNING BOARD 3 DECEMBER 2,2015 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove 7 Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 8 Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 9 Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Herman Staats, 10 At-Large; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 13 Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, 16 Special Projects Coordinator, Meredith Pucci,Administrative Assistant II; 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT-To make a recommendation 19 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding 20 recreational land uses, including shooting ranges. This item was heard at the September 21 8, 2015 quarterly public hearing and was discussed at the October 7 and November 4, 22 2015 Planning Board meetings. 23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 24 25 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 26 27 Lydia Wegman: Could you review the setbacks? 28 29 Michael Harvey: We have recommended that anyone engaging in shooting activities to be located a minimum of 300 30 feet away from all property lines, rights-of-ways or easements; be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied 31 dwelling units that are external to the property and be directed into a projectile proof backstop. We added language 32 to the proposal indicating if you are engaging in shooting activities indoors required setback changes to the activity 33 only having to be 100 feet from all property lines and the shot has to be kept in the structure. We have 34 recommended hours of operation for the discharge of firearms and obviously we have also recommended the posting 35 of warning signs and the maintenance of a land use buffer around the area where outdoor target shooting is 36 occurring.We also have provisions in the ordinance that incidental discharge of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm 37 in self-defense, or engaging in target shooting activities on a parcel of property less than 2 days a month is permitted. 38 39 Lydia Wegman: Does anyone have any concerns or questions about the information presented by Michael? 40 41 Laura Nicholson: I think that there should definitely be a backstop requirement for shooting. 42 43 Lydia Wegman: I agree. I think that the safety of the citizens is the most important issue. 44 45 Maxecine Mitchell: Will the Sherriff office still respond to calls about shooting on private property with this 46 amendment? 47 48 Michael Harvey:Yes, the sheriff deputies will still respond when called about shots fired. 49 50 Buddy Hartley:The Sheriff Deputies are going to come out to any call. If you call and say my neighbor is shooting 51 they have got to come out. 52 1 30 Approved 1/6/2016 53 Paul Guthrie:The Sheriff's Department is not going to be enforcing the land use that is disturbing a neighbor or 54 potential harm to the neighbor. It's going to be a question of noise and stuff like. 55 56 Michael Harvey: Correct,we are not asking the Sheriff's Office to enforce a land use component. 57 58 Andrea Rohrbacher: I think what really needs to happen is they need to consider the source of the complaint. 59 60 Laura Nicholson: I agree with Andrea but I think that the recommendation made would be suitable for everyone. I 61 would still like to see involvement from the Sherriff Department on where they stand with the issue. 62 63 Lydia Wegman: Should we make a motion to approve or does anyone have any other questions or concerns? 64 65 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve text amendment. Seconded by Laura Nicholson and Buddy Hartley 66 VOTE: Unanimous 2 Attachment 7 31 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to revise existing regulations governing the development of recreational land uses. The Planning Board finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: • Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. • Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. • Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1. Establishes a legally defensible regulation based on the impacts of a specific land use rather than on its tax status. 2. Establishes uniform standards of development for recreational uses serving either as an accessory, or principal, use of property. 3. Provides measurable thresholds with respect to what constitutes an accessory or principal recreational land use to ensure equitable enforcement of development standards. 4. Promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed UDO Text Amendments. ,, Lydia � egman, Vices Chair Date 1 32 Attachment 8 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to revise existing regulations governing the development of recreational land uses. The Board of County Commissioners finds: a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and, b. Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: • Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. • Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. • Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1. Establishes a legally defensible regulation based on the impacts of a specific land use rather than on its tax status. 2. Establishes uniform standards of development for recreational uses serving either as an accessory, or principal, use of property. 3. Provides measurable thresholds with respect to what constitutes an accessory or principal recreational land use to ensure equitable enforcement of development standards. 4. Promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and findings expressed herein. Earl McKee, Chair Date 1 Attachment 9 33 Ordinance#: ORD-2016-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendment(s) to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance in order to revise and update regulations governing the review, approval, and development of public and private recreational facilities, and WHEREAS, the amendment eliminates existing inconsistencies associated with the permitting and classification of recreational facilities and amenities, and WHEREAS, the amendment represents a reasonable balance of attempting to allow for the development and use of recreational land uses for bother public and private purposes while addressing adjacent property owner concerns over potential impacts, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-341 and Section 1.1.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has found the proposed text amendments to be reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the attached pages. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2016. 1 34 I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2016 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2016. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 35 UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES: The following packet details staff's proposed modifications to existing regulations associated with the review and permitting of public and private recreational facilities. As the number of affected pages/sections of the existing UDO are being modified with this proposal staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded classifications: • Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to the UDO • Red Strikethrough Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete • Green Bold Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, designed to address comments made at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. • _ • • • : : : _ ' • • . . : Denotes text eliminated to address Planning Board and County Attorney Concerns made after the public hearing. • Orange Bold Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, designed to address comment made by the Planning Board at its October 7, 2015 regular meeting. • Blue Bold Underlines Text: Denotes language recommended by the County Attorney's office after the public hearing. • . • : : : _ ' • • . . • . : Denotes changes recommended by the County Attorney's office after the public hearing. Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional information/rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review. Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes from previous sections `spill over' onto the included page. Text with a large "X" is not proposed for deletion. Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of the text/sections downward. Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at: http://www.orangecountync.govidepartments/planning and_inspections/UDO_MOST_CURRE NT updated_120915.pdf Article 5: Uses 36 Section 5.2:Table of Permitted Uses TABLE OF PERMITTED USES—GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS *=PERMITTED USE A=CLASS A SPECIAL USE B=CLASS B SPECIAL USE A=SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS USE TYPE RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 01 AS El 11 12 13 PID -- Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E) A Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5) ary Installations(National Guard &Reserve ••••••••••©©©■©■■■.'N Armorga,„._ MBLY&PROCESSING Assembly and Packagin. '.erations Including Mail ©'1 Order Houses, But Excluding r 'remises Retail 'dl Outlets Industrial, Heavy-- -----------.'------©- Industrial, Light— `---------'.----©©©©- Industrial, Medium— -"-----.'--------©©- Microbrewery, production only A B B .`'-.'.--------©©©- Printing & Lithography ----.M.----©©©---©©©- Sawmills-- ---.'-"-------©----- Winery, production only A B EI'.---.`.-------©©©- MEDICAL USES Health Services: Over 10,000 Sq. Ft. '-----------'�-------- Health Services: Under 10,000 Sq. F ---------©-©©`.------ Hospitals— ------------©-.`.---- nic, mobile B B ------©©©©©©©-©ME- - -rinary Hospitals -----------©©©©©--©UM RECREATIONAL USES Botanical Gardens&Arboretums ©©MNON= Camp/Retreat Center micici------------------ Golf Driving and Practice Ranges B ---------©©----©--- Harks, Public S. Non Profit ©--©©©© Orange County, North Carolina-Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-8 Article 5: Uses 37 Section 5.2:Table of Permitted Uses TABLE OF PERMITTED USES-GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS *=PERMITTED USE A=CLASS A SPECIAL USE B=CLASS B SPECIAL USE A=SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS USE TYPE RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 01 AS El 11 12 13 PID -- Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E) A Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5) Eeeational Facilities(Non Profit)' B B B B B B B B B B B NH B ••u ■■ Ficcrcational Facilitics(Profit) -----------OEM----®--- Golf Course A A A A A A A A A A A A A A -- A A A - 1 NTIAL USES Dwelling; •i. - Home ---.''- Dwelling; Multiple Fa71111111111111MMMINIMIEMIEMEM©©--©.''--- Dwelling; Single-Family ©©©©©©©©©©©©-OM'.----- Dwelling; Two-Family _ PP'-------- Family Care Home ©SIM©©©©©©M=©©©©------ Group Care Facility OOOLinQnvQO B B Ei------ Rehabilitative Care Facility ---.''`'-©-©©-------- Residential Hotel (Fraternities, Sororities, and mEnno. A A r', A A ■■■■■■■■ Dormitories — Rooming House '.----©©©©--'`-©------ TELECOMMUNICATIONS Telecommunication T• - —Stealth (75 feet or IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII©©©©©©TIE©©© shorter T = munication Towers(Over 75 feet and under 200 feet B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 1 Staff is eliminating the distinction between profit and non-profit recreation facilities and eliminating references to an entity's status as a `non-profit'as being a rationale for deciding the review status of a given land use(i.e.staff review,Special Use Permit,etc.). After reviewing the matter with the Attorney's office staff has determined the ownership status of a recreational land use and/or property owner is not a reasonable means of establishing land use/permitting regulations. Whether or not a recreational facility is a for-profit entity or not the impacts of said development on adjacent property owners will be the same. From this standpoint it makes more sense to establish reasonable land use controls instead of relying on the tax status of a property owner when determining the viability of a project or identifying required permit review processes(i.e.administrative review versus a requiring a special use permit). Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-9 Article 5: Uses 38 Section 5.2:Table of Permitted Uses TABLE OF PERMITTED USES—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS *=PERMITTED USE A=CLASS A SPECIAL USE B=CLASS B SPECIAL USE C=CONDITIONAL USE(REZONING&CLASS A SUP) GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS USE TYPE BUCKHORN EDD ENO EDD HILLSBOROUGH EDD EDB-1 EDB-2 EDE-1 EDE-2 EDH-1 EDH-2 EDH-3 EDH-4 EDH-5 #Shall be noted on Zoning Atlas as"Zoning District"—CU (e.g., EDB-2-CU) Rccr gtional facilities (Non Profit) Cif Ctt G# Ctt I Recreational facilities (Profit)2 G#B G#* Ctt B G#* repair service, electronic and appliance C# C# * * Schools, dance, .• and music * C# * * Schools, elementary, mi•• : and high A A * Schools, vocational C# C# * Other Services(Hillsborough EDD only) _----M— * * TRANSPORTATION Bus terminals and garages --_____ Postal and parcel delivery services Rail/bus passenger shelter * * ___ * _ Surface and structure parking as principal use � (When associated with a local or regional * transportation goal such as mass transit or park- and-ride Transportation and Warehousing (Sector A :, A 9) ----_—__ * WHOLESALE TRADE Wholesale Trade(Se - ----___—_ Durable Goo.: see listing below) ----___— * • Automotive parts and supplies (In an * * enclosed = encloslosed d buildin• 2 Staff is recommending changing review processes for recreational facilities in what are considered high intensity economic development districts. We currently allow certain recreational land uses as a permitted use of property in these districts and do not believe it was the intent of the County to require both the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit and a rezoning to allow for the development of those land uses falling within the recreational facilities designation. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-19 Article 5: Uses 39 Section 5.2:Table of Permitted Uses TABLE OF PERMITTED USES-CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS *=PERMITTED USE CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS USE TYPE ASE-CZ MPD-CZ MHP-CZ REDA-CZ-1 NOTE:Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration/approval ^: Use shall not be approved on parcels located in the Rural Buffer land use classification, as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Ve e - -• •itals RECREATIONAL USES Arts, Entertainment& Recreation (Sector 71) Botanical Gardens&Arboretums Camp/Retreat Center Golf Driving and Pr. '_- . ges Gtr larch Parks, Public& Non Profit Rccrcational Facilitics(Non Profit) Recreational Facilities(Profit)3 Golf Course Race Track(Motorized, etc.)and Go-Kart Track Facilities RESIDEN • ES Dwelling; Mobile Ho - Dwelling; Multiple Family Dwelling; Single-Family Dwelling;Two-Family Family Care Home — Group Care Facility Rehabilitative Care Facility Residential Hotel (Fraternities -4 'titles, and Dormitories) Rooming Hous- ECOMMUNICATIONS 3 Recommended changes here are to ensure consistency throughout the UDO. Orange County, North Carolina-Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-26 Article 5: Uses 40 Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses (e) A statement for setting forth the length of time for which the reque- is made. Approval shall not exceed one year. (2) Standards of Evaluation (a) The relationship between the occupants of the single fami unit and the mobile home is established. (b) There is a certificate from a licensed physician (MD) : ating the necessity of direct care. (c) The floor plan of the existing single family unit s'ows there is no reasonable alternative to the mobile home. (• The proposed site plan shows the location end setbacks of the existing single family unit, the mobile home, and riveways and parking areas. The setbacks for all structures meet or -xceed the requirements of the District in which the lot is located. (e) Th e shall be adequate lot area •r each unit, according to the minimum requi -ments of the zoning dist .ct in which the lot is located. (f) Approva of the Orange Cou'ty Health Department for water and sewerage .isposal faciliti-:, or the approval of the appropriate agency from which s:nitary sew'-r and water will be supplied. (9) Approval of the •pli•-tion shall not exceed one year. Renewal shall constitute a new .••lication. 5.4.5 Buildings for Temporary Use - (A) Standards for Class B Sp: ial Use Per •it (1) Submittal Req ements— In addition to e information required b ection 2.7, the following information shall be su•'lied as part of the application or approval of this use: (a) :ite plan showing all existing and proposed structures on the site, existing and proposed topography at a ••ntour interval of five feet, existing and proposed landscaping, parki ; areas, access points, any officially designated flood plains, and other '.te details. b) A description of the exterior materials, color an construction details. (c) Statement of proposed use and length of time bui ..ng will be in use. ( Standards of Evaluation— (a) The temporary building shall not be used for residential • rposes. (b) The temporary building shall not be used by operations offe g drive-in services. (c) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specifi,• and for the use specified. (d) The proposed use is a permitted use in the district in which it is locate. SECTION 5. • TANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE 5.5.1 Accessory Structures and Uses (A) General Standards of Evaluation Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-37 Article 5: Uses 41 Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses (1) Accessory structures and uses including recreational uses and amenities, 4shall not be located in any required front open space and shall conform to the principal setbacks of the district where located unless otherwise provided in this Section. (2) An attached private garage, or carport, not exceeding 12 feet in height, may occupy a portion of the required side open space, provided that this does not result in a required side open space of less than 7% of the lot width, nor a total, when combined with the required side open space of the lot immediately adjacent, of less than eight feet. (3) Mobile homes as accessory structures to residential uses are prohibited. ..5.2 Efficiency Apartment (A) General Standards of Evaluation (1) There shall be no more than one efficiency apartment, whether detach-d or attached, on any lot. (2) The efficiency unit shall contains no more than 800 square feet . gross floor area. (3) The residential lot shall meet the minimum lot size require 'ents of the zoning district in which it is located. (4) T - efficiency unit shall comply with the N.C. Resid- tial Building Code including mini gum light/ventilation and room sizes. (5) The effi .-ncy unit shall be accessory to the p cipal dwelling unit and may be attached o detached. (6) The efficiency . it shall be served by a .pproved water supply and sanitary facilities. (7) The efficiency unit s -ll remain in e same ownership as the primary residence. 5.5.3 Home Occupations (A) General Standards (1) Submittal Requirem- ts- In addition to the •.mpleted applicatio, form, applicants for a minor or major home occupati. shall submit the follow ■6 to the Planning Department: (a) Minor Home Occupations A plot plan of the property on w .ch the home occupation is to be located. The plot plan shall show: a. The location of the residence : d/or accessory building in which the home occupation is .6 be located in relation to existing property lines and adjac: t homes; b. The location, number, and means of a ess to required off street parking areas; and c. The location and type of required landscapin6 and/or screening. (ii) A floor plan of the residence and/or accessory building in w •ch the home occupation is to be located showing the location, si -, 4 Staff has always interpreted a recreational use(i.e. pool,basketball court,etc.)to be an customary accessory use to a residential land use. We are adding language here to formalize this interpretation which will require such uses to comply with established dimensional standards(i.e. setbacks). Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-38 Article 5: Uses 42 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses from adjacent residentially zoned property. (4) The site shall be located on a major road, as classified in the 0 . ge County Comprehensive Plan, unless permitted as an ASE-CZ. (5) Parking shall not be located in the front yard space. (6) Ai'lication materials shall include a comprehen e groundwater study, for facili expected to use more groundwater e an annual basis than an average single fa residence (which uses 240 t. Ions of water per day) built at the highest dens the existing zoning d.. ict would allow. For example, if the existing zoning . rict allows a r-: dential density of 1 unit for 2 acres and the proposed use is on . ix acr- .arcel (which could yield 3 residences), the proposed use(s) may us: ree times the water used by an average single family residence (or 720 gal t s p- day, on an annualized basis) before a comprehensive gre ndwater st is required. The water usage rates of any existing use s .sect to zoning regu - .ons located on the same lot shall be taken into accou. when determining if a com ehensive groundwater study is required. Said s .cy shall detail: The amount of water anticipated to be u :d on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis by regulated uses located .I the parcel (e.g., water usage by bona fide farm uses is not required to .- included); (b) An analysis of the amount of groundwater withdrawal :.nsidered to be safe and sustainable in the immediate vicinity; and (c) An analysis of whether other wells in the vicinity of the propose. se are expected to be affected by withdrawals made by the proposed use. SECTION 5.7: STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL USES 5.7.1 Recreational Uses as Accessory Uses5 (A) Residential Land Uses6 In addition to the requirements contained within this Ordinance, recreational uses developed as an accessory use to a residence shall abide by the following: (1) General Standards (a) Accessory recreational uses shall not be open to the public or serve as a recreation amenity for other lots.' (b) Amenities, equipment, and/or facilities intended for spectators such as bleachers or public address systems shall not be permitted.$ 5 There have been issues in the past with property owners allowing for the use of recreation amenities on their property to serve others. To address this issue staff is recommending the imposition of various standards to ensure this use does not become some form of commercial operation. 6 Bold Green Underlined text added to address comments from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. There was concern the regulations,as written,would prevent a church from developing a recreational amenity for their congregation's use. While staff does not believe this would be the case,we have added language clarifying the section to address the concern. 'Staff is not trying to say a property owner cannot have friends over who use a pool or basketball court. What we are attempting to avoid is the de-facto expansion of an accessory use on a parcel property to serve other lots recreational needs or be open to the public like a non-residential land use can be. Please note this will not prohibit subdivision developer's from establishing a recreational amenity for their projects. That is addressed in Section 7.11 of the UDO. 8 Staff has received concerns from various property owners over the years with respect to a private land owners ability to erect amenities, primary athletic field lights,to expand the use of their accessory recreation use. Staff is Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-64 Article 5: Uses 43 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses (c) Outdoor sports field lighting, as detailed within Section 6.11, shall be prohibited.9 (2) Specific Standards70 (a) Shooting activities" (i) All shooting or targeting activities, including skeet shooting12, i-rnot otherwise exempted herein,13 shall be designed or oriented to keep projectiles on the property. (ii) Shooting activities occurring outdoors shall: a. Be located a minimum of 300 feet from all property lines, rights-of-way, or access easements; b. Be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied dwelling units external to the property; and c. Be directed14 Direct all stationary target shooting activitil_ into a projectile-proof backstop c^ .R thereof15 a minimum of 15 feet in height and 30 feet in depth." (iii) Shooting activities occurring indoors shall:77 a. Be located a minimum of 100 feet from all property lines, rights-of-way, or access easements, and recommending language that would prohibit the installation/use of equipment allowing for the expanded use of a recreation amenity beyond what is considered customary for a residential setting. 9 This would prohibit the erection of sports field lights for accessory recreational land uses developed to support a residential recreational facility. 10 As written staff is still proposing to establish specific standards for target shooting activities as an accessory use to a residence. There was some discussion at the public hearing to eliminate these standards, specifically setback and backstop requirements,and enforce non-residential target shooting activities only. 11 There have been issued associated with the discharge of firearms on private property,focusing on noise and public safety issues. Staff is attempting to establish reasonable land use regulations to address safety concerns by requiring discharged items remain on the subject parcel and for those areas where a gun is discharged to be set distances from a property line and occupied dwelling units. 12 Bold Orange Underlined text added to address October 7,2015 Planning Board comments the term 'target shooting'did not specifically include or allow skeet shooting. 13 was language added in consultation with the County Attorney's office designed to address a concern from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing proposed regulations could restrict the'incidental' discharge of a firearm. This language has now been deleted. 14 Language deleted to address concerns from the October 7,2015 Planning Board meeting that,as written,the ordinance would not allow skeet shooting. 15 Bold Green Underlined text was eliminated to address concerns from the October 7,2015 Planning Board meeting,specifically staff is eliminating language defining the materials that could constitute an acceptable backstop. In consultation with the County Attorney it was determined projectile proof backstop would be sufficient. 16 Bold Green Underlined text represents a change to address comments from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing and combines what was proposed to be Section(s)5.7.1(B) (1) (b)and (c) into 1 section. Staff has decided to add language reducing required setbacks if shooting/targeting activities occur indoors to address BOCC and Planning Board concerns over the possible impacts proposed setbacks would have on a property owner's ability to engage in target shooting activities. 17 Bold Green Underlined text represents additional regulations to address comments from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing to provide greater flexibility for those property owners who choose to erect an indoors target range on their property with respect to required setbacks. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-65 Article 5: Uses 44 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses b. Be designed to keep the shot within the structure.'$ (iv) All Shooting or targeting activities occurring outdoors shall occur only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily.19 (v) Warning signs indicating shooting activities are occurring on the property shall be posted at one hundred-foot intervals along the perimeter of the property in accordance with Section 6.12.5.20 (vi) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed within Section 6.8, shall be required around the perimeter of the portion of property where outdoor target shooting activities including skel 21 occurs. (vii) The use of exploding shells, targets, or other similar materials shall be prohibited. (viii) Nothing within Section 5.7.1 shall be construed as limiting or otherwise restricting hunting activities, the use of fireworks, the incidental discharge of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm in self-defense, or engaging in target shooting activities on a parcel of property less than 2 days a month 'j. (b) Motor Cross and Go-Kart Tracks24 (i) All tracks and/or paths shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from a property line. (ii) A track or path shall not cross over active septic fields. (iii) A Type B Land Use Buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, shall be required around the portion of the property where the track is located. (B) Non-residential Land Uses 25 18 Staff is not recommending the establishment of a standard with respect to an indoor projectile-proof backstop. We believe this can be addressed on a case by case basis. 19 Bold Green Underlined text represents additional regulations to address comments from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing where BOCC and Planning Board members recommended limiting the hours which target shooting activities could occur. 20 Bold Green Underlined text represents clarifying language requested at the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing to ensure erected warning signs are consistent with established regulations. 21 text added to address October 7,2015 Planning Board comments on incorporating specificity for skeet shooting activities. 22 This will require either the erection of a land use buffer,or preservation of existing vegetation,around the area of the property where shooting activities are occurring. Staff is recommending the installation of a buffer regardless of shooting occurring indoors or outdoors as the buffer will assist with the possible reduction of noise occurring from a discharged weapon. 23 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney's office after the Quarterly Public Hearing and is designed to ensure we are not limiting the lawful discharge of a firearm or otherwise requiring compliance with development requirements for property owners who may engage in incidental target shooting activities. 24 In the late 1990's and early 2000's staff received numerous complaints from local property owners over the use of motorcycles and go-karts on private property. We are amending existing regulations to establish setback and land use buffer requirements to address these concerns. 25 Bold Green Underlined text represents a change to address comments from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing clarifying development standards for recreational amenities developed by non-residential land uses such as a church. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-66 Article 5: Uses 45 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses In addition to the requirements contained within this Ordinance, recreational uses developed as an accessory use to a non-residential land use shall abide by the following: (1) Uses shall not constitute Recreational Facilities. &745.7.2 Recreational Facilities (A) General Standards of Evaluation (1) The standards included herein shall be applied to the following for profit recreational facilities as a principal use of property.26 (a) Tennis clubs Sports played on a 27 (b) Swim clubs, (c) Racquet ball, (d) Squash clubs, (e) Pitch and putt courses, (f) Amusement areas, (g) Bowling alleys, (h) Skating rinks, (i) Shooting ranges, (i) Billiard and pool halls, or other similar activities. (k) Rope climbing or obstacle courses (I) Go kart or motor cross track, (m) Exercise facilities including aerobic and yoga studios, (n) Indoor athletic facilities and (o) Other similar uses. (2) The minimum lot area shall be two acres. (3) Facilities may include such features as play and training areas, athletic field lights, public address systems, parking for patrons and staff, storage/office facilities, and restroom/locker facilities. {3)(4) No building shall be closer than 20 feet from any right-of-way or property line or than the minimum requirements of the district in which it is located. or 20 feet to the public right of way or private property line, whichever is greater. 444(5) Outdoor athletic fields shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.11 and shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a property Iine.28 (6) All outdoor recreational facilities shall utilize a combination of screens, fences, nets, berms, or vegetation to keep equipment on the property.29 {B) 26 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney's office after the Quarterly Public Hearing in an attempt to further distinguish a recreational facility,considered a principal use of property,versus an accessory use. 27 Text moved to the definition of a Recreational Facility in Article 10. 28 This is a new regulation designed to protected adjacent property owners from the glare of outdoor lighting generated by an outdoor recreational facility. 29 This regulation is designed to ensure any equipment used as part of an outdoor facility(balls,etc.)stays on the property. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-67 Article 5: Uses 46 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses (B) Standards for Specific Uses30 (1) Shooting Ranges (a) Shooting ranges, including skeet shooting activities,31not othorwiso exempted heYein, 32shall be designed or oriented to keep projectiles on the property. (b) Outdoor shooting ranges shall:33 (i) Be located a minimum of 300 feet from all property lines, street rights-of-way, or access easements; (ii) Be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied dwelling units external to the property; and (iii) Have shooting activities Direct all stationary target shooting activities into a projectile-proof backstop , -- , - - - - , 4a minimum of 15 feet in height and 30 feet in depth. (iv) Operate only from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily.35 (v) Maintain a Type F land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, around the perimeter of the range. (c) Indoor shooting activities shall: (i) Be located a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines, street rights-of-way, or access easements; (ii) Be located a minimum of 500 feet from occupied dwelling units external to the property; and (iii) Direct shooting activities into a projectile proof backstop to keep the shot within the structure. (iv) Maintain a Type B land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, around the permiter of the property. (d) Nothing in Section 5.7.2 (B) shall be construed as regulating hunting activities or the operation of a shooting range developed for, and exclusively utilized by, local, State, and/or Federal law enforcement agencies. (e) Nothing in Section 5.7.2 (B) shall be construed as regulating or prohibiting: Hunting activities or the operation of a shooting range developed for, and exclusively utilized by, 30 These regulations would govern the development of commercial shooting ranges. 31 text added to address concern expressed at the October 7,2015 Planning Board meeting the ordinance would not allow skeet shooting. 32 text was a change made in consultation with the County Attorney's office after the Quarterly Public Hearing. To address concerns from the Planning Board it has been deleted. 33 Bold Green Underlined text represents a change to address comments from the September 8,2015 Quarterly Public Hearing to ensure setback/development standards for shooting ranges are similar regardless if they are for private or public use. 34 Bold Green „„de,lined text was eliminated to address concerns from the October 7,2015 Planning Board meeting,specifically staff is eliminating language defining the materials that could constitute an acceptable backstop. In consultation with the County Attorney it was determined projectile proof backstop would be sufficient. 35 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney's office after the Quarterly Public Hearing to consolidate regulations governing outdoor shooting activities into a central section. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-68 Article 5: Uses 47 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses local, State, and/or Federal law enforcement agencies. ii. The holding of turkey shoots or other similar activities conducted as a fundraiser or community event so lonq as such activities occur no more than three days in a given calendar year on a parcel of property36,, iii. The incidental discharge of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm in self-defense, or engaging in target shooting activities on a parcel of property less than 2 days in a given month!' (2) Outdoor Paintball (a) Areas where outdoor paintball activities occur shall be a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines, street rights-of-way, or access easements. (b) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, shall be required around the perimeter of the portion of property where outdoor paintball activity occurs. (3) Pitch and Putt Courses (a) Pitch and putt areas shall be located a minimum of 40 feet from all property lines, street rights-of-way, or access easements. (b) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, shall be required around the perimeter of the portion of property where pitch and putt course activity occurs. (C) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit (1) Submittal Requirements In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use: (a) A description of the exact type facility planned, the amount of area, including and number of members or participants expected, a site plan showing siting and size of existing and proposed building. (b) Access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned facilities or existing facilities. (c) Plans, and elevation for all proposed and existing structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials. (d) A landscape plan showing, at the same scale as the site plan, existing and proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and any other landscape materials. (e) A signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. The statement shall also include a complete list of all recreational activities that will take place on the site. (2) Standards of Evaluation 36 Staff did not want to inadvertently prohibit what has become a lucrative fundraising opportunity for several local organizations. As a result language was included to allow for turkey shoots and other similar activities to occur. 37 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney's after the Quarterly Public Hearing to ensure we are treating the discharge of a firearm consistently within the UDO. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-69 Article 5: Uses 48 Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses (a) The property shall have direct frontage on, and obtain vehicular access from, a public road.38 (a)(b) Lot size shall be adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed, and for the proposed recreational uses. (b)Lc The site plan should show the boundaries of the site, the distances to the nearest residential structures, proposed or existing access points, parking and service areas, location of outdoor recreational facilities, and location of existing or proposed buildings. (OW The landscape plan shall be at the same scale as the site plan and should show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties, in addition to proposed or existing trees, shrubs and ground cover. (a)j Elevations of all structures and buildings. The structure shall be of such a nature as to preserve the residential character of the area. There are no adverse impacts on the adjacent roads or residential property. 5.7.25.7.3 _ Golf— Driving and Practice Range (A) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit (1) Submittal Requirements In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: (a) A site plan showing the following: (i) All existing or proposed buildings, tee areas, lawn areas, (ii) Distances to nearest residential structures, (iii) Access road(s)to the site,with an indication of type of proposed surface; (iv) On-site parking and roads,with an indication of type of proposed surface; and (v) All other requirements as indicated in section 2.5. (2) Standards of Evaluation (a) Unless public sewer is proposed to be extended, the adequacy for the method of sewage disposal will be determined by the lot size and soil suitability. Appropriate letters from the Orange County Environmental Health Department, local jurisdictions and/or the State Division of Environmental Management shall be submitted to indicate preliminary approval. (b) The landscape plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent properties. A Type D 50 foot buffer, as indicated in Section 6.8, shall be observed around the perimeter of the property. This buffer shall be located outside of the required dimensional area indicated in d. below. (c) The site plan, as required in Section 2.7, shall be reviewed by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Director. 38 Staff is recommending this change in an attempt to ensure there is adequate access to a recreation facility and to avoid the use of private roadways supporting such activities. Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-70 Article 10: Definitions 49 Section 10.1: Definitions Pu• '- terest Area Land which co :.•s public or quasi-public uses such as state parks, research f. - s or known archaeological or histo : ites. 'ublic Safety Hazard and/or Nu! : • e Anything, which is injurious to the safety or h-- • ;. Orange County neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, or • . fully obstructs t - -- sassage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable la. .r river, bay, stream, canal, or basin. 'ublic : - ' ular Areas S - - in a platted subdivision which are open for vehicular traffic and have been offered for des.— 'on to the public and where the offer for dedication has not been accepted. Recreation Use Non_Profit f Recreation Use, Profit reation Space Exterio : -a appropriately improved for common recreational use. Part of total and liva• open space. Recreation Space - -do Recreation space ratio is the - . um square footage of open s.--- in residential areas, suitable by location, size, shape, access and imp • - ents, require. each square foot of gross land area. This area is a public or private exterior area impro f. -creation of all residents, having a least dimension of 50 feet, and average dimension of 100 f-- .nd a -.•.mum area of 10,000 square feet. Recreation Vehicle A self-propelled or • -d vehicle, qualified to be licensed by the appropriate .te Agency, and is built on a single ch. , 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal p ction, providing shor - recreational living accommodations, designed primarily not for use as a perma -• dwelling, out as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. Recreational Facility For °rofi*Facilities Includes uses such as tennis clubs, swim clubs, racquet ball, squash clubs, pitch and putt courses, facilities and such similar-uses A use of property occurring indoors and/or outdoors providing recreational amenities, activities, or services39 to either the general public or to members of an organization, club, or league for the purpose of leisure, physical fitness `raining, cc netitive activities or compensation4U. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: sports played on a court amusement arcades, bowling alleys, skating rinks, shooting ranges, billiard and pool halls paintball, rope climbing or obstacle courses, go-kart or motor cross tracks, exercise centers including aerobic and yoga studios, athletic facilities, and gymnasiums.41 Reference level The portion of a structure or o - 8-,- ::••-• •. • e- s.re• to the regulatory flood protection elevation to determine re•u - • -:- • ce. For structures wi in •- :ee -- • Areas d- .••_ -: : one AE, the reference level is the top of the lowest floor. 39 Language within the definition was revised after the public hearing based on comments from the County Attorney's office in an attempt to make enforcement easier. 40 Bold Orange Underlinec'text added to address comments from the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting. 41 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney's office after the Quarterly Public Hearing moving language previously found in Section 5.7.1 Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 10-32