Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-18-2016 - E1 - Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions 62 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 18, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. E.1 SUBJECT: Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Tables Outlining Minimum Lot Sizes and Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Density Requirements for Parcels Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 2. Growth Management System Map 3. Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) Map PURPOSE: To review and discuss the County's subdivision development and review processes, focusing primarily on minimum lot size and density limitations as they relate to the clustering of subdivision lots. This item was developed to address a petition submitted by Commissioner Pelissier to identify opportunities and constraints within current regulations associated with the clustering subdivision lots. This represents one component of a larger discussion related to reducing development costs in an effort to promote affordable housing development. BACKGROUND: A subdivision is defined within Article 10 Definitions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as: All divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building development (whether immediate or future) and includes all division of land involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets. Regulations governing the development of a subdivision are contained within Article 7 of the UDO, a copy of which can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/UDO MOST CURREN T updated 120915.pdf. Allowable lot sizes and density for a subdivision project are based on the general use zoning designation of the property as well as its location within a Watershed Protection Overlay Zoning District. Please refer to Attachment 1 for more information on these standards. Subdivision Classifications: Section 7.2 of the UDO classifies subdivisions as: a. Exempt Subdivision: a division of land not recognized by State law as constituting a `subdivision' of property and, therefore, not regulated including: 63 i. The combination or recombination of previously subdivided property if the number of lots are not increased and other provisions of local regulations are adhered to (i.e. minimum lot area and width, etc.), ii. A division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres in area, iii. Public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening or opening streets, iv. Division of a tract of land in single ownership where the property is no greater than 2 acres in area into not more than 3 lots if no street right-of- way dedication is involved and resultant lots are equal to or exceed County regulations (i.e. minimum lot area and width, etc.). Exempt subdivisions are reviewed by staff, who are responsible for determining if the proposal complies with applicable standards and can be classified as an `exempt' subdivision. If it can be classified as such, staff signs a statement attesting to this fact and our review ends. Lots created through the exempt subdivision process are still required to meet applicable development standards (i.e. minimum lot size, lot width, etc.) in order for a zoning compliance permit authorizing development to be issued. b. Minor Subdivision: a division of land proposing 1 to 5 individual parcels of property. Such projects are reviewed and acted upon by staff in accordance with Section 2.14 of the UDO. There is no board review (i.e. BOCC or Planning Board) required for a minor subdivision and such projects are required to adhere to applicable standards as detailed in Article 7 of the UDO. c. Major Subdivision: a division of land proposing 6 or more individual parcels of property. Such projects are reviewed in accordance with Section 2.15 of the UDO and are, ultimately, acted upon by the BOCC with a recommendation made by the Planning Board. The required review process of major subdivision applications is directly related to the number of proposed lots as well the subject property's location as denoted on the Growth Management System Map1 (Attachment 2). These review thresholds are broken down as follows: i. Standard Major Subdivision: The division of a parcel of property, regardless of its location proposing 6 to 20 individual lots. ii. Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use2, Rural Designated: The division of a parcel of property in a Rural Designated area of the County, as denoted on the Growth Management System map, proposing 21 to 40 individual lots. iii. Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use2, Urban Designated: The division of a parcel of property in an Urban Designated area of the County, as denoted on the Growth Management System map, proposing 21 to 79 individual lots. The Growth Management System Map was adopted by the BOCC in 2003 as a means of providing additional clarification of required review/permitting processes for certain projects,including subdivisions. The Map was not intended to specifically identify and/or designate an area as being `urban' or`rural'in nature. 2 Such projects are processed through the Special Use Permitting process as detailed in Section 2.7 of the UDO. Applicants are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable SUP standards/guidelines as well as the standards contained in Section 5.17.6 and Article 7 Subdivisions of the UDO. 64 iv. Major Subdivision, Conditional Use3, Rural Designated: The division of a parcel of property in a Rural Designated area of the County, as denoted on the Growth Management System map, proposing 41 or more individual lots. v. Major Subdivision, Conditional Use3, Urban Designated: The division of a parcel of property in an Urban Designated area of the County, as denoted on the Growth Management System map, proposing 80 or more individual lots. Subdivision Types: Current regulations categorize subdivision projects into 3 distinct types, namely: A. Standard Subdivision: Proposed lots comply with established minimum lot size and width for the general use zoning district in which the property is located as well as the standards detailed within Article 7 of the UDO. In this scenario lots are not clustered and there is no common open space provided; B. Cluster Subdivision: Required lot sizes, area, and setbacks can be reduced if at least 20% of the gross land area of the subject property is designated as common open space; and C. Flexible Development: Required lot sizes, area, and setbacks can be varied to accommodate on-site features, project design elements, and open space. There are 3 types of Flexible Development, namely: i. Estate Lot: requires a minimum lot area of at least 4 acres with a building envelope limit of 50% of the total lot area meaning each lot within the development has a minimum of 2 acres of internal open space. Setbacks vary based on the location of the proposed parcel. ii. Conservation-Cluster: requires a minimum of 33% of the gross land area of the subject property to be designated/reserved as common open space. Required minimum lot size can be reduced based on anticipated water/wastewater services. iii. Village: allows for a myriad of different land uses ranging from civic (i.e. schools, churches, etc.), residential (i.e. single-family, townhome, etc.), and non-residential (i.e. general retail, shops, etc.) designed to accommodate: `a range of socio-economic groups'. Section 7.13.4 (C) establishes the various development `standards' for a Village Flexible Development Project. Please note the Village Flexible Development Option is expressly prohibited within the Rural Buffer (RB) general use zoning district. Section(s) 7.12 Cluster Developments and 7.13 Flexible Developments of the UDO establish regulations allowing for the clustering of parcels through the subdivision process (i.e. minor or major). The reservation of open space area within a project does not impact the allowable overall density for a project. 3 Such projects are processed through the Conditional Use process as detailed in Section 2.9.1 of the UDO. Such projects are required to be processed in accordance with the procedures for a Zoning Atlas Amendment(Section 2.8)and a Class A Special Use Permit(Section 2.7)as detailed within the UDO. 65 ISSUE(S): While current regulations encourage and promote clustering of subdivision lots, the following design limitations exist: 1. Section 7.12.3 of the UDO indicates lots within a typical Cluster Subdivision may be reduced to no less than 1 acre (43,560 sq.ft.) in area with the reservation of 20% open space. As the required minimum lot size in the rural areas of the County (i.e. AR and R-1 general use zoning designations) is 40,000 sq.ft., the Cluster Development option has no application within the majority of the rural area of the County. There is applicability for this type of subdivision within the Rural Buffer (RB) general use zoning district, which requires a 2 acre minimum lot size. Staff has found, however, there is more interest amongst both developers and staff to have subdivision projects adhere to the Conservation-cluster Flexible Development option requiring the reservation of a minimum 33% open space. 2. Section 7.13.4 (B) (6) of the UDO allows for lots within a Conservation-cluster Flexible Development Subdivision to be reduced by 65% of the typical required minimum lot size with the delineation/reservation of required open space. As an example: a property proposed for subdivision is located within a general use zoning district requiring a minimum lot area of 40,000 sq.ft. Lots within the project could be reduced to 26,000 sq.ft. (40,000 x .65) as part of the Flexible Development design process with the reservation of a minimum of 33% of the property as open space.4 Parcels located within a Watershed Protection Overlay District, however, cannot be reduced below 40,000 sq.ft. in land area if said lot(s) are served by individual septic systems. As most of the rural areas of the County are served by individual well/septic systems, and have a required minimum lot area of 40,000 sq.ft., the ability to reduce lot sizes through this provision is limited.5 Please refer to Attachment 1 for map(s) denoting the various Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. Attachment 3 contains a map outlining the Water Sewer Boundary Map (WASMBA) 3. Section 4.2.9 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities of the UDO prohibits off-site well and septic systems for parcels located within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. Wastewater treatment/disposal (i.e. septic) and wells providing potable water are required to be located on the parcel they serve.6 4. For a subdivision proposing a private road where `private road justification' is required (i.e. for subdivisions proposing 4 to 12 lots served by a private roadway) per Section 7.8.4 (E) of the UDO the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with 3 out of 7 4 Lots within the Rural Buffer(RB)general use zoning district cannot be reduced below 1 acre(43,560 sq.ft.)of land area per the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Land Use Plan agreement adopted by Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. 5 There has previously been concern over allowing the development of off-site septic or package treatment systems providing wastewater treatment/disposal due to ensuring proper maintenance of same. This concern is directly related to a failed package treatment system developed within a subdivision off of Mt. Sinai Road requiring sewer service to be extended from Durham County. The system was not properly maintained thereby causing it to fail. 6 The prohibition may be moot given the density within the University Lake Protected/Critical Watershed Overlay District(1 unit for every 5 acres)and a required minimum lot size of 1 acre through the cluster subdivision process. Per Section 7.8.4(D)there is no `right' to develop a private roadway in the County where said subdivision contains more than 3 lots. Part of the subdivision process requires `justifying' the creation of a private road with the voluntary imposition of several design features as detailed in Section 7.8.4(E)of the UDO. 66 established design features, including compliance with a mandatory design feature requiring lot sizes and required setbacks be doubled.8 By demonstrating compliance with these design elements, the proposed roadway is deemed `justified' and the project can move forward. Existing regulations allow for a reduction in required lot size (i.e. the increased lot size required as part of the mandatory private road justification criteria) with the designation of open space within the project. The more open space designated the smaller the required lot, capped at a 60,000 sq.ft. required minimum lot size with the designation of 50% or more of the project's land area as open space. Applicants typically have no interest in designating open space as the allowances for lot reduction are deemed to be too restrictive with most choosing to develop: i. A 3 lot minor subdivision (i.e. no private road justification required), ii. A 5 lot minor subdivision without open space (i.e. private road justification is adhered to but lots are not clustered), or iii. Create a public roadway to serve the project (i.e. meaning the subdivision is automatically classified a major subdivision per Section 7.2.2 of the UDO). 5. Section 7.13.9 of the UDO outlines options for density bonuses within the various Flexible Development subdivisions to encourage either development of affordable housing units or reservation of additional open space. A developer can apply for an increase in the number of building lots/dwelling units permitted within a development through 1 of these 2 options. Unfortunately per Section 6.18 of the UDO additional density credits for affordable housing cannot be awarded for property located within Water Supply Watershed areas as designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Watershed Protection Overlay Districts correspond to these Water Supply Watershed areas as denoted on the aforementioned map. Please refer to Attachment 1 for more information. Per Section 7.13.9 (B) (4) density bonuses for projects providing additional open space are only applicable to property in or adjacent to Transition Areas as denoted on the FLUM. This `density bonus' system does not have applicability within the majority of the County. Staff has also received concerns from local developers and property owners interested in subdividing their property over existing review processes, summarized as follows: a. Development of roadways within subdivisions. Section 7.8 Access and Roadways of the UDO establishes the classification(s) of roadways required to serve projects of certain sizes, specifically: i. A Class B Private Road (50 ft. right-of-way with a 12 ft. improved travel way) is required to serve a project proposing/serving 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units; ii. A Class A Private Road (50 ft. right-of-way with an 18 ft. improved travel way) is required to serve a project proposing/serving 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units; and 8 For lots located within the RB general use zoning district the required minimum lot size increases from 2 to 3 acres through the private road justification process. 67 iii. A road constructed to established NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT) public road standards is required for a project proposing/serving 13 or more lots or dwelling units. Roadway development/maintenance issues have recently been discussed through the prism of emergency vehicle access and public safety concerns. Concerns range from roadway standards impacting development flexibility, increasing costs of the project, and long-term maintenance responsibilities for residents. As part of this discussion we need to remember a suitable road network is essential to ensure access to proposed lots. This includes access by emergency vehicles. b. There is no opportunity to allow for greater density for parcels located within Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. c. Large-scale subdivision projects are stymied by existing review processes. Concerns center on requiring both a rezoning and special use permit (i.e. Conditional Use permit review process) for a subdivision proposing more than 80 lots in an urban designated area. The argument being made is current review processes limit opportunity for large- scale residential development thereby reducing available housing stock in a given area and limiting affordable housing options. OPTIONS: In addressing these matters, staff is reviewing the following: a. Staff is completing a comprehensive re-assessment of our existing subdivision review and approval processes and is suggesting consideration of the following: i. Eliminate the Cluster Development subdivision type, as currently contained in Section 7.12 of the UDO, and promote the Conservation-cluster Flexible Development subdivision option as contained in Section 7.13 of the UDO. Staff believes this would provide additional opportunities for open space designation and more flexibility with respect to subdivision design. ii. Revise existing language within Section 7.13.4 (B) (6) of the UDO to include references to allowing the use of off-site septic for wastewater processing. This could, in turn, encourage and promote lot size reduction.1° As staff currently envisions this option, required septic area would become required open space area. Please note staff is not recommending this area be counted as part of the mandated 33% minimum open space area required for the Conservation-cluster Flexible Development subdivision option. iii. Revising existing review processes to give greater flexibility to projects proposing clustering of lots and dedication of open space through the Flexible Development design process. 9 Section 6.18 Affordable Housing of the UDO allows for developers to increase allowable density for a given project if affordable housing is provided. This `allowance' is not applicable in any property located within Water Supply Watershed areas designated on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Please note these areas correspond to the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts as detailed within Attachment 1 of this item. 10 Please note this proposed modification,as envisioned,will not include allowances for off-site septic for property located within the University Lake Protected or Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. 68 Under this scenario staff is envisioning classifying subdivisions into 2 categories: Standard and Flexible Development with classification of same as follows: a. Standard Subdivision: Minor and Major subdivision thresholds remain the same as detailed in Section 7.2 of the UDO. b. Flexible Development: Minor and Major thresholds modified as follows: 1. Minor (i.e. staff review and approval) between 1 to 12 lots; 2. Major (i.e. BOCC review and approval with Planning Board recommendation): 13 or more. iv. Staff suggests the Village Flexible Development, contained in Section 7.13.4 (C), become a Conditional Zoning district allowed within Transition Areas and Rural Neighborhood Nodes as denoted on the FLUM (Attachment 1). We believe this will provide additional opportunities for such projects to be developed and allow for a process where the BOCC and the applicant have some flexibility to work on site specific development proposals. b. Staff is continuing to re-evaluate existing roadway development requirements as contained in Section 7.8.5 of the UDO. This review includes continued discussion amongst local volunteer fire departments and Orange County Emergency Services. To date, staff has not made a determination as to the anticipated direction of our review and would appreciate any guidance from the BOCC. c. Staff is evaluating the development of a Rural Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (RMP-CZ) to afford the BOCC and applicants greater flexibility in addressing residential development in rural areas. As currently envisioned the RMP-CZ would provide a mechanism where residential developments in the rural areas of the County could develop a project with greater flexibility with respect to minimum lot sizes and cluster options as a uniform project. The main difference between this envisioned district and the Village Flexible Development option is the RMP-CZ would not allow for non-residential land uses. As with all Conditional Zoning districts the project would involve the negotiation of design elements between the BOCC and applicant to ensure the viability of the project. The RMP-CZ would be reviewed as a rezoning request (i.e. legislative review only) and acted upon by the BOCC in accordance with Section 2.9.2 of the UDO. Staff is not suggesting modification of existing density allotments, as contained in Section 4.2.4 of the UDO, unless specific direction is received to do so. Changing density allowances for RB zoned property will only be possible with the amendment of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. Please also note none of the proposed modifications being investigated by staff will include impacts to the RB general use zoning district. In order to change density or minimum lot sizes for this area of the County the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement will have to be amended, requiring the approval of all participating entities (i.e. Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro) after a joint public hearing. 69 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Work on amendments will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work associated with processing proposed amendments. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this agenda item: • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. • GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES 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 receive the information and provide comments/direction on potential subdivision amendment(s). Attachment 1 Future Land Use Map 70 of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan RD Caswell County I LE — -_- I l�� y 11 RD _ LD / i j Person County•ti 1E. �. •G o*4Fe T1,.:.2ir �— ,•,5 .l I" `,,ilk 1 _ r�T;o� Co A I - - - Q crr. `. Lr+ Rive �A / �r` .i� F , ' p V N RaFIat:Rlver watersh d r ..• ,,�S N; ∎ mo ; rI n .,I = 4 - ° - ' r" _ w o . 00ND`,o •• . /•S Lw.s-r.•E� � 'r e ;_ .�,; ¢ -.il- - a !14,... • , f 1,nw(I s y ,; 9�F „,. ,•, ' am d, Z _ r bl r ;jr -o . .. 4• .B ck ek�. ■ r+ o z , y TILE RI R'cH cA^ ' I D -4.11%.' + , s PAM+ r . '*l ir '! a MI. •• 4 R ' , ”4ttl RIX4 ate. 4hed:Waters ed■l. ` r �l e` 11 5 7 m " r 'tir Et R D '� R• I' -0'4 i ,, "--:. .. ,. '• SC j- : "T 0„ ii,t•/-•0•r-,..; , I►/ X31 /. . ;, 1� _ ice:_ pp�c �/`'T N 1_C eeks�T • NGti �Jr,�' I 'Q z . . r ., Eno�„eir tJ� !k 9,.. P J4, .! • `., ROB, . �o �; `�'* �'H Isb'o.rottgh T o• _ '1.� �f i ° 11 I RD r ,�. ` y� � l� MPRys III f I\p . I� 01 ♦ 7- 1 .,,...r! i e, A” . ; , ii r ' '' . •fi'" _�r.1/ ' , ,/G Adoption Date Nov 18.2008 r 1 . - ' 0, i <i// rah„g in 0r- ' Z Amended through September 2012 c1 , m 1 '-,''''1114-1• lg.' ' . .tli 4 • c lr '- t T/.� m 4 r_ `` %Irk° rT'I 't 0 1 n ``• ` X'1,L �I�/° ���e+/ .: a • L� I ,� 0:1Nie 1€111(�r ■ C e. � D ;Mebane �_ w .� Pf• t.� ‘---- -1, �L. 'r� r 1• ,� I� N N. < I r•N I • = F o_ and r yl �.:+�' ^ ` ✓1 F�'.�F� I W-��E I TOW .' - 4P` /� Q© �� ��� 7 S Q 1 b11 \ a ui. v 4 N z 4C ^5 !� �t J�'t� Wiblsborou•h fir_ / 11 r! t 1 E TE RD.: �r' �_ • �; v ,i ' s_ I Legend: 4 " n% �� J �'^•J�•' RQ°G �S A, ° , _4 1 (A Watershed Critical Areas CS . : 'r , , t .∎-„ �4 'h✓S R fir` t o Water Supply Watersheds I IRON \ ♦ 1i. ,%I? DP _ y t - 1 I I -A OP. O ��` a� " `�� ,� 9R ��ff ,, , OC/CH/CA Joint Planning Area• „eat ,+ 0 , 7 yN a� ,,. �/ 4 as -it, �►it. . s��.� =' I �L a 11.T;l - Resource Protection Areas o �° I it t �# I� e I R.,: a Y."'/,�A. r (- •■ems fr 1I J .' o i ` .7d'e I Public Interest Areas �in Iia W-• °3;'.;a._ �1- ��r0- , z, ,„,__,• , _ ,LI 'F�'1 oL+ - 1 a -.1;;.-.1r- a r i .=. _. e,'+ o- 10 Year Transition• 1 ,` _ �4 '��o . r - .a1,i �f� - +� ` !. a«, 1 I L -20 Year Transition 7 . "V'L 11 ', r'� - t 7 Z r 1.. <u '� r/"r'"r- Jr �.4 1 �•-z�'■� JL°l 1 s�� 1,4 �, A f� ----'-'''' ,i••r -,. > _ , Rural Residential I` , • v�` �••r, c a'a: fir• i ,� 3- 'id. • ■W ` °y • •(: r r 411iEI •-"Vim': �y� �'� be s � w, Rural Buffer T• i' I i i I ' liV■i' ` 1/k At i �p /RD ilk z - ∎ Jr E, .t" I ifkll -Agricultural Residential m ■G e•Cre- I(Wa• hed •.u-I,0, 47 . f °� iy r •r' '•'m .�• • ` For.. , -� Vt.) -City Limits o I NIC:r' - �Z ;t `o 'NIA .l to„.,a r/ "4, i` ,.-II 1,{ u, '. L ETJ•_,\ ► w ;J ? ., v IE rte"+ Activity Nodes �; � � �z��• � < ,•- �, a �- 11 Rural Neighborhood Ili e- I).r I- `., u,r •.t FRT V" -" 1!"'••• ,t'•v'!; �I,III r p l�t _}�r WEAVER Oq/ 11 -Commercial Transition y EER °. ) S y -Commercial-Industrial Transition 1; ` ,+ ; fir; F -t`a_r e r #�I A! WO arc' �' r z !r 1 °,D ,,' l 4�j - Economic Development Transition /1 ,,►- -1 ' °�� .r I►' ,.q Ste. . Rural Community 1 °' 7 0 )1 g7� J bME w PM • w - `■ Z :���� / r N ESTFS ,` Io Rural Industrial �•' .ir H< OQ. O Al/ FPHESUS�4 MORROW M f� ° ,]. � NC. P°G �� •g AA 4.,--..... .- ° , , II iF�!_�r 't4 K -. o T''' 0 4 I.'•:. •_ It �Q4r0 `t_ tl tr .b '� Cha•el Hill I T,_„:1! \`,. i,"' \I1 a_:PY' TAT i :F j '.oc.ee ``rrboro p) �G�S \r 11S %. � ` `' w ,+_,r� .i- 1 c,, :so;M Al R,.. I, y^ 0 1 2 3 4 �.. �� o r�✓•; HRQ 1Miles Atiordia t • 3 . -r.vl 1 'o'. d 1 53 ° w R"Ive W t-1. 1hed+Jr / I FNPO1 ERRS 1 in=2.75 miles t e \`er•o . L/ L Ar ��a ^' a 'j, r, w " Orange County and Punning and ins eons Department ge This esn 3,2 pa 1ti /7]1 �� µ�rj'2 Jg ft' y J ' O '�• Th s wpy printed May 03,2013 2013 • / +'� `!■�� rQ '+� G• y y Map is for reference use only TTT / ----� ------ �� � Iq1/��F• 1 J4' r � � „_ ; contact Planning staff for vetlrcaron of data Jr 'O'- !r 'Z',„ 5 14 t ___---- toy ., ., lr' 1�!., t`rr" 4 I --=• _"- _ +,at, shed_iL_-- Chatham County — — — Current Regulations 71 General Use Land Use Caegory (Future Land Use Minimum Lot Size. Zoning District Map-FLUM) Where District Allowed Rural Buffer (RB) Rural Buffer 87,120 sq.ft. (2 acres) Agricultural Agricultural Residential 40,000 sq.ft. (0.92 acres) Residential (AR) Rural Residential Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 40,000 sq.ft. (0.92 acres)— Density is roughly (R-1) Transition 1 unit per acre. Low Intensity Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 20,000 sq.ft. — Density is roughly 2 units per Residential (R-2) Transition acre. Medium Intensity Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 15,000 sq.ft. — Density is roughly 2.9 units per Residential (R-3) Transition acre. Medium Intensity Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 10,000 sq.ft. — Density is roughly 4.3 units per Residential (R-4) Transition acre. High Intensity Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 7,500 sq.ft. — Density is roughly 5.8 units per Residential (R-5) Transition acre High Intensity Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 5,000 sq.ft. — Density is roughly 8.7 units per Residential (R-8) Transition acre High Intensity Rural Residential ; 10 and 20 Year 3,000 sq.ft. — Density is roughly 14.5 units per Residential (R-13) Transition acre 72 Orange County Watersheds U1rNi; Roan'o e Femmes • \�U`�s�; � ,v - � e� , ,, 0 ‹ ,i `i=i F` ' ****1 .�►J III gym. E VW*i �►, . , ,�All *....-_,-.1),..-, tit,,....x, 0.1,,,,,,, ... ....„,, ...,_,10 -.....,... 0,,,,,„„ t. _, 014 a,Ili , rift � '�w.„..„ ,,,,,,,..,, , ...._fh,,,,..o,g, . ...qr .._ . r 4 6 y 1y�/ ' �f ,71,......,0,,,..., Ake7r..-1A0t1 ' .bfig '1*;-- -4 N ilift4a.447114441,Vari A Ait tit*/)* trAN 6W46Wattaarfp/Vrer 1r",44 rig .0.11rMill -t, !II 44 en" 1 4 fora,.4111, ig.0 . rtiwAl ,110041 1 -,.\? ir al• M. e tirdri *1), 0 . ,,,,p. Wirati; ViV ■ 01‘.,. , Iji si - , t i - if* 6' 1 4-411 Nii. / Nit:. ...! ir, ...0,,,. , _ __ . .,„,_ jAhwv,,,it . v. i 4. ,Io -----__. �5 mt lippir fit 101411174,1 `''= cif .FD _12•ri 414�glii 011:4;,4.4 1 k 4;114, 4 I I"Ir.g' 41 rA 0" li -.v. „tr.-le I/. " .,,,,,it �� 41114F41",`4 ,4 Legend 64 lid T `` i �I f� �� Water Supply Watersheds: IA " • ,�: e+ ..motw►'w� � wa Si Protected It* -4-Offkrelh. 111"Wee At r Unprotected �' i�j ff `�,:1 l� Critical ER r Cape-Fear. 1 & c,6- r.,,, 'f i River Basin Boundary 1 ORivet'llagiri 40 — Watersheds '�1�rti� s ' � , U ►.� el* i _ - * l '% 1 ��-- Streams- g • *Ifet - .411/41,4�� 4 1���\ R ydiamts-71,- . �� Municipal Jurisdiction(.." '41.0(V �E` 0 1 2 3 4 I k 4 . , 70' *&--'4r, '4 ,, 0,- *Ter to , h., 6,70, 1., ,eal low - I % t. AstsfitbAy u .0,1 _..... ...tatrol.._,,,ii...._94 . cf. 3-** ,Attrawitiky`71 � i � ��� Miles rp.�J f/ ���-''''-- NV �- y� l 1 inch=2.75 miles �, a�/"=� — 41.1%1?-77 �I Note: This watersh wt� ,e./ , Refe :tY a I, :, vii� �+ v IIECA recision adopted June 1,2010 yea T',� a�''I+' Orange County revision meet titici j.« � • � ` p� iae� fr Datum:Norti.A nc 1983■t fi1 , .4 2/42015 73 Watershed Orange County Density Limits — Residential State Allowances Overlay District University Lake — 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. ' Low Density Option: 1 dwelling unit for every 2 Critical acres of property.Minimum lot size for single-family Certain parcels in existence prior to October 2, residential development is 80,000 sq.ft. except in a (STATE 1989 qualify for a density bonus of a maximum of 5 cluster subdivision. Classified WS-II dwelling units for every 2 acres of property with any z Watershed Area) future development being held to the 1 unit for 5 High Density Option : Appears to be same density acre density limit. limit(s)with an allowance for more impervious surface area. University Lake — SAME AS UNIVERSITY LAKE PROTECTED Low Density Option: 1 dwelling unit for every acre Protected ABOVE of property with an impervious surface limit of 12%. (STATE High Density Option4: If new development exceeds Classified WS-II low density option, engineered stormwater controls Balance of required with development limited to either 24% to Watershed 30% impervious surface area Area)3 A maximum of 10%of the watershed outside of a Critical Area can be developed up to 70% impervious with a structural BMP. Cane Creek — 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. SAME AS UNIVERSITY LAKE CRITICAL ABOVE Critical Certain parcels in existence prior to October 19, (STATE 1999 qualify for a density bonus of a maximum of 5 Classified WS-II dwelling units for every 2 acres of property with any Watershed Area) future development being held to the 1 unit for 5 acre density limit. Cane Creek — SAME AS CANE CREEK PROTECTED ABOVE SAME AS UNIVERSITY LAKE PROTECTED Protected ABOVE (STATE Classified WS-II Watershed Area) 1 Property within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts is also located within the Rural Buffer(RB)general use zoning district. Development within this area is subject to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Land Use Plan Agreement between the County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This Plan/Agreement establishes the density limits currently enforced by the County as detailed within this chart. There was a conscious decision made by the participating entities to keep this area at the low density option. 2 High Density option requires control of runoff from the first 1 inch of rainfall through the use of engineered stormwater controls. Local government must assume ultimate responsibility for operation and maintenance of said controls. 3'Balance of watershed area' is a term contained within State regulations referring to the area located outside of the defined critical area. 4 There was a conscious decision made as reflected in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan,Joint Planning Land Use Plan Agreement,and adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan to keep the area within the RB zoning district at the low density development option. 5 Critical areas, under high density,are limited to 24%while protected areas are limited to 30%impervious surface. 74 Watershed Orange County Density Limits — Residential State Allowances Overlay District Upper Eno — 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres of property. Low Density Option: 1 dwelling unit for every 2 Critical 6 acres of property.Minimum lot size for single-family residential development is 80,000 sq.ft. except in a (STATE cluster subdivision. Classified WS-II Watershed Area) High Density Option: Appears to be same density limit(s)with an allowance for more impervious surface area. Upper Eno — Based on underlying zoning designation Low Density Option: 1 dwelling unit for every acre Protected 7, 8 Structural Best Management Practices (i.e. of property with an impervious surface limit of 12%. (STATE stormwater features)are required when density High Density Option9: If new development exceeds Classified WS-II exceeds 1 dwelling unit per acre. low density option, engineered stormwater controls Balance of required with development limited to either 24% to Watershed Area) 30% impervious surface area A maximum of 10% of the watershed outside of a Critical Area can be developed up to 70% impervious with a structural BMP. Little River — 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres of property. SAME AS UPPER ENO PROTECTED ABOVE Protected (STATE Classified WS-II Balance of Watershed Area) Back Creek — Based on underlying zoning designation SAME AS UPPER ENO PROTECTED ABOVE Protected (STATE Classified WS-II Balance Watershed Area) Flat River — Based on underlying zoning designation 1 dwelling unit for every half acre of property. Protected (STATE Classified WS-III Watershed Area) 6 The Upper Eno Critical Watershed recognized by Orange County is larger than the State's defined critical area. Per Section 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 of the UDO a structural BMP is required in some cases where density exceeds 1 dwelling unit per acre. 8 The County chose to institute the High Density Option within the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. 9 There are portions of the Upper Eno Protected Watershed where the High Density Option,as detailed under State allowances, is utilized. 75 Watershed Orange County Density Limits — Residential State Allowances Overlay District South Hyco Based on underlying zoning designation 1 dwelling unit for every half acre of property. Creek — Protected (STATE Classified WS-III Watershed Area) Lower Eno — Density in this area is based on underlying general SAME AS ABOVE Protected use zoning designation (underlying general use zoning district can allow for lot sizes smaller than (STATE 40,000 sq.ft.) Classified WS-IV Watershed Area) Jordan Lake — SAME AS ABOVE Protected 76 Density in this area is based on (STATE underlying general use zoning Classified WS-IV designation Watershed Area) Haw River — Density in this area is based on SAME AS ABOVE Protected underlying general use zoning designation (STATE Classified WS-IV Watershed Area) (Attachment 2 Growth Management System 77 Urban and Rural Designated Areas Urban Designated-Property located within Transition Areas as identified in the Land Use Plan. Rural Designated-Property not located in Urban Designated areas I\ N � _ _ 1 Q 85 40 W . - E r �� - r Legend Urban Designated Rural Designated Rural Buffer City Limits r Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Chapel Hill/Carrboro Transition (Not part of Growth Management System) 4* A $4, a 0 1 2 3 13, ■=■Miles 1 inch = 3 miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson. Growth Management System adopted by BOCC 11/5/03 Printed 1/26/2016 78 Attachment 3 Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement lii viirrlisiatawirommordri r Le 4sra 1 14/WAVNIPP' 4114Letvi 1-166.1 riaktilitaigalM414.1011k Pm blirdi&drw ‘47160aibiamlil At) revs totak lk lat.' - 11, -41111 / cop t-4.1 aim N _.,,.... mebarie ,4,, 1� �u ice ► AlitfUI �NIL ......,,....,, ,_ .r414-&41::40' ; " ,`' k wr I WI) ',gig* Av.& ti4p fi _ + P \ i Aw.40 1, ,ArAtelfiram Ei IFI .. Pic ■ .I) r7,14:4111t401111:400W1 r. . W lito 14 lor Agelrarlr'‘ ' ,wiriikr idte , .4 in Wm C Legend , 4111,414` F1r , `. Hillsborough Long-Term Service Area 4'�` �� ''�, � ,'' S Hillsborough Primary Service Area �� ^1 , A�Jl` 5� ` OWASALong-Term Interest Area ,G ` �.?v��� / Orange County Primary Service Area 4 � Ilp��' � � a � ..�� ������� OWASA Primary Service Area 11. V a „ �of t Orange County Long-Term Interest Area C �f 7 ChapehHill' Yd��,P � �-tvlirc-g_.",;,.•-0J t *f k��� �jj���i►) Rural Buffer Boundary'Af Iv � 1 �ti: �?� 0 1 2 3 4 O� 4W41 r ' r .��►`-� Miles sit 4 0 Ft ir tp � , �((± �T.S �,r 1 inch = 3 miles AVIIIIS*111 Orange gounty Planning and Inspections Department Added Hillsborough Long-Term Service Area,Miriam Coleman,10/5/10 Revised Orange Country Primary Service Area,Miriam Coleman,10/5/10 Updated Hillsborough Primary Service Area,Miriam Coleman,10/22/08 Updated Streets,Miriam Coleman,2002 Revised Map to show retracted Chapel Hill Urban Service Boundary,Carrie Whitehill,11/14/01 Original Map Prepared by Beth McFarland,04/17/97