Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 08-08-1994-IX-B
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 8, 1994 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE - AUGUST 22, 1994 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Legal Notice Planning Director X2592 Proposed Public Hearing Items PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion at the regular quarterly public hearing scheduled for August 22, 1994. BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals scheduled for public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. Items to be considered at the August 22, 1994 public hearing are listed below by ordinance, plan or amendment type. a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) CP-4-94 I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District (Page 7 - Adjustments to district boundaries requested by property owners.) b. Zoning Atlas Amendments (1) Z-4-94 I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District (Page 8 - Adjustments to district boundaries requested by property owners.) (2) Z-5-94 Major Business Forms, Inc. (Page_14-Request by Major Business Forms to permit building expansion and septic system repair.) c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Economic Development Districts (Page 16 -Project approval options proposed by Commissioner Gordon or recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee.) (2) Public Hearing Notice Requirements (Page 26 - Proposal to announce public hearings through enhanced newspaper advertisement in lieu of notification of affected property owners by mail.) (3) Radio/TV Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Page 32 - Proposal to require communications companies to provide for joint use of towers where feasible.) 2 (4) Borrow Pits/State & Federal Highway Projects (Page -Proposal to allow borrow pits as a use by right in all zoning districts when associated with a State or Federal highway project.) d. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Economic Development Districts (Page j-Project approval options proposed by Commissioner Gordon or recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee.) (2) Lot Boundaries (Page 39 -Proposal to require that lot lines extend to the right- of-way for public roads, and to the centerline for private roads.) (3) Lot Layout (Page 41 -Proposal to allow a new lot to include land on both sides of a private road.) (4) Private Road Standards (Page 44 -Proposal to allow modification of the minimum 125- foot curve radius for private roads.) Approval of the notice by the Board of Commissioners will enable staff to advertise the public hearing August 10 and 17, 1994 as required the N.C.General Statutes. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment and Zoning Atlas amendments will require notification of individual property owners. The notice must be mailed on or before August 11, 1994. Copies of the proposals are provided as an attachment to the abstract.Items a.(1) and b.(1) were to be considered at the May 23, 1994 public hearing but were withdrawn,since property owners were not notified.Items c.(1),and d.(1)and(2) were also to be considered at the May public hearing but were withdrawn by the Board of Commissioners for further discussion. The remaining items have been reviewed by the Ordinance Review Committee and Planning Board, and are recommended for public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the notice of public hearing. I. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 / wti: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Section 240,323 and 343,and Articles 20.5,20.6,2.2.12 and 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 22, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS A number of amendments are proposed which involve the recently adopted Economic Development Districts. The first two items are related to boundary or map adjustments requested by property owners in the I- 85/U.S.70 Economic Development District. Next, a series of items are to be considered which offer a variety of approval options for projects in Economic Development Districts. Finally, changes to the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application criteria in the Zoning Ordinance are proposed. 1. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments a. CP-4-94 I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District When the I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District was approved on March 15, 1994, several properties were split by the Economic Development District Land Use Plan designation.During the public hearings concerning the district proposals,the owners requested that all of their property be included in the Economic Development District category. Adjustments proposed to move the Land Use Plan designation boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Township Tax Map.Block.Lot Acreage Designation Designation Eno 5.25..90B 2.86 Commercial Economic Eno 5.25..91 1.79 Activity Development Eno 5.25..102 0.80 Node Activity Eno 5.25..102A 1.01 Node 2. Zoning Atlas (MAP) Amendments a. Z-4-94 I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District When the I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District was approved on March 15, 1994, several properties were split by either the "zoning district" boundary or by a "development area"boundary identified in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual(Article 6.29 of the Zoning Ordinance). • 4 a During the public hearings concerning the district proposals,the owners requested that all of their property be included in the Economic Development District (EDD) zoning district. The owners also requested that adjustments be made in the Primary and Secondary Development Area designations to include all of their property. Adjustments proposed to move the zoning district boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Township Tax Map.Block.Lot Acreage Zoning Zoning Eno 5.25..90B 2.86 R-1 EDD Eno 5.25..91 1.79 R-1 EDD Eno 5.25..102 0.80 R-1 EDD Eno 5.25..102A 1.01 R-1 EDD Adjustments proposed to the development area boundaries described in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Article 6.29 of the Zoning Ordinance) are as follows: Current Proposed Development Development Township Tax Map.Block.Lot Acreage Area Area Eno 5.25..90B 2.86 None Primary 7.18 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..91 1.79 None Primary 5.21 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..102 0.80 None Secondary Eno 5.25..102A 1.01 None Secondary Eno 5.25..103 0.76 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..59 1.99 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..54A 4.73 Secondary Primary 3. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Ordinance/Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Approval Procedures (1) Special Use Permit: The first option involves amendments to Article 8 - Special Uses and Article 6.29 - Development Standards for Economic Development Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, "minor developments" or those with building areas of less than 20,000 sq.ft. and which disturb less than 40,000 sq.ft. of land area would be approved by the Planning Staff. Projects which exceeded these thresholds would be considered "major developments" and must have a Special Use Permit approved by the Board of Commissioners.This process would involve a public hearing before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners.Also proposed as part of amendments to Article 6.29 are the elimination of references to "man-made" so as to provide gender neutral text. (2) Site Plan Approval: This option involves an amendment to Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review of the Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, the same thresholds as outlined in(1)above would apply,but only site plan approval by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners would be required. No public hearing would be involved in this process. (3) Subdivision Approval: This option involves amendments to Sections II, III-B, and IV-C of the Subdivision Regulations. Under this option, both "minor" and "major" subdivisions must receive approval by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, but no public hearing would be involved. The amendments also incorporate the design criteria and performance standards applicable in Economic 5 Development Districts by reference. (4) Planned Development Approval: This option involves amendments to Article 7 - Planned Developments of the Zoning Ordinance.Under the current provisions,certain permitted uses and projects which exceed water usage thresholds must obtain approval as a planned development by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing.This option specifically involves the elimination of such provisions from Article 7 if Options (1) or (2) above are adopted. REZONING REQUESTS Another proposed amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas is as follows: 1. Z-5-94 Major Business Forms, Inc. The applicant proposes to rezone 20.38 acres from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Light Industrial (I-1). The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of N.C.Highway 86 and Coleman Loop Road (SR 1332), and is more specifically described as Lot 25, Tax Map 3, of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in a Rural Industrial Activity Node as designated on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS In addition to the atlas and text amendments proposed above, the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance are to be considered: 1. Public Hearing Notice: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof to allow actions which involve the rezoning of more than 640 acres,the rezoning of 50 or more parcels, amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance, and/or adoption of a watershed protection program to be advertised through a 1/2 page newspaper advertisement in a local newspaper instead of notification by mail to all affected property owners, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-342. 2. Radio.TV.and Communications Towers:This proposal involves an amendment to Article 8.8.17 Radio.Television,and Communication Towers,and Elevated Water Tanks.The proposed amendment would require applicants for a Special Use Permit to investigate the feasibility of locating communications equipment on an existing tower before seeking to erect a new tower. 3. Borrow Pits - Federal/State Highway Projects: This proposal involve an amendment to Article 4.1 Uses Permitted By Right and the creation of a new Article 6.16.16 to allow borrow pits as a use by right in all zoning districts when associated with a Federal or State highway construction project. OTHER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS In addition to the text amendments proposed above,the following changes to the Subdivision Regulations are to be considered: 1. Lot Boundaries:This proposal involves an amendment to Section W-B-3-c Public Roads and Section W-B-3-d Private Roads to require that property lines for new lots extend only to the edge of a public road right-of-way and to the centerline of private road easements. 2. Lot Layout:This proposal involves an amendment to Section IV-B-5 Lot Layout and would allow,in certain cases, for a new lot to have land area on both sides of a private road easement. 6 3. Private Road Curve Radius:This proposal involves an amendment to the Private Road Standards and would allow, in certain cases, subdivisions served by an existing private road to have a smaller curve radius than 125 feet. Copies of the proposed text and atlas amendments as described in this notice are available for public inspection at the Orange County Planning Department. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center,306F Revere Road,Hillsborough,North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181(Hillsborough),688-7331 (Durham),967- 9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: August 10, 1994 August 17, 1994 I 1 11'.1•,... 1----- s Ole (44 SPACE. _------- __ ___ .. _- • . AC ,fe ‘ I I S.85 ---------7--------:-7-----r•_='_.7:7-----.11 -- a.--T- -12--:-.D---(1-7-___-::---_:..."-__ 14 i --LI-:-.7.7.7-_-_--..7-_-....-: --_-_........_ _ ______ _-- _ _ • •-...\ /F .0 1. r'S \ C:,;; :• o . .• Afis'. , 582 • 21 8201 AC 1527 4C.QC 126 2--"fill 3 C, 193 AC D.. . 5• TO 71388. - IV RVOIROMIC 5 6 7 AC '''' ■ R lirr .9E18 8 'it 44:7M!fill 041. ili i 21 U L '; .? 746 AC. ..---- (Th s-• it'4%: It -____ . 7, ,..--‘ (.4 4) A 4.5,/ M ?•.:3 , CI 1 47 ACCAL / .1 .2879 12431; (5) • (49) '- 4 i S.?) ,• • : c.' ---__-----, V C 4 AL ( i 13il l• , , A \9 : Ar '. \ , , ,. . r.• 40412. -3358 ----:I:---- 6.32 AC. 0 d 367 ACM. _,,, s1 ' 1 .......„----...., -........ ---_,........ --....., -....... 04 AC. I) VAC . .\ , .. 1 , , a . . _n ...*.i 1%! ,.- ..• --- -- • ..,.. ill 50 5■08 !:•203 t , EC) a) (a: 3.23 AC.CAC. (. ) !mil!"'1 ------_.---.. 57 --- ENO 1 AL.PK ' 11`,,c),_.I, 1,t3:. ..;bi-( 1... „.. - •••.......:-............... ..... (14 SPACES) (5.3) - 1 61,_ -1-(45‘,11''... 1, . 7041 ‘2,01 2.7IC. 0 ;047 -?).!?'1 r 1. -__---___. i •k lot • /311 43 --. -.' ' 2.i IC. ..„........................ e a 2614 Ith . 7 0 -----..::"..-;----_-........................... el.; ., ; L- I Y- . OM 050 KG) 0"°81rf io. .ii, , ---....'-- -";-:--.----- .--"------ --- - • :''`.DIM" Rik S • . 5207 .. -/ -04 . •-1,-- a D 10 04 AC 4-,-N. - --, V.....143, regi.,_,4,7,40/4 -----rr:":-----)s t • . 4.29 AC. Virl A.A.'Mr..---'.-_---------:'-----.-:- - - - -- -• 1-.- ----..- - 1'7Y.. I„;::r:, . 1 ' 9-1.0s6 2 / r.) • , v i'ik23.Ac . ._____ ,........,001 ,-,4 1-(.. -----E.--- : 2254 s. .1 153 l'-- 5/Ac "':■.: /. ._ .9" , /112 A ------::-''-7.-.HI. 01.34*. - . I AC 423.1.3 • 2 1.:31)11 e- e Ac. ,,,t,,2,nu ,_:, .-.. 6-ce, ?-1f,q; 140 i 2 16 it: '........._.. v. -10011 . I. 5/BAC - . 11 • ..., pro •t .P.2000- -4 i-1 81 ,09, _Tfro--..__ 7 2:,::..........%., ,.,.,, t-I9Cli I 5.6 Ar C.As. 11 . * . -41-----0i9 4 ft 10 ...----:::---""----•--. 011216 2.e-1.-1 '+----- -..,-_,1 25,•.- az, a 4 4 ACP ....---.---""------ -----------,_ -____-1.------1 .._ 7 5 8 1 73 REVISED .1 •• • AC . TOWN SHIP N v_____ 2.57 COl_ I I y„....„,.....__J------- 39-A 24 1 I . I : .___I_______ r •• s•;,:sr.sr•s• 4u-14 2 • E L1ZARETH A HICKS 60-141 1:AL.,' *, _ 1 41- tS tiARRN a NANCY WH1 TAKER 58-166 i a 4- -.1 .. K Al HY LOW_A-..`..1 tr. ; .( uT T 4 I, 103 ONAIIrrE WOOD gi OUT FAL L •19.92 HI-I t:. NEA. i'Lt.(HY 47-a JOHN A SCARLET T 52-106 . y. 4 ' DUKE Pi‘Wla ) '-96,f.e o::: - - AMR KATI P MIT, ANEIIEW T :.".!.1.;.8 10-,I.).. '2'-44 :•*4 OS 3' 133 LEGEND Ose22--!---•0802 ------- .. W ---- .we Of 40•0•41, , "•-- ----- .... - 4140 1.0f 811.0011114 ORANGE COUNTY NC ...,.... -.-__ •-_--.. : mi DI OA•AOCLI,.Acall ell) I Itolt AM ,__ _ ___ _---- _____ • DAT E,144P,LIAR.`I?5 (970 1410TO NO ...Jilt_ -.:CP,..... _Ss 400 scuts 0i501.1'50 $ t:val. will .---i Lti also i.4044 0 I.•,4 I 1.011 0.10111.0. SUM usivaarsoor 0 coN7/8. P814, 6 I ENO TOWN51-1IP mAP: 25 Fa 122 SO pROPC)51Et) 1)15111R1 Ceir Eyptigete)14 ,, Z-4 -q4 1 a 5I 7e EC • b MI 1•gP iRl•PK TtIL``f3 Stah:c:i - �".'/ - ld10 (•i4 SF's• "`— _..._____ -__ _/I 4! • __ is Ass r - ' sty Ic7f 1 aI �• ^, CIIC © u 582 .. TOW -Lx. ......156Tl1 . 6S 7 •1!A© -Jim_ . 411, - 21.193 i• •. 21.193 AC © Ill a ` 7.46 AC. r-'•N 411 % . •if!'� : - •• ll'.• © © 'TOT9 '�y1 1 / �•1111.� \J `�J u,na 4 E.7r.:A 3C0l ��. 147 AGM LK --1 _ tas w Q 5'! ' Ow0 - . Ni0 '1'It. d.4: W. `AL • r+f 1 1 )M-`1— 6.32 AC. 0 i 67 AC CAL. /AC 1:. ea �;.1 :�;� ii •:.1o.Ii 1 1:� AC � 1 " `.1 56 I.'- L•taa i .. 1/,` •-fah +; •1l •1• /• ni0_. 1����= E119 TII.PII ;;' . �' 4tij',I ,i11I al (e: 3.23 AC.CAC. 1 ,` M 1 t J CJ) • �91 ): _����� (14 NHS) ,.,• if. j ♦spa►. oil 0 0 ` 81°10" ' ` `' =jr� aII! •TON ���._ .-.l:st 3: &i:• ', �� a�, 96 A . - i 1�.TOlO y. i//�� � -Air 4.291 AC. iv kOtl .1 1 q el; _� I I l,a .. • 2114 _ O • r �_�-{1 CO T e OW. pia_ • Km ELM/ l�1' •' �� i e''--f . a 34:;A11 •stsl 15 7 • 518�a I . .i:6") ;.`i f .�_9`4 140 -i.tao -, ...g " - 7 26 . •o rbC 1 5.6 ACC AL. r\ ( • r..-.• 1 REwsco , ....."•••••■••"... 05 ' 4' U4.4 Ac. -.‘ — l�1�' r�'- 7 b 0 2.41AC. 1■ Qyi►NSHIP "` • ••!. I.ar wi(. N HIP 1 1•.,..• 25T ALCM. - I f( r•::rrw,.a' ' 37- 24 ELIZABETH HICKS. 60-141 KA1HT LUli�f.I.( r 1;i ••," .� ! l/ 4ti- 42 ��p�q pp�� HARM a NANCY WHITAKER...58-166 • ••�JG.`It< 1/::: - • ' 4 a UTT 1 43 5 MFIF11E a114.T'1 VIrf"1-S1 . 9.92 WA14$VARR1P/MILT 52-TOG DUKE PVWIiA .:) r ••• • - 11 ik10S DL 133 LEGEND _91 Z 0602 _ i • e 11001 01/,w,.,,,, _—— _ _ Me .1.1.1. ORANGE COUNTY N.0 N.C. ▪ ::T: ......................••••• aM•Ul!W4 e. -..........®...--.- sat.nwwrw.l�rul . I 4.o.01nSam* .'0 V u. OP,SE'U Et0D/',�rcCOMP 25 • 14 to cwl„sow 0 1•.•. . /Md 4• ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 9 n APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Data : `)jlcY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS / ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is Located on the No' side of S .R . # / 33,. ( Co►c.�.,,,, � c:a,,•,k Street/Road) between S .R . # /aid and S .R . # n No*, It is known as Lotts)25111111111. Block of Orange County Tax Map 3 - 1-1;11,tv.,,,_7b,„ Township . It has a frontage of * 5VD feet and a depth Wf A 1300 feet , and contains 88/1762.8 square feet or d(.;.3`k acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from AR to -- 3 .- The .folLawing information has been _ attached in__ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (# - required on all applications) . •a. A fully dimensioned sap at a scale of not Less than one (1) inch _ equals one—hundr•d (1001 feet nor more then one (1 ) inch equ.La twenty"' (201 feet-'shawing- - the lend whieh is proposed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A statement of justification addressing one or more of the following: (11 The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. (23 The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety end general welfare. •(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or pert thereof. •(41 ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment tt including, but not 11s1ted to, documentation from service 2 S Lt O) agencies (e.g. firs, police, rescue and utilities agenciesl assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A list of •Ll individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property sought fir 'zoning is attached. The list is currant as of // H , (Decal I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate to the blest of my knowledge . [ _ Applicant ( s) : • Address : a :x /•7n - Phone : 'i iS - `7.3.2 .2/01 Th REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST w A nOWNER'S NAME �u t `ir• • AllDRESS r1 n /4.38' Current zoning A".. Total number of acres Current land use Type of rezoning requested Proposed land use Y Tax map #5-1,3'4(I Block U a?-r--r- Number of lots / Proposed Water Supply: Public Community / Individual ✓ Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank e7 Access onto state road U /33.2 Average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone areas N/A Poorly drained areas n./ A 1 Streams /V /lt Other sensitive areas Describe land uses in: General Area C.A.A.Z NS .is UDC,,, ce-Art AAL--aNc•( n,,cc t,)oocdc•q �t-i1o .vc1.v Adjacent parcels of land eic■J) • N 0 • 11 M r- - ' _.' R BUSINE S, INC. STATE HIGHWAY 86 NORTH • POST OFFICE BOX 1299 • HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ? TELEPHONE 919/732-2101 MANUFACTURERS ANO SUPPLIERS OF PRINTED FORMS ANO SYSTEMS PURPOSE OF REZONING REQUEST BY MAJOR BUSINESS FORMS, INC. A zoning change from AR to I-1 is requested for the purpose of the construction of an addition to the existing Major Business Forms, Inc. facility. The required addition is necessitated by an increase in sales volume, additional capacity to meet this demand, and to associate an existing division known as Major Short Run currently located in the North Hills Shopping District in a closer proximity resulting in numerous economies. In addition, the Orange County Health Department requested a repair to our septic system resulting in the system being placed outside the current I-1 boundaries as advised by the Orange County Health Department. Major Business Forms, Inc. anticipates subsequent growth needs for new product lines beyond this current expansion and requests additional growth space for the future be alloted. Services by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange County Rescue Squad, and Hillsborough Volunteer Fire Department is existing at the present facility. . ■J t‘ ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 12 ;5X EXISTING SYSTEM I NSPE26. 05. S 1 9865-68-5784 4.E3. '5 :IE: OWNER: JSSELL JEFF MAJOR BUSINESS FORMS 'O BOX 1299 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 P 0 BOX 1299 732-2101 r-IL_SBORO: T3H NC 27278 .EPHONE: Ec:FPCATlONS L- T SIZE/�CAEAGE OESIG m.=WETLAND? ^_RP I. R SYSTEM "jD `41.4 .1174\'� p�/�/1oi�1� Ali YES �J NO CainON/DIRECTIONS: ".;.4Y 86 ' RECEIPT: SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT )NFRMED ere PLANNER DAB ARK li•w na✓s+o.rsdn7+..- . S 6uenSI f44 DISPOSAL A OTHER /� TYPE. SYS 3Z. T1:—)NK Uj SZ. CHAMB 2000 (\co\\'tf"%, ITRIFI 13.30 X...3i XIS" OPER. REGI Y R=MP RX3: = St si ht_1Q.1-.1 T suntr3L r__" i._14extmh_ `__itaQI-F;------ pn �hn,r . bra. pre- G a m-% ear% �irr-+vc.. • .4 s�Cvy� s t 1 tee, %ft4 a 1 col it aC.t.�r a ar+t.e. „�, 1 acs h prefaced C.a.7 ^ � S l\ T Zrv�sa :� � � �n t_`3 ho\\ co , 5(see. S • - ex;sri ,ks Shell be pie: ret ettib4esi ° i 2001 'lk aw-a#4,,l;fiara.cl,d /od. 1 /'� P • rilf, sSX0116L pnviI ihd aC4- ( presvrt.wweo+rog I f ° PorSo)Ai rerrvaolt !i�i , 1 q I�1ct,%riy° S, ,t/ ': nkt 1JC /ecL tit \ , if x r •r S?y'' r�h� 6aA i4'/fiy , .s, J !It �hI1°t s'.St � su eil \ Zgs ‘s,41 4 ♦ 04 .e 4 13 - AP z 44 0 ma.. a p Ts �r ,N zs ? : L/U : 2 - Te . s s f r- /3, iy- SO/ - 44c4 I y 9 needd ►p inIti / O PT- .P,�nTc�N� 1g iJ Ejlac!�-6.�:)�!"?�'�� ' V — \ 3" S��IeaW it�}O I Ie.:t pre-a wf slie IOW p rG- sett---t I ksia!!� rid-4440 Jew T ottilfc f 441154 DATE. ISSUED ___5-20-q/ SANS TAR I AN 7‘,7s,"4 Al :ATE. APPROVED _�'J0 I/ SANITARIAN F% � i� 0r. I tr./ A /-.ti 13 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET Charlotte L. Patterson 7706 Tannery Road Summerfield, NC 27358 William Harold Keith PO Box 345 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Carl Dunn Scott 1523 NC'86 N Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ruth Ferguson 1505 86 N Hillsborough, NC 27278 Khye Weng Ng 3800 NC 86 S Hillsborough, NC 27278 O 14 . CD 2982 ! 13 5078 60.97 AC. 40 AC. 8615 6.41 AC. 1 1 1 1.93 AC 1 r - ' ® 1- WHI ER D1 93 ■ /_ 3 54411 69 • L7 • 2402 ®&5 '' 3 � A L 16ACB 1.lo. qC 851 'N11 Ji2?e si li E 23 N 5 AC. 60 11 \\ 0 2050 i AC. 1' 5 AC 7552 3 3 24 " 649.27 2765 s � 2448 6550 1\: . 3. 89 AC- ,\ \- t, 16 30AC. 10.06A 25.3AC. �e.oe \\�P : C 3478 11 E93 . 35%7 ii tsT I z 2 gg53AC 6a�.e II: '013 \ 1' 2372 18 3AC. . \\ '1 3112 17 3AC. a MA✓OR BUS/NESSPOWS 2 B •2755 � 11 \ 6993 4 84C. O ••25 6784 1 7585 ' / . 6624 III^\ ' Z 7 57 AC. \ 8 4 AC 2 I AC. � ' 9� \ \ \Z C ,\ co I 5 64 7AC \\ © I I � _— -�___--- C ` ' 7491 ,Ii I 10 1 11 . I 4 1 I I I I i I 982 27 26 �5 ' ' 1 �1� O ' 2761 ' 1 6 '' 2 I � 16608 I 2.1 3AC. 88 w i I I LPG O 28 301A1r AC 5.03AC- i 4-0 ■ I 1 9092 8.6 AC. 5.75 I \ I 8756 ,? o 747AC AC. \\\\I 1 8421 1 v I - 41. 83 AC. /�' ' o 1 I I ° 283 O II I WI 7 / 1 I I / _ — __ el — %\ 1 _ _ — 60 1 _ _ —— — — — 11 H 15 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE/PLAN: Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revision?below. ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board X_BOCC Citizen Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:August 22, 1994 PURPOSE: To consider amending the adopted Economic Development District proposals to reflect proposals recommended by members of the Board of Commissioners. IMPACTS/ISSUES When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, changes or amendments to the Economic Development Districts proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. The discussion focused on two major policy questions: 1. Location of Commercial,Commercial-Industrial,Economic Development, and similar non-residential activity nodes; and 2. Board of Commissioners review of economic development proposals. The Board of Commissioners approved a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that: 1. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Commissioners will be made in time for the amendments to be heard at the May 23 quarterly public hearing; and 2. The Planning Board will consider a variety of approval options; i.e., Staff, Planning Board, and Commissioners. At its March 21, 1994 meeting, the Planning Board referred proposed amendments to the adopted Economic Development Districts to the Ordinance Review Committee with instructions to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board by its April 18 meeting. Proposed amendments were provided to the Ordinance Review Committee for review/discussion on March 29, 1994. Subsequent to that meeting, the report of the Ordinance Review Committee was presented to the Planning Board at its April 12 meeting. Although the Planning Board recommended that the options be presented at the May 23 public hearing, the Board of Commissioners, at its May 2 meeting, decided to withhold the proposals for further discussion. The proposals are presented below, including all options considered by the Ordinance Review Committee. 16 EXISTING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN REVISIONS: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS When the Board of Commissioners referred the Economic Development District proposals to the Planning Board for consideration, a specific request was to consider various approval options;i.e., staff, Planning Board, and/or Board of Commissioners. Listed below are the options which the Ordinance Review Committee considered. OPTION#1 -SPECIAL USE APPROACH(CONCEPT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER GORDON) This option would establish a threshold for individual projects, below which,staff would approve development plans, and, above which, an applicant would have to secure approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of Commissioners. 1. Amend Article 6 by changing Article 6.29-Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts to read as follows: 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts 6.29.1 Purpose Goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of economic development which emphasizes local employment needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. To that end, these provisions are established to create review procedures and appropriate design standards for application within portions of the county targeted for economic development activities; e.g., Economic Development Districts. 6.29.2 Design Review Process a) Minor Developments A 'minor development is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the proposed development is less than 20,000 square feet,and the area of disturbed land; i.e., resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography, is less than 40,000 square Before any now cite 'minor development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District, a site plan must be approved and a zoning compliance permit issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 (Site Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordinance. Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants will be required to meet with representatives of the Planning and Inspections,and Economic Development Departments to identify policies,procedures, regulations, and fees applicable to development proposals. Plans for development proposals in an Economic Development District will be reviewed by the Planning and Inspections Department staff for compliance with the standards contained in the following section. Such review will also be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.3 (Site Plan Review) of this ordinance. In addition to the submittal requirements contained in Article 14.2.2, a complete application shall also include: • 17 1) Building elevation drawings for each proposed structure; and 2) A minimum of two (2) drawings of sections through the site illustrating existing and proposed grades, as well as the relationship of different site features. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, to address agency comments solicited during the plan review process, and/or to adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts will result in denial of a development application. In such cases, the development plans will be returned to the applicant with a written explanation of the reasons for denial and the changes required for the application to be approved. An applicant shall have the option of revising the development plans to comply with the site plan and design criteria.As an alternative, the applicant may also submit the plans for the review and approval of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Districts Article 8-Special Uses. b) Major Developments A 'major development' is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the proposed development is 20,000 square feet or more and the area of disturbed land; i.e.,resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography,is 40,000 square feet or more. Before any 'major development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District, a Special Use Permit must be approved by the Board of Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Article 8(Special Uses)of this Ordinance. 6.29.3 Design Standards The design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts are shown on the following pages and are divided into two categories, Performance Standards and Design Criteria. The Performance Standards establish "land use intensity ratios", or ratios of mail kuman-fie construction to natural features as well as standards to eliminate or mitigate nuisances and undesirable impacts on the environment.beth-naturaland-maninade artificial. The Design Criteria the establish standards for landscape and architectural features, parking and circulation,service and storage,and signs and lighting;i.e., how the use"fits"the site and how it relates to the surrounding area. (The Ordinance Review Committee recommended eliminating "human" and "artificial" references as well as "manmade"to address the gender neutrality concern.) 2. Amend Article 8 by adding a new Article 8.8.28-Economic Development District Site Plans to read as follows: 8.8.28 Economic Development District Site Plans 8.8.28.1 Additional Information In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be supplied as part of the application: a) A comprehensive site development plan,including all plans and documents required by Article 6.29 and Article 14.3 of this Ordinance. 18 8.8.28.2 Standards of Evaluation The following standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The site plan meets the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; b) The applicant has addressed agency comments solicited during the site plan review process;and/or c) The site plan adheres to the performance standards and design criteria applicable to Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance or the applicant has proposed a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. Discussion and questions related to the above proposals are identified below. a. Does the "special use"or"site plan approval"option satisfy the original intent of the economic development districts; i.e., to pre-zone property for nonresidential purposes and simplify the approval process? A concern voiced by EDC members as well as individual citizens is that simply zoning the property for economic development purposes does not carry out the intent of simplifying the process when one public hearing; i.e., special use, is substituted for another; i.e., rezoning. The concerns voiced by Commissioner Gordon are"accountability"and what avenue is available through which to address the concerns of the public. The Ordinance Review Committee did not support a Special Use approval process, since it would be perpetuating a lengthy process; i.e., substituting one public hearing for another. b. What are probable impacts of inclusion of"maior" and"minor" development definitions? The definitions suggested by Commissioner Gordon are essentially the same as those contained in the Town of Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. One concern of the Planning and EDC staffs, as well as individual citizens, is that developers will submit projects which fall below the 20,000/40,000 threshold to avoid a public hearing. Related to this concern is one voiced by Commissioner Willhoit, that the net effect of approval of many small projects by staff would be the same as the approval of one large project by the Commissioners. A final concern is the 20,000/40,000 rule and its relation to water usage thresholds and permitted uses.As an example,some uses,such as individual convenience stores and fast food establishments,are permitted only after approval of a Special Use Permit through the Planned Development process. Projects which exceed specified thresholds for water usage are also required to secure approval through the same process. With the addition of the 20,000/40,000 rule, it has beeen pointed out that almost all potential uses would be required to secure a Special Use Permit. If that is the intent, the 20,000/40,000 rule should be eliminated and all uses made subject to the Special Use provisions. As noted above, the Ordinance Review Committee did not support a Special Use approval process. The Committee did not support the 20,000/40,000 rule either, noting that it concurred with Commissioner Willhoit's assessment. c. Are there variations of or alternatives to the 20,000/40,000 rule? One option is eliminate the water usage and use category thresholds completely and rely solely on the 20,000/40,000 rule. If there are still concerns about convenience stores and fast food restaurants, they should be allowed only as part of a multi-occupancy building. Another option is to use the provisions of Article 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as a threshold instead of the 20,000/40,000 rule. As applied to the Economic Development zoning district, no more than one principal structure (containing or one or more uses) would be permitted by right on any lot greater than two acres in size. Otherwise,a Class A Special Use Permit and Site Plan must be approved by the Board of Commissioners. 19 A final option is simply to establish a site plan approval procedure involving only the Planning Board. Although the Ordinance Review Committee did not support such an option, one is presented as Option #4 below. d. What time frames are involved in staff, Planninge Board, and Commissioner approval options? Staff has developed a specific step-by-step approach to securing site plan approval. The total time involved in such an approval would be 33 calendar days.Approval through a Special Use Permit process would take 85 calendar days.An abbreviated process;i.e., site plan approval by the Planning Board would take 40 days. These times represent the fastest that an application would be approved and are illustrated on the attached calendars.) OPTION#2-SUBDIVISION APPROACH(RECOMMENDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE) The option recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee is to amend the Subdivision Regulations to provide for Planning Board and Commissioner involvement in project approval. This could be accomplished as follows: 1. Amend Section II:Definitions and Section III-B:Classification of Subdivisions to change the definition of"minor subdivision" to read as follows: Subdivision, Minor - A division of a tract of land that is not located in an Economic Development zoning district and that does not: The addition of the boldface italics wording would require that all subdivisions in an Economic Development zoning district be approved as"major"subdivisions,thus requiring Planning Board and Commissioners approval. 2. Amend Section IV-C: Interim Development Standards by changing the Section number to Section IV-D. 3. Add a new Section IV-C: Economic Development Standards to read as follows: IV-C. Economic Development Standards In reviewing subdivision proposals for land located in an Economic Development zoning district,the Planning Staff and Planning Board shall consider the overall design of the proposal in terms of compliance with applicable performance standards and design criteria contained in Article 6.29 of the Zoning Ordinance - Development Standards for Economic Development(ED)Districts.All such proposals shall include the entire parcel or lot of record as of , 1994, the of active date of this The simplicity of this option is that it utilizes an existing procedure.Since many parcels in the Economic Development zoning districts are large, a developer would be subject to subdivision approval. While site plans for each site would not be required,the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners could address broader issues such-as access points, traffic impacts and circulation, utility service, etc.By requiring that the entire parcel be included in the subdivision, piecemeal development of larger tracts would be avoided. Conditions could be included in the Resolution of Approval, providing the parameters for staff to use in approving individual site plans and for the developer in terms of determining when plan amendments were necessary. OPTION#3-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(RECOMMENDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE) This option is nothing more than the existing language adopted on March 2 by the Board of Commissioners. Optional wording has been provided(in boldface italics)in the event that the Board of Commissioners wishes to amend Article 7. 1. Amend Article 7 by revising Article 7.2.1 to include (eliminate)the PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District as a permitted Planned Development District as follows: 20 7.2.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in Article 4 are hereby created: R-13 - PD-H - R-13 R-8 - PD-H - R-8 R-5 - PD-H - R-5 R-4 - PD-H - R-4 R-2 - PD-H - R-2 R-1 - PD-H - R-1 RB - PD-H - RB LC-1 - PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C - NC-2 CC-3 - PD-C - CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C - GC-4 0I-1 - PD - OI-1 I-1 - PD - I-1 I-2 - PD - I-2 I-3 - PD - I-3 ED - PD - ED PW-I - PD - PW-I PD - MU PD - R PD - MHP 2. Amend Article 7 by adding(eliminating)Article 7.21 -PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District which reads as follows: 7.21 PD-ED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The following regulations and requirements apply to PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development Districts. 7.21.1 PD-ED District: Definition and Intent PD-ED districts may be established in accordance with the general procedures and requirements set forth in Articles 7.1 through 7.9 and with the intensities and in locations in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. The purpose of this district is to provide for properly located and planned non-residential development consistent with Orange County's Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Specifically, this district is intended to provide an opportunity for development plans, submitted under the provisions of Article 6.29 [Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts] of this ordinance, to be considered for approval when such plans do not: 1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; 2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance; and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. In such cases, application for and approval of a Planned Development District shall be governed by the 21 general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as set forth in this Article. Both Special Use and Planned Development processes take the same amount of time. The only difference in the two is that the site would be rezoned to a"PD-ED"classification under the Planned Development process. The Ordinance Review Committee felt that with the addition of the subdivision approval provisions, the Planned Development approach above, and the thresholds on water usage and permitted uses, sufficient controls were in place. OPTION#4-SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURE This option would establish a threshold for individual projects, below which,staff would approve development plans, and, above which, an applicant would have to secure Site Plan approval by the Board of Commissioners. 1. Amend Article 6 by changing Article 6.29-Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts to read as follows: 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts 6.29.1 Purpose Goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of economic development which emphasizes local employment needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. To that end, these provisions are established to create review procedures and appropriate design standards for application within portions of the county targeted for economic development activities; e.g., Economic Development Districts. 6.29.2 Design Review Process a) Minor Developments A 'minor development is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the proposed development is less than 20,000 square feet,and the area of disturbed land; i.e., resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography, is less than 40,000 square Before any sever-site 'minor development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District, a site plan must be approved and a zoning compliance permit issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 14(Site Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordinance. Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants will be required to meet with representatives of the Planning and Inspections,and Economic Development Departments to identify policies,procedures, regulations, and fees applicable to development proposals. Plans for development proposals in an Economic Development District will be reviewed by the Planning and Inspections Department staff for compliance with the standards contained in the following section. Such review will also be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.3 (Site Plan Review) of this ordinance. In addition to the submittal requirements contained in Article 14.2.2, a complete application shall also include: 1) Building elevation drawings for each proposed structure; and 2) A minimum of two (2) drawings of sections through the site illustrating existing and proposed grades, as well as the relationship of different site features. 22 Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, to address agency comments solicited during the plan review process, and/or to adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts will result in denial of a development application. In such cases, the development plans will be returned to the applicant with a written explanation of the reasons for denial and the changes required for the application to be approved. An applicant shall have the option of revising the development plans to comply with the site plan and design criteria.As an alternative, the applicant may also submit the plans for the review and approval of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Distriets Article 14.3 Site Plan Review. b) Major Developments A 'major development is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the proposed development is 20,000 square feet or more and the area of disturbed land i.e.,resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography,is 40,000 square feet or more. Before any 'major development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District,a Site Plan must be approved by the Board of Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.3(Site Plan Review)of this Ordinance. 2. Amend Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review by adding a new subsection, Article 14.3.4, to read as follows: 14.3.4 Before any"major development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District,the site plan must be submitted to the Planning Board for recommendation and the Board of Commissioners for approval.Any suchication, including the analysis and recommendation of the Planning Staff, shall be submitted to the Planning Board at the first regular meeting after the expiration of the 21-day period specified in Article 14.3.2 or any extension thereof. The Planning Board shall,within 30 days of receipt of the Planning Staff recommendation,prepare and submit for the Board of Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application. In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners may: a. Approve the application as submitted b. Approve the application subject to conditions;or c. Deny the application. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3.1, to meet the performance standards and design crieteria for Economic Development Districts in Article 6.29,and/or to address agency comments solicited during plan review are grounds for denial of the application. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW: March 29, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 23 401PAmend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.29 • Development Standards for Economic Districts to read as follows; mu Development (ED) 629 D 1 meat S rar r�yd^arreernt(ED) .�.,� 6.29.1 Pj.r Goal Six of the Land Use Menem of the Comprehensive Plat is the promotion of economic development which emphasizes local employ:nest needs while preaeving the eharac r of communities and protecting the natural owironmost To that and, these provisions are established to create ream procedures and appropriate design standards for application within portions of t a sorority targeted for economic da elopmast activities; e.g., Economic 412, =wry new sist development may be undertake in an Economic Development District, a site plat must be approved and a zoning con+plimtee permit issued in accordance with the CA4le• provisions of Article 14 (Si tre Plan to submission of an jar site plat approval,applicants, will be required to meet with m hCor or ideate� Inspections, and proposals. eye/rovai Plans for development proposals in art Economic Development District will be reviaoed by the / Penn and �1� plan with the standards contained in Pr �', the jbllaw =dance seeks Such review will also be carried out with the provisions SSI�✓�'.f ((Ankle 14..E Mee Plat Revise)of this ordinance. Gp,N et l /+ In addition to the submittal requirements eats contained in Article 14.24 a complete application r shall also include: or oleUPtl�i[�*$, L ash prep std and 2. A minima's of two(2)&swings grsections through the site illustrating existing and • *posed grades ae well as the relationship of different site features. s. • • •Failure tee met the criteria jis site plat approval listed in Article 144 to address agency canuadosts solicited during the plan rains prams, and/or to adhere to the design standards applicable within lkonomie its Deaelap:s nt Districts will result in denial of a development development plans will be returned to the applicant with a wines erpla atian 4:1°t e reasons for denial and the changes requdrsd for the application to be approved An applicant shall have the option al revising the development plans tv aunpiy with the site plat and dodo criteria.As an alternation the applicant m0 also submit the plans for the review and approval of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissions in a000rde n:4 with theme of Article 7-Vanned,Deoelopment Districts 6.29.3 / alAP do/Arse C Ciet iwr wt / , 75' u /Q4g+;se. 74P i&e ypes s/b# 49.k. Cv.ti t 3$cc . eon 401' s./ The &"g%its ndadt aP1P+ =thus Eamon=D velapnient Districts are shown an the ` following pages and are divided into two dories, G/e.•,e 3 J Performance Standards and Dengue Criteria. The ratios'sw■thodarapalinsensionai-spodishi Performance cuna,kl Standards establish."11 use raaar� consaitios tv natural features as well as standads m diminabe or mi igae>e nuisances and undesirable impacts on • 24 CLTI 4GI� the eneironrmasl; bath natural ral onetpeade. The Design Guidelines Cri establish standards far lasdacape architectural feature;whine and circulation,service and storm and signs and lighting i.e., hew the use 'Xs'the site and hay it relates to the su nou ding areas. (The wording highlighted in ' ' ' format has been revised to reflect the revised organization and content of the Design ManuaL) 0 1.4- amend Article 7 by revises;Article 7.2.1 to include the PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District as a permitted Planned Development District as follows: 7.2.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized cri Arzcle 4 are hereby created: R-13 • PD•H-R-13 R-8 - PD-H-R-8 R4 • PD-1-1-R-5 R-4 • PD•H•R-4 112 - PD-11•R-2 R-i • PD•H•R-i RB • PD•H•RB LC-1 - PD-C•LC•1 NC-2- PD-C-NC-2 CC-3 • PD-C-CC-3 GC-4 • PD-C- GC-4 01-1 • PD •OI-1 I-1 • PD .I.1 I.2 • PD •I-2 I.3 • PD •I.3 . ED - PD-1113 P •I• PD •P •I PD•MU PD -R PD -1 Amend Article 7 by addi=ng a new Article 7.21•PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District to read at fol1owt // 7.21 iDID T- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-ECONOMIC OPME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CH / G / t L The foaming regulations wed requirements apply to PD-ED Planned Development-Economic H Thwelopasent ec eSS 2' /ncor,.r 721.1 a.-Jere. PD-ED &evietr essay be established in accordance with the general procedures and /"U//SivKS requiremwsts set fah in Articles 7.1 through 7.9 and with the intensities and in locations in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. The purpose of this district is to provide for properly located and planned noun-residential development consistent wids Orange Cow y's Strategic Plan for Economic Development. Specifically, this district is intended to provide as opportunity for development ply • submitted under the provisions of Article 6.29(Daxlaprmost Standards for Economic 25 do nee Development(ED)Districts)of this ordinance, to be considered for approval when such plants Ar /lC°GCSSo��/ 1. Meet the criteria for plat approval listed in A,.tiek 14..3; / 2. Address agency comments solicited daring the site plan review pr and/or //leo/XsVs.•tt 3. Adhat to the design standards applicable min&gnomic /�ev/s�D�CS forth in Ardele 6.29 of this ordinance Development Districts as and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards Wined in the Design Manual. (The last sentence beginning'and which..." was added following discussions with the County Attorney to clarify that failure to adhere to criteria and standards, and/or address agency comments is not sufficient grounds alone for application acceptance and consideration.) In such eases: collection for gad approval of a Planned Development Distrust shall be governed by this general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Planned Dwelopment Penult as act forth in this Article. 26 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 20.6 PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE THEREOF ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend notification requirements for amendments to the Zoning Atlas. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Effective January 1, 1994, the North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 153A-342) allow for certain rezoning actions to be advertised through enhanced newspaper advertisement instead of notification by mail to all affected property owners. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires that the owners of all property proposed for rezoning, and the owners of property within 500' of the area of the rezoning, be notified of the public hearing by first class mail. In addition, the notice of the public hearing is published in a twice in a local newspaper during the period 10 to 25 days before the public hearing. The proposed amendment specifies situations in which notification by mail of individual property owners is not required These situations involve: - the rezoning of 640 acres or more; - the rezoning of fifty or more parcels; - amendment to the zoning text; and/or - adoption of a watershed protection program . The proposed amendment would allow for rezonings which met one or more of these criteria to be advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks. The advertisement would include a map of the proposed rezoning. The minimum size of the advertisement would be 1/2 of a newspaper page. 27 Zoning text or map changes which involve a particularly large area (such as the recent watershed protection amendments and zoning of Little River and Cedar Grove Townships) could be advertised at less cost for materials and staff time through newspaper ads. Although the publication costs would be greater, other costs, such as postage, copying, preparing and stuffing envelopes, and sorting by zip code, would be greatly reduced. The larger size of the newspaper advertisement, the inclusion of a map as well as text, and the increased frequency of publication should result in an equivalent public exposure of the proposal. The proposed amendment provides the option to utilize newspaper advertisements in lieu of first-class mail, as provided in G.S. 153A- 343 . EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 20.6 PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE THEREOF 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty- five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing. In computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20.6.2 Except as provided in Article 20. 6.4 of this Ordinance, the Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the applicant's affected property a notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing. 20.6.3 Except as provided in Article 20. 6.4 of this Ordinance, in the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected property owner and all adjacent property owners not less than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. 28 If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected property owners and to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet as provided above. The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. 20.6.4, Notification of affected property owners by mail as required in Article 20. 6. 3 of this Ordinance is not required in the following situations: (1) The proposed rezoning involves an area of 640 acres or more contained in 10 or more separate tracts in separate ownership EXCEPT where the rezoning involves zoning of parcels of land to less intense or more restrictive uses; or 121 The rezoning directly affects more than 50 properties, owned by a total of at least 50 different property owners; or _(31 The reclassification is an amendment to the zoning text; or 1_4.1 The proposal involves adoption of a water supply watershed protection program as required by G. S. 143-214. 5. Where this subsection eliminates the notification of property owners as required in Article 20. 6. 3, the Proposed rezoning shall be advertised once a week for four successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the area of the rezoning The advertisement shall include a map showing the boundaries of the affected area. The map shall be at least one-half of a newspaper page in size. Property owners who, according to the address shown on the most recent property tax listing, reside outside of the county's jurisdiction or outside of the circulation area for the newspaper shall be notified by mail pursuant to Article 20.6.3 above. The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. In addition to the published notice, one or more prominent signs shall be posted immediately adjacent to the subject area reasonably calculated to give public notice of the proposed rezoning. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 19, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: j�;ia�� i ; ,! ti = - - - =n. .- a...t. � 1 li 1: i, 1153A-344 1993 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT §153A-344 I §153A-344.1 COUNTIES 1153A-353 i . ! I ', } t pilule, adopts an ordinance placing it Franklin, 1993,c. 358,a 15,as to(Jr • I • § 153A-344.1. Vesting rights. -�.,.�Ior 1,,, +• into effect at such earlier dale Adoption ange. In addition, by virtue of Scanlon • of sod,ordinance to subject to the preen- Laws 1993,c 4611,a 3.the local uualdi- If r� •�)' 't 1 1 dins)tequireinents of I.S 1611A 36.1 ur callous for Alexander, Cabarrus, CASE NOTES 1:S I53A-323,as appiuprirte,but not Catawba, Iredell, Jubnrtun, Martin. t .. t! io any procedural requirement of the Randolph,Wake,and Yadkin should be . - 1! riming ordinance for adoption of amend- stricken from the wain volume.Section Cited in Nrllo L.Tees Co.v Orange B p County, 810 F Supp. 679 (M.D.N C. 0';/"_'� egrets to the zoning ordinance.'fie urdi- 31b1 of c 469 provides that nothing in 19921 , nonce may provide for different dales of the section affects any ordinance ;' I'; , applicability based um the stage of the adopted under the authority of any act jl+ , d� ry g claasifuation action on the Wirt- repealed by a 3(a)prior to the effective § 153A-348. Statute of limitations. ' `'�'' 'i,i live Jute. dale of c. 469. '"I he ordinance prevails over some or Effect of Amendments. - , l all ofChaplc.455,Session Law*of 1987, The 1993 amendment,effective Janu- CASE NOTES 'i I ar amended by Chapter 271, Session ary 1,1994,added the subsection dal dal- '1, 11 •i lI I awe of 1993,if the ordinance so pro- ignation; in subsection Ia) substituted � j • p K Stated in Nell°L.Tees Co.v Orange vides" "abstracts"for"abstracts;provided that • • ' F Supp. 679 (M.U.N.C. I • ,! t�� , Bissau Laws 1993,c 469,a.31a1,rf- this sentence does nut apply in the case 1992 County, 810 -I' " fcalive January I,1994,repeals various of a total rezoning of all property within '1:.I, {, a te,including the following local midi- the boundaries of a county unless the if; r Citations to this section. Brewton Laws rezoning involves zoning of parcels of ij''' . 1993,c 101,as to Wilkes 1993,c 139, land to less intense uses or down zoning' Part 4. Building Inspection. q as to Stokes, 1993, C. 156, as to in which care notification to owners of r 4 Watau a; 1993,c 267,ar to Davidson thecae arcels shall be made b mail nn amt Ili ie, 19'93,c 271,auto Rucking- accordance with this section",e nd added § 153A-353. Joint inspection department; other ar- , , �� rangements. t ' .€ aj r . ' ham, 1993. c 296, as to Nash and subsection Ibl. I !' li ,ir'i A county may enter into and carry out contracts with one or more CASE NOTES other counties or cities under which the parties agree to create and `, support a joint inspection department for enforcing those State and Lk {� Cited III Fnzzclle v llarnstt County, County, 810 F Supp 679 IM U.N C. local laws and local ordinances and regulations specified in the I H' 'j 1(16 N 1: App 234, 416 8 E'2.l 421 19921 _ agreement. The governing bodies of the contracting units may "-j , 1, 119921, Nellu 1.. 'seer Cu v Orange I ' oft make any necessary appropriations for this purpose. In lieu of a joint inspection department,a county may designate i', , 1' i'i ,. an inspector from another county or from a city to serve as a mem- 153A-344. Planning agency; zoning plan; certifi- bee of the county inspection department, with the approval of the i i1 ! cation to board of commissioners; governing body of the other county or city,or may contract with an 1 t amendments. Individual who is not a city or county employee but who holds one of f ' ' the applicable certificates as provided in G.S. 153A-351 1 or G.S. 1 `'1 160A-411 1. The inspector, if designated from another county or 'l CASE NOTES city under this section,while exercising the duties of the position,is a county employee.The county shall have the same potential liabil- ; i'(i Amendment Held Not Applicable chiding operation of a quarry on such , ity,if any,for inspections conducted by an individual who is not an , .!•to Defendants.--Where the wtaronlra- property would not apply to defendants. employee of the county as it does for an individual who is an em- - i• 1 I ' did ed forecast of evidence established as Cardwell v Smith. 106 N C. App 187, I. ployee of the county The individual with whom the county con- a I i ! a matter of law that dele ndants made 415 S E 2d 770,ctrl denied,332 N C. tracts shall have errors and omissions and other insurance coverage ., i, , substantial expenditures our the opera- 140, 419 SE'2J 569 1199'21 • • acceptable to the county. (1937, c. 57, 1941, c. 105; 1947, c. 719; '1, 1:1 non of a quarry uu the properly in gins- Cited in Friz.elle v Ilurnetl County, 1951,c.651, 1959,c.940; 1963,c.639; 1965,c.371;1967,c.495,B. lieu in good faith and in reliance upon 106 N C App 234, 416 S E 2 421 - 1. 1969,c.918•c. 1010,s.4'C. 1064,ga. 1,5-c. 1066,s. 1. 1973,c. i.. the special use permit previously 119921, Neill) I. 'Peer Co v Orange 822, s. 1; 1993, c. 232, s. 1.) ■ granted by the Zoning hoard, a later Cuunly, 810 F Supp 679 IM U N C. • amendment by the Zoning Uorril pie- 19921 Effect of Amendments.-The 1993 amendment,effective June 28,1993,re- I' • wrote the second paragraph. .�Pf 4 a,' L IV 100 • • 101 (0 1 i s . 1 ,. .:1,..4,7;i,1 :3 . ' if '.r4.4,,,,.., ,,,,,,•„ ._, , _ . , . . , . . . . ,. ,„,„„.„,,. • . 7„,,4. .7 luort,t,t I. . it fil s t .ti.:,; ,,It it,1,,,,, . ... .i,„_: . • ,. • *153A-335 1993 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT §153A-343 $153A-393 COUNTIES 9153A•343 § I53A-335. "Subdivision" defined. • • (b) The first class mail notice required under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required in the following situations: lament Modifical' . - I'usquatenk. Transylvania should be stricken from (1) The total rezoning of all property within the boundaries of 149:1, c 191, a I, Transylvama. 1991 the maul volume. Unless rezoning involves a county or a zoning area as defined in (I S. 153A-342 ie.* Se s, 19921,c 97'2, s I the virtue of Session Laws 1993,c 195, vas zoning of parcels of land to less i by vutur ul tiessum Laws 1991 11I41 I.Lincoln*tumid be stricken from the intense or more restrictive uses. If rezoning involves zone S.•is, 19921,c 972. s 3, the they for main volume, ing of parcels of land to less intense or more restrictive s.,,, l.aws 1979. c. 349 fur uses,notification to owners of these parcels shall be made by mail in accordance with subsection (a)of this section; Part 3. Zoning. (2) The zo • g is an initial zoning of the entire zoning jurisdic- tion area; (3) The zoning reclassification action directly affects more than Q 153A-340. (;rant of power. 50 properties,owned by a total of at least 50 different prop- erty owners; CASE NOTES • • (4) The reclassification is an amendment to the zoning text;or (5) The county is adopting a water supply watershed protection ('ilea in N.dle I 'firer Cu v Orange program as required by G.S. 143-214.5. Cconly, 610 F Stipp 679 IM(INC In any case where this subsection eliminates the notice required by 19921 subsection(a)of this section,a county shall publish once a week for four successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general cir- culation in the area maps showing the boundaries of the area af- 153A-311. Purposes in view. fected by the proposed ordinance or amendment.The map shall not ' be less than one-half of a newspaper page in size.The notice shall CASE NOTES only be effective for property owners who reside in the area of gen- eral circulation of the newspaper which publishes the notice. Prop- Appli.•.1 in Cu.ington v Town of erty owners who reside outside of the county's jurisdiction or out- Ap.w,104 N C App 231,423 S E 24 5:17 side of the newspaper circulation area, according to the address 119921 listed on the most recent property tax listing for the affected prop- erty,shall be notified by mail pursuant to this section.The person 4 153A-3.12. Districts; znuing less than entire juris or persons mailing the notices shall certify to the board of commis- sioners that fact,and the certificates shall be deemed conclusive in diction• the absence of fraud. In addition to the published notice,a county shall post one or more prominent signs immediately adjacent to the CASE NOTES subject area reasonably calculated to give public notice of the pro- posed rezoning.(1973,c.822,s. 1;1985,c.595,s. 1; 1987,c.807,s. MI -.g Map Requirement. -- This of the area being zoned and a full text of 2 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c.di 980, s. 2.' 1993, c. 469, s. 2.) ' ms sort I.quire the county to the Looking ordinance zoned are required. have a' g nap for the entire county Frixzelle v llarnett County, 106 N C. when its objective is to inapkuuut zun- App 234,41ti S E 24 421,earl denied, local Modification.-Session Laws tisane for adoption of amendments to nag on au ulna by met basis,only a map 332 N C. 147,419 S E.'24 571 ((992). 1993,c.271,s 1(repealed effective Jan- the zoning ordinance The ordinance i wry 1,1895 except for Forsyth and mu- may provide for different dates of appli- nicipalitiea located therein by Session cabilily based on the stage of the zoning D 1.53A 3.13. Method of procedure. Laws 1993,c. 469.a. 4(a).) classification action tin the effective ' Editor's Note. - dale. (a) The(ward of commissioners shall,in accordance with the pro- Session laws 1993, C. 469, which "If the city or county is subject to a visions of this Article,provide for the manner in which zoning regU• I • amended this section,in ss.6 and 6 pro. local act repealed by Section 3 of this barons and restrictions and the boundaries of zoning districts shall i I vides: act,the ordinance prevails over some or be determined, established, and enforced, sail front time to time "Sec.5.(al This act becomes effective all of the local act if the ordinance so amended,supplemented,or changed The procedures adopted par- January I, 1994,except that as to any provides su:wl to this section shall provide that whenever there is a zoning city or county, it heroines effective at "(,)This section does not apply to For- l'1:15sihict1111111 action involving a parcel of land, the owner Uf that any time between the date of ratification within County or municipalities located ii trcel of laud as shown on the county tax listing,and the owners of of this act and January I, 1994 if the wuhm tbt county city or county,as appropriate,adopts an "Sec tat This act becomes effective all parcels of land abutting that parcel of land as shown on the 6 placing county tax listing,shall be mailed a notice of the proposed elassili- p g it into i,rh ordinance ul such Joy uiiu 1,t995 na la ated lh thin it er t alton by first class mail at the last addresses lister for such owner earlier dale.A(he pi of such require. ally umuicnIt bas toasted within that till the county tax abstracts The person or persons mailing such is subject to the procedural S county,but t heroines effective at any 3l ices shall certify lo the Hoard of Cunuuissioners that fact, and meats of (1 S 160A- 64 or C S tune between the date of ratification of Y 153A-323,as appropriate,but nut to any this act and January 1, 1995 if the mu- .), di certificate shall be deemed conclusive in the absence of fraud. prucedui id requirement of the zonI,ig or uicipality ur Forsyth County,as appao- 1i W 98 • • 99 t O . 1 , arm COST OF ADVERTISING 8/23/94 WATERSHEDS/ZONING PUBLIC HEARING ACTUAL COST OF 8/93 MAILING FOR ESTIMATED COST IF PROPOSED ITEM WATERSHEDS/ZONING HEARING AMENDMENT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT Amount Cost I Amount I Cost Paper and Copying 60,000 sheets @ .06 ea. $3,600 3,000 sheets CO .06 ea. $180 Full-page newspaper ad Published two times in 3 $3,576 Published four times in 3 $7,152 newspapers newspapers Postage 500 pieces regular rate $2,500 500 pieces regular rate $145 9300 pieces bulk rate Staff time 384 total hours $4,852 19 total hours $243 (salary only) TOTAL $14,528 $7,720 co 32 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 8.8 . 17 RADIO, TELEVISION, AND COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS, AND ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANKS (CLASS B SPECIAL USE) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _x_ Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22 , 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add new requirements for additional information and standards of evaluation regarding communications towers to the Class B Special Use section. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Zoning Ordinance does not presently address the location or number of communications towers in the County. The Orange County Board of Adjustment has grown increasingly concerned about the number of communications towers they have seen applications for recently. The Board has reviewed five Special Use applications for towers since 1990. Four of these applications have been approved. The concerns raised deal directly with the number of towers and the reasons they cannot co-locate on an existing tower in the vicinity. Generally, loading capabilities, frequency incompatibility, and directional focusing of signals may keep towers from co-locating. In these cases towers would be needed to provide appropriate communications coverage. However, in some instances there may be situations where towers can co-locate. The proposed standards would require an applicant to first look into co-locating on an existing tower and second where feasible to provide lease space on their tower for other users. If it is found to be feasible to lease space on an existing tower instead of erecting an additional tower, the number of towers in Orange County could be reduced. EXISTING AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 33 8.8.17 Radio.Television and Communication Towers, and Elevated Water Storage Tanks (Class 8 Special Use) 8.8.17.1 Additional Information In addition to the information required in Subsection 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) A Site Plan showing siting and size of all existing and proposed structures, existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet and any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the presence of alluvial soils. b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior material. c) A Landscape Plan showing, at the same scale as the Site Plan, existing and proposed trees, plus shrubs, ground cover and other landscape materials. 41+ I f: :an•. EiXistin:g..•'commnn eat :.ons: tower . .s:: located:: . x the**400.4$01144thitYOrthe4#00604 communications> tower;•:':. ;thek:: 0tatO:nt: :shal:l: attempt to::•`obtaii s acee:::::on: hi8-: ::.ex s : 11 to0#* : .Iette "•:'tte'� .;..,:.p.::. .: frOi�it. tc>::.:�' :��>dn0ct:ad>.. i1d.:a.. .ie...:..........: .f�..m.. ?... applicant::'• n cat n _..:t attem Pt:.::S) s : . be submitted with. the::*0040440: at ale et A:i::ntatnt: , :l;dcat; nc . the:: :apploant: : e:: :willing to :ease'>: j E! E3:.:::on:.>? tn:: :n mnnt at: one towe `'': :nd e; ::.:' �.:::::.:: t:;.:stc ra.'e:::area:: to :other communications 0.#0900#:::$00.0.000#* would> not :$40 0***: lwit a :p :i: t's:.< 6400n .:e:: :€com erc:ia:ll <`;reasonable t 0411 0n : tike app*44401 404"104401: ie c i atibh6: : er ::is. fit^ :suf:fic ent:.::si::z:e: :arid structure::ti* :support ` h1:e: . ro 00sed.i:004 1#0* ,e e Which: :v:ould nott:: . nte:rfere: vth> 'te 8.8.17.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding upon an application for approval: a) Adequate provision has been made, by means of fencing or otherwise, for the security of the site. 34 b) A minimum lot size shall be adequate for the proposed use. c) Adequate provision has been made for the protection of adjacent property from the dangers of collapse, fire, flooding or other menaces to public health and safety. Atte444te::pppvisiti* ..... Itsiii****40, on an **#.444*.:00#00.4#0:#410,.:#.6.0t7 in the i:.40104 *X0X0-#14 :ogstimArilootttosi: tower is :proposed a statement **4.04.04#04-#404..V#414*j.00§00.4 :#0* *00.4:# *4400403rth04PPIAVAnin .100*41;40**TWO tOVO.t*W04440**040#4.1* *#0* #000441#00#0444.14 reasonable basis #0.0.404. the additional use *.o0.14 ifit*4.i#atiV*:'40** 10#.04010 .4a* -40:0#**a* tOtt :the qop*MpOtorisii .toter support the proposed user 04* one iadditional use )0441.4. would: not :41:-4.rtere 1111 hø ::40.04004* ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: A 35 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 4. 1 Establishment of Use Regulations (uses permitted by right) Article 6.16. 16 Borrow Pits for Federal and State Highway Projects ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _x Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow a borrow pit associated with a state or federal highway construction project as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The issue of borrow pits was recently brought to the attention of the Planning Staff by a contractor bidding for a NCDOT contract to replace the bridge on NC 54 which crosses the Haw River. A borrow pit is an area excavated to provide fill dirt for construction projects, including major road construction projects. In some cases, fill material is obtained from area within the right-of-way. In other cases, the fill material is borrowed from private property, under a contract with the property owner. Borrow pits are located as close to the construction site as possible to minimize transportation costs. After the excavation is completed, the area is generally reclaimed. Reclamation often includes refilling of the pit with dirt, stumps and other debris which may be associated with the project. A four to five acre site on an existing farm is needed to provide fill to reconstruct the bridge across the Haw River on NC 54. The pit created by the borrowing activity would be filled with the debris from the demolition of the existing bridge. Existing Zoning Ordinance Requirements Under current regulations, two Special Use Permits would be required, one for the removal of the dirt and the other for the filling in the pit with the debris from the bridge. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a distinction between a borrow pit and a commercial quarry operation, nor does it distinguish between the reclamation of a borrow pit and the creation of a landfill. Mk 36 Extraction of Earth Products The Zoning Ordinance defines the extraction of earth products as "the process of removal of mineral ores, soils or other solids, liquid or gaseous matter from their original location. It does not include any processing of such material, beyond incidental mechanical consolidation or sorting to facilitate transportation to the site of use or location of further processing" . Extraction of Earth Products is listed in the Table of Permitted uses as a Class A Special Use, and is allowed only in the Agricultural Residential and Agricultural Services, and Industrial zoning districts. Landfill The Zoning Ordinance defines a landfill as "a site within which is deposited solid waste material, including trash, construction debris, stumps, branches and limbs, garbage and industrial waste" . Landfills larger than two acres are also a Class A Special Use, allowed only in the AR, R1, RB, AS and Industrial zoning districts. Approval Authority Orange County has no jurisdiction to require permit approval if borrowing and filling occurs within DOT right- of-way. If the borrow pit is located on private property, then approval of a Class A Special Use Permit would be required for the extraction of fill material, but only if the property were located in the AR zoning district. A borrow pit would not be permitted at all in any other district. Prior to the filling of the pit with material such as debris associated with the construction, a Special Use Permit for a landfill would be required. The Solid Waste Division of the Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources does not require a permit for projects which fall under the Beneficial Disposal Rule. This Rule exempts "beneficial fill" from State permitting requirements. Beneficial fill is defined as inert debris consisting of "uncontaminated soil, rock, stone, gravel, brick, and concrete" . The Beneficial Disposal Rule does not, however, exempt such activities from local land use regulations. Implication for Projects such as Widening of 1-85 Another issue is raised by this inquiry is the possibility of encountering borrow pits outside of the NCDOT right-of- way in connection with the widening of I-85. If the borrow pit was located in an area designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, then the property could not be rezoned to a district would allow the use. The only recourse in that case 37 would be for DOT to purchase the property, even if it will be reclaimed to a usable form at a later date. The proposed amendment seeks to address this issue before further situation similar to the Haw River bridge replacement are encountered. The amendment would allow the creation and reclamation of a borrow pit associated with a State of Federal highway improvement project as a use by right, provided that certain conditions specified in the amendment text are met. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ARTICLE 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE 4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations Except as otherwise provided herein, regulations governing the use of land and structures are hereby established as shown in the Schedule of Permitted Uses. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. Within all districts there are certain uses that are permitted as a matter of right. The uses are: 1. Above ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of electricity, telephone, and cable television service, accessory and appurtenant apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and switching boxes. 2. Bona fide farms. 3. Buildings and other temporary structures used in connection with the construction of a permanent building. 4. Neighborhood utility facilities located within a public right of way with the permission of the owner of the right of way (State, City or Town) . 5. Off street parking as a required accessory use to a permitted use. 6. Public and private streets and roads. Railroad rights-of-way. 7. Water and sanitary sewer lines, gas and liquid fuel distribution lines. 8. Telephone exchanges (without business offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sanitary sewer pumping stations. (See Article 6.16. 12) . 9. Electrical substations, switching and metering stations and associated transmission lines, where incoming voltage does not exceed 100 kilovolts (kv) . (See Article 6.16.14) . 10. Solid waste collection facilities owned and operated by a public agency for the purpose of disposal of household waste by Orange County residents. (See Article 6. 16.15) . 38 11. Borrow pits lincluding reclamation by landfilling) associated with a State or Federal highway project. (See Article 6. 16. . 16) .. Uses requiring special permits must meet certain conditions specified in this ordinance. Only after the existence of these specified conditions has been determined by the Board of Adjustment, or the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, will a special permit be issued; otherwise such uses are prohibited uses. Regulations governing the use of land and structures within a Planned Development district are as established in Article 7. ARTICLE 6.16.16 Borrow Pits for Federal and State Highway Protects The following restrictions shall be applied to the above uses in all zoning districts: Al The borrow pit is located within one-half mile of the construction site; 121 An Erosion Control Plan has been approved by the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources AI The material extracted is to be used solely for a State or Federal road construction project; b1 Road construction clans include provision for reclaiming the excavated area. The excavated area may be filled with inert debris classified as beneficial fill by the Solid Waste Branch of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, provided that the debris is also associated with a State or Federal Highway road construction project. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: • 39 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Section IV-B-3-c-10 Lot Boundaries (in relation to public right-of-way) Section IV-B-3-d Private Roads REFERENCE: ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public _x_ Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _x Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To require that property lines for individual lots extend only to the edge of a public road right-of- way and that the area within private road easements be included within lot boundaries. IMPACTS/ISSUES: It has been the practice of Orange County to require that property lines extend to the edge of the right-of-way of public roads, and to the center of private road easements. In the case of public roads, the property is dedicated for use by the public, which also bears the responsibility of maintenance. There are no individual rights or responsibilities associated with a public right-of-way, even if the area in the right-of-way is included in the deed description for an adjoining parcel. In the case of private roads, the property is used to provide access only to parcels which have been granted rights of access. The owners of parcels served by the easement bear the responsibility of maintenance. Unlike public road rights-of-way, there are individual rights and responsibilities associated with the use of a private easement, and it is thus appropriate for that area to be included in the deed description for an adjoining parcel. The proposed ordinance makes explicit the practice of Orange County to require that property lines go to the edge of public road rights-of-way and that the area within private road easements be included within lot boundaries. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IV-B-3-c Public dedicated streets must meet the minimum construction standards as adopted by the N.C. Department of Transportation for acceptance of streets as additions to the State Highway System, but shall be no less than the 40 following: IV-B-3-c-1 Widths IV-B-3-c-2 Partial Widths IV-B-3-c-3 Grades IV-B-3-c-4 Intersections IV-B-3-c-5 Deleted IV-B-3-c-6 Curves IV-B-3-c-7 Culs-de-sac IV-B-3-c-8 Access Restrictions IV-B-3-c-9 Reverse Frontage IV-B-3-c-10 Dcictcd Lot Boundaries The parcel boundary for lots adjacent to existing or proposed public road rights-of-way shall extend to the edge of the right-of-way. IV-B-3-c-11 Street Names IV-B-3-c-12 Street Name Signs IV-B-3-d Private Roads IV-B-3-d-3 The land within a private road easement shall be included within the lot boundaries of the lot or lots which border the easement. The road maintenance agreement shall include a provision that if the road is dedicated for public use at a later date, then the lot boundaries will be revised to extend only to the edge of the right-of-way, as required by Section IV-B-3-c-10 of this Ordinance. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: July 11, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 41 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: Section IV-B-5-e Lot Layout (land hooks) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle X. Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow, in some circumstances, a new lot to contain land area on both sides of a private road easement. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations were amended on October 3, 1988 to require that all land area within a newly-created lot be contiguous, and not separated by a road right-of- way or by another lot. The application of this restriction to public roads prevents the creation of parcels with separate Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) by Land Records when the subdivision is recorded. Separate PINS are necessary because property lines go to the edge of the right of-way for public roads, with the right-of-way itself being dedicated to the public. If a parcel is split by a public - road, then the entire parcel cannot be included in a contiguous metes and bounds description, and must be described as two separate pieces, each with an individual PIN. The two pieces would be considered as one zoning or subdivision lot, joined by a "land hook" across the road. This situation is undesirable in that it can cause confusion when developing the parcel and issuing permits. An amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to prohibit splitting a lot by a road was approved on October 3, 1988 to avoid the creation of additional land hooks. The 1988 amendment prohibited the creation of additional land hooks across private roads as well as public roads. Although it is preferable to have all of the lot area on one side of a road to maximize its usability, lots split by private roads do not result in the creation of two separate PIN numbers because, unlike a dedicated public road, a private road easement is under the same ownership as the remainder of the lot. Occasionally, applying this requirement to private roads results in an awkward easement configuration and road location, particularly where the use of an existing • 42 driveway or road is proposed. (Examples attached. ) Planning Staff recollects three instances in the past year when this issue was raised. One of those cases involved an inquiry prior to submittal of a subdivision application. The amendment is being proposed at this time in conjunction with two other amendments which relate to private roads. The other amendments pertain to the location of lot lines in relation to public and private road rights-of-way, and the curve radius for private roads. Situations encountered in reviewing subdivisions can involve issues addressed in one, two, or all three of the amendments. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IV-B-5 Lot Layout IV-B-5-E All lots created after the effective date of this provision (10/3/88) shall be composed of contiguous land area, and that area shall not be separated by a public street right-of-way or other lots. A private road easement may split a new lot only if all of the following criteria are met: U the land underivina the easement in the same ownership as the remainder of the lot; and a the proposed easement contains an existing road or driveway which is to be used for access to new lots; OR the proposed easement is located along a property line which has an irregular shape; and 31 the minimum lot area requirement can be met on one side of the road easement but not both sides. Those lots with land area separated by a public road right-of-way prior to the effective date of this provision shall not be further subdivided in a manner which creates any additional lots with separated area. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: I 43 LoT 2 - LoT Z Oe L exisr T kt4 LO'- � T-- T 17R-Ne F�CISPIIUC� DiGtVC v¢1VATECIIlT-�I �-ZAEZ 1 E tA5 L'I.SZ M FAIT t l'1 I 1i*SCI-4 44 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: Private Road Standards ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _x_ Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow for modification of the 125-foot curve radius for subdivisions served by existing private roads which have a lesser radius. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Orange County Private Road Standards include requirements pertaining to construction materials, and design standards pertaining to road and right-of-way width, grade, curve radius, vertical clearance, drainage, signage, turn-arounds, vegetation and maintenance. Application of these standards assures that the road will provide safe access, in terms of traffic circulation and emergency access, appropriate for the number of lots it serves. There is flexibility in some of the dimensional standards to address various its specific circumstances and constraints. For example, the Board of Commissioners may approve a partial-width right-of-way if the full right-of-way width cannot be attained, and the Erosion Control Officer may approve a grade steeper than the 12% generally required if "exceptional circumstances" are involved. There is also some variability allowed in the pitch of the travelway and construction standards for ditches. There is currently no flexibility in the requirement for a 125- foot curve radius. New roads which are created when property is subdivided are located and designed in such a way that this requirement can be met. Problems occasionally arise, however, in the subdivision of lots which are accessed by an existing road which does not meet the curve radius. In some cases, the road and/or right-of-way can be reconfigured so that the curve radius can be met. In other cases, the road cannot be redesigned to comply with the radius standards due to the inability to change the location of the right-of-way, the extent of earthwork than may be required if there are significant slopes or embankments, and/or the location of the right-of-way in relation to property M 45 lines. (The subdivision regulations do not allow a new lot to be split by a road right-of-way) . In these cases, no additional lots may be created on the road, even if the change is minor, and would provide an acceptable level of safety for general traffic and emergency vehicles. The proposed amendment would allow approval of a subdivision with lots are served by a road with a curve radius of less than 125 feet if all of the following conditions are met: 1) The road existed prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations or was approved as part of an earlier subdivision; 2) Reconstruction of the existing road to meet a 125' curve radius is not feasible due to the extent of earthwork which would be required and/or the inability to reconfigure the existing right-of-way location due to ownership or the location of existing structures, wells or septic systems; 3) Standards pertaining to road width and grade will be met; 4) The subdivision can be approved with a Class C or Class B private road; 5) Documentation is received from the Erosion Control Division that the proposed curve radius would provide for adequate vehicular access and circulation; 6) Documentation is received from the Department of Emergency Services stating that the proposed curve radius would provide access for the largest emergency vehicle which would use the road. The Planning Staff consulted with Mike Tapp, Orange County Fire Marshall in preparing the proposed amendment to assure that concerns related to emergency access were addressed. The Department of Emergency Management has indicated support for the proposed amendment. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Private Road Standards - Minimum Curve Radius New curves shall be constructed with a minimum centerline radius of 1251 . The right-of-way must be designed with bends that will provide sufficient width to construct the road to this minimum radius. For example, a 90' bend in a 50' right-of-way will not provide enough are to construct a road 18, wide. The right-of- way must include sufficient width for the travelway and the necessary shoulders, ditches and slopes. A curve radius of less than 125 feet may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: 46 11 The road existed prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations or was approved as part of an earlier subdivision; 2) Reconstruction of the existing road to meet a 125' curve radius is not feasible due to the extent of earthwork which would be required and/or the inability to reconfigure the existing right-of-way location due to ownership or the location of existing structures, wells or septic systems; 31 Standards Pertaining to road width and grade will be met; 41 The subdivision can be approved with a Class C or Class B private road; 51 Documentation is received from the Erosion Control Division that the proposed curve radius would Rrovide for adequate vehicular access and circulation; 61 Documentation is received from the Department of Emergency Services stating that the proposed curve radius would provide access for the largest emergency vehicle which would use the road. ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: July 11, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: