Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-08-1994-IX-C 0 1 ' OR AN G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 8, 1994 Action A enda Item # -� SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT Section IV-B-3-d-1 ROADS (Private Road Justification Criteria) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment Mary Willis Sketch of Example Subdivision Extension 2583 Draft 5/23/94 Public Hearing Minutes 6/20/94 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would include, as justification for a private road, the preservation of site features which preserve or enhance special or unique characteristics of the immediate area surrounding a proposed subdivision. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 1994, the Planning Board considered an appeal of the Planning Staff decision regarding a requirement for a private road in a Minor Subdivision. The Planning Board acknowledged that maintaining a gravel road would be more in keeping with the unique characteristics of the property and the surrounding area than would a paved public road. The property is located adjacent to a church and cemetery and there is concern by the church that the access to the cemetery by a paved public road would encourage trespassing by youths, which has been a problem in the past. A sketch and description of the subdivision is attached. The private road justification criteria of the Subdivision Regulations do not include any criteria which would allow unique characteristics of the property and its surroundings to be taken into account. The Planning Board requested that the Ordinance Review Committee consider an amendment which would allow for specific characteristics of the neighborhood to be considered in determining whether a subdivision road will be public or private. The amendment is not proposed solely to address the subdivision discussed above. The subdivision does, however, provide an example of a v 2 situation which the Staff believes is not, but should be, addressed in the existing private road justification criteria. Public Hearing Comments Thee were no citizen comments at the public hearing. Commissioner Gordon expressed concern that the proposed amendment was very subjective and could allow for approval of private roads in many circumstances, which appears to be counter to the current policy of favoring public roads. The intent of the proposed addition to the private road justification criteria is to provide an additional rationale for the Staff, Planning Board and Board of Commissioners in making decisions as to whether or not a private road is justified. If the ordinance provisions are to be amended to provide for additional flexibility, then it is the view of the Planning Staff that the Provisions would need to be broad enough to allow a variety of circumstances, rather than very specific circumstances, to be addressed. The "burden of proof" as to whether or not a proposed subdivision meets the criterion is borne by the applicant. The decision as to whether or not a particular project meets the proposed criterion, as well as any of the existing criteria, is made by the Planning Staff, in the case of Minor Subdivisions, or the Board of Commissioners after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Board, in the case of Major Subdivisions. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on June 20, 1994 and recommended approval. The vote was unanimous. RECOIrMNDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: ARTICLE IV-B-3-d-1 ROADS (Private Road Justification Criteria) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff X_ Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X_ High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To include, as justification for a private road, the preservation of site features which preserve or enhance special or unique characteristics of the immediate area surrounding a proposed subdivision. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On March 20, 1994, the Planning Board considered an appeal of the Planning Staff decision regarding a requirement for a private road in a Minor Subdivision. The Planning Board acknowledged that maintaining a gravel road would be more in keeping with the unique characteristics of the property and the surrounding area than would a paved public road. A sketch of the subdivision is attached. A total of five lots are proposed to be created from two existing lots. The property currently contains four mobile homes. Two of the proposed lots each contain one mobile home, and one lot contains two mobile homes. If approved, the subdivision would allow the placement two additional residences. The property is located adjacent to a church and cemetery. The church owns about 1/3 of the land underlying the existing private road easement. The church is opposed to the use of a public road because it would provide unlimited public access to the cemetery, where problems with unauthorized access by youths has occurred in the past. 4 The existing road continues beyond the proposed subdivision and beyond the cemetery to serve six additional lots. Because surrounding property has been developed, the existing road will not be extended. The six lots range in size from 1.3 to 1.95 acres, none of which could be further subdivided and meet minimum lot size requirements outside of the right-of-way. Foxfire Lane could not be constructed as a public road beyond the subject property due to its sharp curvature around the existing cemetery. However, the private road justification criteria of the Subdivision Regulations did not include any criteria which would allow these characteristics to be taken into account. As a result, the Planning Board upheld the Staff decision requiring dedication of a public road. If the applicant wishes to continue to pursue subdivision approval, the subdivision will be presented to the Board of Commissioners through the Major Subdivision approval process. The Planning Board requested that the Ordinance Review Committee consider an amendment which would allow for specific characteristics of the neighborhood to be taken into account in determining whether a subdivision road will be public or private. The amendment is not proposed solely to address the subdivision discussed above. The subdivision does, however, provide an example of a situation which the Staff and Planning Board believes is not, but should be, addressed in the existing private road justification criteria. The Planning Staff and the Ordinance Review Committee discussed the proposed amendment on April 6, 1994. 5 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV-B-3-d-1. Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it is found that: 1. The subdivision rol would be accepted by the State for maintenance . . . . ; or 2 . The subdivision roads extend existing roads which are public; or 3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 4 . A proposed road is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 5. The subdivision roads are part of a non- residential development . . . . . However, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision with respect to other development and the Comprehensive Plan are such that a private road is justified. In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the following design features will be considered: 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by ordinance provisions. . . . . . Compliance with this standard is assured; and/or b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological 6 and/or recreation sites; and/or C. The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique cultural, historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of the immediate area. 2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. 3. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts significantly greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication. 4. Significantly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. Topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased run-off of stormwater and siltation. 6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non-conforming aspects of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of the proposed subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will remain conforming. 7 . There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 3501 , it serves no more than five (5) lots, its grade does not 7 exceed 9%, and the land being subdivided is not connected to or part of another subdivision required to be served by public roads. In addition, the average lot size within the subdivision is at least 40,000 square feet. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: April 6, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 8 1 generated. He said he has suffered enough and does not want the waste put on 2 him. He asked that it be stored in Chapel Hill and not out in the County. 3 4 MOTION 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner 6 Willhoit to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board 7 for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no 8 sooner than August 8, 1994. 9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10 11 12 b. Z-4-94 Bobby Kirk 13 Emily Cameron presented for citizen comments a proposed Zoning 14 Atlas Amendment in Bingham Township as requested by Bobby Kirk. In summary, 15 the property is located at the northwest corner of Orange Grove Road and 16 Bradshaw Quarry Road in the Cane Creek Protected Watershed. The applicant 17 proposes to rezone five (5) acres to Neighborhood Commercial. 18 19 CITIZEN COMMENTS 20 Bobby Kirk, the applicant, stated he plans to put a community store 21 on this site. It will be a rustic type building with a porch on the front and 22 back. He said there is a need for a store of this type in this area. He 23 asked that the Board approve this rezoning. The Bingham Township Advisory 24 Board voted unanimously in support of this rezoning. Alan Miller stated that he lives adjacent to the proposed rezoning. He has no objections to a country store. but noted that there are other uses 27 permitted in a "Neighborhood Commercial" designation including a motor vehicle 28 service station. He noted that there are five service stations from I-40 to 29 the courthouse and he objects to a service station in this location. The Cane 30 Creek Protected Watershed is directly across the road from this area. 31 32 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR 33 PLANNING BOARD 34 Commissioner Halkiotis asked for an explanation of motor vehicle 35 service station and if it included gasoline pumps. 36 Commissioner Willhoit noted that all runoff would have to be 37 contained onsite. He does not feel there is much different between a full s8 service station and one with gasoline pumps. 39 40 MOTION 41 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 42 Commissioner Insko to refer this proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to the 43 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Commissioners 44 no sooner than August 8, 1994. 45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 46 47 48 6. OTHER SUBDIVISION REGIILATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS 49 a. Amendments to Allow Private Roads in Minor Subdivisions (1) Section II-Definitions (Minor Subdivisions) 52 (2) Section IIIB - Classification of Subdivisions 9 1 (3) Section III-C-4 Action Subsequent to Approval 2 (Public Road Dedication) 3 4 b. Section IV-B-4 Private Road Justification Criteria 5 Mary Willis presented for citizen comments proposed amendments 6 to the Subdivision Regulations to allow subdivisions of five or fewer lots to 7 be approved through the minor subdivision process when public road dedication 8 or improvement is required and an amendment which would include, as 9 justification for a private road, the preservation of site features which 10 preserve or enhance special or unique characteristics of the immediate area it surrounding a proposed subdivision. 12 13 QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR 14 PLANNING BOARD 15 16 Commissioner Gordon asked if there was some way that each request 17 could be presented to the County Commissioners for their review before it is 18 approved. Willis stated that the application could be presented to the County 19 Commissioners as an informational item to see if there were any concerns. She 20 stressed that the Planning Department will only take action on an application 21 solely on its findings as to compliance with applicable regulations and 22 conditions. 23 24 CITIZEN COMMENTS Chris Hogan expressed a concern that there be a community effort to 27 work together to plan for the future of Orange County. 28 29 MOTION 30 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner 31 Halkiotis to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a 32 recommendation to be returned to the County Commissioners no sooner than 33 August 8, 1994. 34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 36 37 D. ADJOURNMM 38 With no further items to come before the Board, Chair Carey 39 adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on June 6, 1994 40 at 7:30 p.m. at the Caldwell Community Center in Rougemont, North Carolina. 41 42 Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair 43 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk 10 AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/23/94) a. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments ( 1) Section IV-B-3-d-1 Roads (Private Road Justification Criteria) Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would include, as justification for a private road, the preservation of site features which preserve or enhance special of unique characteristics of the immediate area surrounding a proposed subdivision. On March 20, 1994, the Planning Board considered an appeal of the Planning Staff decision regarding a requirement for a private road in a Minor Subdivision. The Planning Board acknow- ledged that maintaining a gravel road would be more in keeping with the unique characteristics of the property and the surrounding area than would a paved public road. The property is located adjacent to a church and cemetery and there is concern by the church that the access to the cemetery by a paved public road would encourage trespassing by youths, which has been a problem in the past. The private road justification criteria of the Subdivision Regulations do not include any criteria which would allow unique characteristics of the property and its surroundings to be taken into account. The Planning Board requested that the Ordinance Review Committee consider an amendment which would allow for specific characteristics of the neighborhood to be considered in determining whether a subdivision road will be public or private. The amendment is not proposed solely to address the subdivision addressed; however, it does provide an example of a situation which the Staff believes is not, but should be, addressed in the existing private road justification criteria. There were no citizen comments at the public hearing. Commissioner Gordon expressed concern that the proposed amendment was very subjective and could allow for approval of private roads in 11 many circumstances, which appears to counter to the current policy of favoring public roads. If the ordinance provisions are to be amended to provide for additional flexibility, then it is the view of the Planning Staff that the provisions would need to be broad enough to allow a variety of circumstances, rather than very specific circumstances, to be addressed. The "burden of proof" as to whether or not a proposed subdivision meets the proposed criterion, as well as any of the existing criteria, is made by the Planning Staff, in the case of Minor Subdivision, or the Board of Commissioners after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Board, in the case of Major Subdivisions. There have not been any changes since the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Waddell noted that is basically simply the question of whether or not to provide flexibility. Jobsis noted that the Planning Board had concluded that some flexibility needed to be added and had asked Staff to prepare the amendment. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Boland. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Section II Definitions Section III-C-4 - Minor Subdivisions (Action Subsequent to Approval) Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow subdivisions of five or fewer lots to be approved through the minor subdivision process when public road dedication or improvement is required. In some cases, private road justification criteria are not met in a subdivision of five or fewer lots that would otherwise be eligible for the Minor Subdivision review process. Any subdivision which includes a proposed public road must be processed as a Major Subdivision, regardless of the number of lots, so that the