Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-08-1994-IX-D t 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 8, 1994 Action Agenda Item # ,Xx-n SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT (Approval of Minor Subdivisions with Public Roads) Section II Definitions Section III-C-4 Minor Subdivisions - Action Subsequent to Approval DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes —X—No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Proposed amendment 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 to allow subdivisions of five or fewer lots to be approved through the minor subdivision process when public road dedication or improvement is required. BACKGROUND: 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 Board of Commissioners can accept the dedication of the road right-of-way on behalf of the public. The proposed amendment would allow for the subdivision approval to remain administrative through the Minor Subdivision process, even if public road dedication were required. After approval of the subdivision, the offer of right-of-way dedication would be presented to the Board of Commissioners for acceptance, as an administrative matter. Public Hearing Comments No citizen comments were received at the public hearing. Commissioner Gordon expressed concern that the proposed amendment requires that the Board of Commissioners accept the dedication of the right-of-way if the subdivision is approved by the Planning Staff, but does not include the t Board of Commissioners in the approval process. 2 The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the Planning Staff to apply the same simplified approval procedure to small subdivisions with public roads as is applied to small subdivisions with private roads. Involvement of the Board of Commissions in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the amendment. Commissioner Willhoit expressed concern with the approval of amendments which simplify, and thereby encourage, the approval of small, scattered subdivisions which may not contribute to the more comprehensive goal of preserving rural character. He further commented that the County should be encouraging the coordinated cooperative development of open space in small subdivisions. This broad issue should be addressed in the implementation of the rural character study recommendations, which include a recommendation to prepare small area plans for a number of specific rural crossroads, as well as other rural areas as needed. Small area plans would provide the specific ordinance guidelines needed to address Commissioner Willhoit's concerns. The proposed amendment would have little overall effect on the larger issues, but would provide a more efficient means of implementing current ordinance requirements. Planning Board Comments The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on June 20, 1994 and recommended approval by a 8-3 vote. Those voting against the amendment concurred with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Willhoit. RECOIrWNDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment. i ' 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION II - DEFINITIONS SECTION III - APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _x_ Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow subdivisions of five or fewer lots to be approved through the minor subdivision process if public road dedication or improvement is required. IMPACTS/ISSUES: 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 Board of Commissioners can accept the dedication of the road right- of-way on behalf of the public. The proposed amendment would allow for the subdivision approval to remain administrative through the Minor Subdivision process, even if public road dedication were required. After approval of the subdivision, the offer of right-of-way dedication would be presented to the Board of Commissioners for acceptance, as an administrative matter. EXISTING & PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: SUBDIVISION, MINOR - A division of a tract of land that does not: ( 1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one ( 1) tract of land in any twenty-four (24) month period; (2) Pedleate ei-i atg - any new publie--s erect ethee than den' - eiElating—pubile—strr T (3 2) Extend public water and/or sanitary sewerage systems other than laterals to serve individual E 4 lots; (4 3) Necessitate the installation of drainage improvements which would require easements through one (1) or more lots to serve other lots; and (5) At the option of the applicant, involve vesting of the subdivision for a period greater than one year. III. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES III-A. General Provisions III-B. Classification of Subdivisions All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions except those defined as minor subdivisions in this Section. A "minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a tract of land that does not: ( 1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one ( 1) tract of land in any twenty-four (24 ) month period. -(-2) Pedleate ewiinpeev-any new publie street etheE thaa de iA- existing pubile stEeett (3 2) Extend public water and/or sanitary sewerage systems other than laterals to serve individual lots; and (4 3) Necessitate the installation of drainage improvements which would require easements through one (1) or more lots to serve other lots. III-C-3. Review and A22roval Procedures Upon acceptance of a minor subdivision application, the Planning Department shall determine if the plat and application conform with all applicable regulations, including any applicable conditions of an approved Special Use Permit. Auxiliary documents as required by Section III- C-2 above shall be submitted by the Planning Department to the County Attorney for his/her review and recommendation. After receiving a complete Final Plat, the Planning Department may submit copies of the Final Plat and accompanying material to the officials and agencies listed 5 in Section III-D-2-b for their review and comment. The officers or agencies to which the plan is submitted shall provide a certification to the Planning Department as to the suitability, provisional suitability, or unsuitability of the proposal. Recommendations of the review officers or agencies may be incorporated as conditions of approval of the subdivision. The Planning Department shall take action on an application solely on its findings as to compliance with applicable regulations and conditions and shall: (a) Approve the application; (b) Approve the application subject to conditions; or (c) Deny the application. The Planning Department shall notify the applicant of its action, including any conditions attached thereto, within forty-five (45) days following acceptance of the application, or within such further time consented to by written notice from the applicant. If the Planning Department fails to render a decision within the specified time period, or extensions thereof, the application is approved as submitted. III-C-4. Action Subsequent to Approval The Planning Director or his/her designated representative shall endorse approval on a reproducible mylar original of the Final Plat if the Planning Department approves an application either with or without conditions. If the subdivision requires or includes the dedication of right-of-way for a public road, then the offer of dedication shall be presented to and accepted by the Board of Commissioners and a Certificate of Dedication (as required by Section V-D-6-b of this Ordinance) shall be endorsed by the County Manager prior to endorsement of the Final Plat by the Planning Director. ********************************* ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: April 6, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: t 6 i 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 38 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 REGULATIONS 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 7 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 11 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. ADJOURNMENT 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 8 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 9 Board of Commissioners can accept the dedication of the road right-of-way on behalf of the public. The proposed amendment would allow for the subdivision approval to remain administrative through the Minor Subdivision process, even if public road dedication were required. After approval of the subdivision, the offer of right- of-way dedication would be presented to the Board of Commissioners for acceptance, as an administrative matter. There were no citizen comments at the public hearing. Commissioner Gordon expressed concern that the proposed amendment requires that the Board of Commissioners accept the dedication of the right-of-way if the subdivision is approved by the Planning Staff, but does not include the Board of Commissioners in the approval process. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the Planning Staff to apply the same simplified approval procedure to small subdivisions with private roads. Involvement of the Board of Commissioners in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the amendment. Commissioner Willoit expressed concern with the approval of amendments which simplify, and thereby encourage, the approval of small, scattered subdivisions which may not contribute to the more comprehensive goal of preserving rural character. He further commented that the County should be encouraging the coordinated cooperative development of open space in small subdivisions. This broad issue should be addressed in the implementation of the rural character study recommendations, which include a recommendation to prepare small area plans for a number of specific rural crossroads, as well as other rural areas as needed. Small area plans would provide the specific ordinance guidelines needed to address Commissioner Willhoit's concerns. The proposed amendment would have little overall effect on the larger issues, but would provide a more efficient means of implementing current ordinance requirements. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Rosemond asked about the size limit of the five 10 lots. Willis responded that the amendment would apply to subdivisions of five or fewer lots; and generally, the lot size would be between one and two acres. Barrows asked if Willis felt that this process does discourage developers. Willis responded that these particular situations occur very rarely. What usually happens, is that the subdivision is redesigned generally by combining two or more lots so that the private road justification criteria are met. In those cases where the applicant had planned on, or does not object to constructing a public road, it is more likely that the subdivision will proceed through the Major Subdivision process. Barrows noted that the process didn't seem as if it does discourage those willing to construct a public road. Rosemond asked if this would expediate the number of developments proposed at one acre lots due to the two-acre minimum lot size proposal to be presented at public hearing. Willis responded that she felt there may be a few after the public hearing. Any time an ordinance amendment is proposed it speeds up plans of a few. Rosemond continued that she did not wish to expediate something that is going to be counter to an important issue for public hearing. Willis noted that there were not a great deal of such subdivisions. Usually, not more than 3 or 4 a year, if that many. She did not feel that there would be more submitted because of this amendment. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Brown - Rosemond - agreed with Commissioner Willhoit's concerns and the concern that she raised regarding expediating one-acre lots with the proposal for a two-acre minimum lot size, Waddell - if the County is leaning toward two-acre lots, it's not wise to continue to address smaller lots) . b. Zoning Atlas Amendment (1) Z-2-94 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Presentation by Jim Hinkley.