HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-23-1987w
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
• AGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY. FEBRUARY 23 . 1987
7 :30 P.M.
SUPERIOR COURTROOM
NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA
A. BOAR) COMMENTS.
B. AMDIBNCE COMMENTS,
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so
that you are not overlooked.)
2. Matters not on the Printed Agend
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange
County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct
themselves in a respectful, courteous manner. both with the
Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any
member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this
public charge. the Chair will ask the offending member to
leave the meeting until that individual regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored. the Chair will
recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
to this public charge is observed.
C. . 1J RODUCTO$Y J EM XS - COUNCILMAN DAVID GODSCHALK
- ALDERPERSON JUDITH WEGNER
PAGE NO. D. pUBjIC HEARINGS.
005 1. L&n1 Use Plan Amendments
a. JPA Land Use Plan - Expansion of Suburban Residential
Land Use Classification
b. JPA Land Use Plan - Boundary Designations for
Transition Area and Rural Buffer
019 2. Orange County-Carrboro Zoning Jurisdiction Boundary
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
025 a. Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots
031 b. Article 7 .20 PD-MHP Planned Development
Mobile Home Park District
PAGE NO.
4. Zoning At1.aB Amendments ,
057 a. Z-1-87 W.E. And Ruby Blackwood (R-1 to LC-1)
5. SubdivisiQf ReciD)-ations Amendments
071 a. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping and Buffer Requirements
079 6. Food Damage Prevention Ordinance Amendments
E. ADJOURNMENT
0 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
e
U�
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS
TO THE LAND USE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS , ZONING ORDINANCE,
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C.
Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North
Carolina , Chapter 153A, Section 323 and 343, Article 20-Sections
20.5 and 20.6 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, February
23 , 1987, at 7 :30 pm for the purpose of giving all interested
citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of
proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan, Zoning Atlas , Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE /
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan under
consideration are as follows:
1 . Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and text to
change the land use classification on approximately 1 ,500
acres of land from Rural Residential to Suburban
Residential . The property in question is located in the
upper portion of the Bolin Creek drainage basin and is
bounded generally by Duke Forest on the north, Union
Grove Church Road (SR 1179) and Dairyland Road (SR 1112)
to the west, NC Highway 86 and Buckhorn Creek to the
south, and Rogers Road to the east.
The current Rural Residential designation is assigned to
properties where development is to occur at densities of
no more than one ( 1 ) dwelling unit per two (2) acres of
land. The Suburban Residential classification allows
development densities ranging from one ( 1 ) to five (5)
. units per acre.
2. Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and text
by providing boundary designations for Rural Buffer and
Transition areas consistent with the countywide Land Use
Plan. The Rural Buffer designation includes land
adjacent to an Urban or Transition area and which is Q- 2
a
rural in character , should remain rural , contain very
low-density residential uses and not require urban
services. Transition areas include land that is in the
process of changing from rural to urban , that is suitable
for urban-type densities and should be provided with
public utilities and services.
ORANGE GOUNTy-CARRBORO ZONING ,JURISDICTION BOUNDARY
The Town of Carrboro currently exercises zoning,
subdivision and building inspection authority in approximately
1 ,800 acres of the University Lake watershed. Orange County
exercises similar authority in the remaining portion of the
watershed in the county.
Proposals will be made which would permit Orange
County to incorporate all of the watershed into its jurisdiction
and exercise zoning, subdivision and building inspection
authority therein . In return, Orange County would release to the
Town of Carrboro' s jurisdiction an area northwest of and adjacent
to the Town ' s current planning jurisdiction line. The first
proposal would be based on development densities equivalent to
that currently permitted in the University Lake portion of
Carrboro' s Jurisdiction, involving approximately 230 acres of
land. The second proposal would be based on an acre-for-acre
exchange, involving approximately 1 ,800 acres.
ZONING QEDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under
consideration are as follows:
1 . Amend Article 11 .7 NONCONFORMING LOTS by deleting
provisions which require the combination of contiguous
nonconforming lots to create conforming lots. The
amendment would allow owners of lots which do not meet
lot area and width requirements and which existed prior
to the adoption of zoning regulations to build a
one-family detached dwelling on each such lot in their
ownership, provided setback and applicable Health
Department regulations are met.
2 . Amend Article 7 .20 PD-MHP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MOBILE
HOME PARK DISTRICT by revising current design standards
for new mobile home parks. The design standards proposed
include , but are not limited to, a minimum lot size of
5 ,000 square feet; a minimum spacing between units of 20
feet/22 feet between units and the street ; requirements
for unit/street numbering; hard surfaced streets/minimum
of 18 feet in width; solid skirting or foundation
enclosures around each unit base; a 100-foot buffer
strip requirement along the project perimeter ; and
recreation areas as required by zoning and subdivision
regulations.
ORANGE COUNIY ZONING ATLAS
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas under
Immmim
consideration is as follows :
03
Z-1-87 W.E. AND. BUBY a, . BLACKWOOD
The property in question is located on the north side of N. C.
Highway 54 West at its intersection with White Cross Road (SR
1952) . It is known as lot number 9 of Tax Map 30 , and part
of lot number 13 of Tax Map 308 - Bingham Township. The
property contains 87 , 120 square feet or 2.0 acres. The
present zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) .
The proposed zoning classification is Local Commercial-1
(LC-1 ) .
ORANGE COUNT SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations
under consideration would revise Section IV-8-8 LANDSCAPING AND
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS by changing the standards for determining the
number of trees to be planted along street frontages and reducing
the minimum required tree/shrub size to be installed .
ELOOA DAMAGE PREVENTION QRDINANGE
The proposed amendment to the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance would make the provisions consistent with National
Flood Insurance Program floodplain management criteria revisions
enacted August 25 , 1986 . The criteria restrict manufactured
homes (mobile homes) from flood prone areas ; require
floodproofing of mechanical/utility equipment ; require fully
enclosed areas subject to flooding to allow for entry and exit of
floodwaters; modify requirements for certification of the lowest
floor elevation ; and require the use of base flood elevation and
floodway data.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be
heard. Public comment must be received during the public
hearing. Those wishing to oppose the proposals must provide
competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific
manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. Following
the close of the public hearing , only evidence presented at
public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board
of County Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect
debate, objections and discussion at the hearing .
Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to the Orange
County Planning Department. Copies of the proposed full
amendments are available in the Planning Department for public
review. The Planning Department is located in the New
Courthouse, 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. Office hours
are from 8:00 am to 5 :00 pm, Monday throu h Friday.
VA.(1104ii,
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: February 11 , 1987
February 18 , 1987
O R A N G E C O U N T Y 0 5
Y r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
_Meeting Date: February 23 , 1987
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - JPA LAND USE PLAN
(1) EXPANSION OF TRANSITION AREA
(2) BOUNDARY DESIGNATION-TRANSITION AREA/RURAL BUFFER
***************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: ,XYes No
***************************************************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins
Agreement in Principle- TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Joint Planning/Watershed Hillsborough 732-8181
Work Group; Planning Director Chapel Hill 967-9251
Memorandum of 2-20-87 . Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
***************************************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed
amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan.
NEED: On February 2, 1987 , the Board of Commissioners
adopted a resolution approving in concept an
"Outline of Agreement in Principle" prepared by
the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group. The
outline contained 13 statements addressing
mutual interests in land use and growth
management, annexation matters. and watershed
protection.
Among the 13 statements was a recommendation
that Orange County conduct a public hearing on
moving the Transition Area boundary north of
Carrboro back to the position proposed in the
joint Planning Area Land Use Plan of January 14.
1986 . Coupled with the Work Group
recommendation is a proposal to clearly
delineate Transition Area and Rural Buffer
boundaries.
IMPACT: Approval of the proposal would extend the
Transition Area north from its present
boundaries (Old N.C. 86 And Buckhorn Branch) to
Duke Forest, designating the area suitable for
development densities of 1-5 dwelling units per
acre.
The proposal is consistent with Joint Planning ?
growth strategies' provides for the economical
extension of gravity sewer systems► removes
existing and proposed developments from a
nonconforming status► and is in keeping with
Calvander area concerns about high density
housing and commercial/industrial development.
The proposal would not be consistent with Duke
Forest recommendations that property adjacent to
that facility be left in a rural state with
densities lower than one dwelling per acre.
Designation of Transition Area and Rural Buffer
boundaries would clarify jurisdictional
interests with respect to project review and
approval procedures under the terms of existing
or proposed Joint Planning Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Orange County Planning Board and
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for
recommendation.
1
DRAFT OUTLINE OF AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE FOR DISCUSSION BY JOINT PLANNING/
WATERSHED WORK GROUP
1/21/87
4:30 r�
Carrboro Town Hall Q 4
Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County agree to proceed as follows:
1. Commission a water supply watershed study covering University Lake
and Cane Creek; study to consider among other things, the means of
protection to be used in these areas (clustering, water and sewer
extension policy, annexation policy, etc.); committee with equal
representation from each elected' board, and technical advisory
group to participate in definition and decisions concerning study
2. Commission/undertake rural buffer study, to include standards
and means of maintenance (such as water and sewer extension policy,
clustering, impact fees, annexation policy, funding for acquisition
of open space, etc.)
3. Review by staff and planning boards of County and Carrboro ordinances
in water supply watersheds to determine need for changes to bring
into conformity
4. All agree to enter into joint planning agreement as soon as possible
5. All agree to review status of OWASA and relationship of OWASA to
elected boards and respective jurisdictions
6. All agree to work to develop effective system of conservation easeme:its
for use to protect watershed and rural buffer areas
7. County to go to public hearing on moving transition area line
north of Carrboro back to its earlier position (giving Carrboro
larger transition area to north to reduce pressure on watershed) ;
County also to go to hearing considering advisability of supporting
change in extraterritorial jurisdiction lines to swap area now in
watershed for equivalent area (based on capacity) north of town
boundary; Chapel Hill to support both proposals; Chapel Hill and
Carrboro request hearing to be held 2/17 or 2/23
8. Carrboro to defer action on density changes in University Lake
watershed until County resolves its position (or until watershed study comp]
Chapel Hill/Carrboro
9. Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and County agree that joint/courtesy review a-ea
will be established in the northern rural buffer area between 1-40 a-id
line .usedion tentative County-Chapel Hill joint agreement map
10. Carrboro to defer requesting water and sewer extensions into University
Lake watershed until watershed study is complete
11. Chapel Hill and Carrboro to agree not to annex into the rural buffer
or into each others' transition areas (either voluntary or involunta-y
annexation)
12. Carrboro to agree not to annex into watershed extraterritorial
jurisdiction pending completion of watershed study
13. Pending projects subject to review by Carrboro to be considered with eye to
watershed questions raised, and to legal requirements and equity issies
County and Chapel Hill positions may continue to be taken by their OlAr,ti Tom,
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Orange County Planning Board
County Manager
FROM: Planning Director
SUBJECT: Expansion of Transition Area - Joint Planning Area
Boundary Designation-Transition Area/Rural Buffer
DATE: February 20, 1987
This memorandum reviews proposed changes to the Joint Planning
Area (JPA) Land Use Plan adopted October 13, 1987. One change
involves the proposed expansion of the Suburban Residential land
use classification (Transition Area) to the dividing line between
Bolin Creek and New Hope Creek drainage basins. (See Exhibit A. )
Another change is the need to have consistent boundary
descriptions of the Transition Area and Rural Buffer in both the
JPA and Orange County Land Use Plans.
Background
On January 14 , 1986 , the first draft of the JPA Land Use Plan was
presented at public hearing. (See Exhibits B and C. ) The Plan
recommended that Bolin Creek basin be developed primarily at
densities of 2-5 units per acre (Suburban Residential
classification) . Peripheral areas and developments with an
average lot size of one acre were recommended for a Rural
Residential classification. Urban Residential or high density
development of 6-13 units per acre was recommended near the Old
N.C. 86/Homestead Road intersection and adjacent to Buckhorn
Branch and Old N.C. 86. A major commercial/industrial node was
recommended on Homestead Road.
A second public hearing was held on April 17 . 1986. A revision
was recommended to the Plan which affected the Bolin Creek basin
- combination of a small Rural Neighborhood node at Calvander
with the larger commercial/industrial node proposed in January.
(See Exhibit D.)
On August 5. 1986 . the Orange County Planning Board recommended
changes to the Plan based on evidence received at the April
public hearing and subsequent neighborhood meetings. An
important change was the deletion of the commercial/industrial
node proposed at Calvander. Coupled with this revision was the
deletion of high density Urban Residential areas and a reduction
in the Suburban Residential designations, both reflecting the
decreased demand for housing formerly associated with the
large-scale commercial/industrial center. Two weeks later, the
Board of County Commissioners adopted the JPA Land Use Plan.
including the proposed changes in Bolin Creek basin. subject to
the resolution of Plan differences with Chapel Hill. (See
Exhibit E. )
On October 13 , 1985 . the Board of Commissioners. in joint session z 0 1
with the Chapel Hill Town Council, approved the final version of
the JPA Land Use Plan and text. The Town of Carrboro
subsequently voiced its objection to the reduction of areas
designated for Suburban Residential development. A work group
comprised of representatives of both Towns and Orange County was
established and began meeting to resolve the matter as well as
others affecting the Joint Planning Area. A list of 13
principles proposed by the group was approved in concept by the
three jurisdictions., Among the principles was a proposal to
carry the expansion of the Transition Area (Suburban Residential
area) back to public hearing in February.
Summary of Key Issues
During the JPA Plan approval process and. afterward. several key
issues emerged concerning the boundary of the Transition Area in
Bolin Creek basin. They are summarized below.
apA St;ategy Plans
In initial drafts of the JPA Plan as well as the final document.
a series of strategy maps were presented which illustrated
different development strategies. The maps designated areas as
urban. transition and rural buffer and were intended to define
the boundary of the urban services district or transition area
for . Chapel Hill-Carrboro. All four maps indicated growth
occurring throughout Bolin Creek basin.
Utility System Expansion
Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) has advocated
designating the entire Bolin Creek drainage basin as Transition
Area. Portions of the basin are already served with gravity
sewer systems. and it would be desirable to steer expected urban
and suburban development into areas which can be served by
extensions of such systems rather than using more expensive and
complicated alternatives (pump stations and force mains) . OWASA
has also suggested that establishment of the Bolin Creek basin as
a Transition Area might indirectly reduce development pressure in
University Lake watershed.
Calvander Community
At the April public hearing and subsequent neighborhood meetings,
residents of the Calvander community voiced many coiacerns about
the Plan proposals. including the following:
1. Opposition to the proposed commercial/industrial
node and high density housing;
2. Concern about the proposed extension of Homestead
Road and northern loop system. particularly with respect
to increased traffic and the effects on University Lake
watershed;
3. Desire to retain "rural" character of Calvander area;
and
•
A 011
4. Concerns of urban expansion and subsequent annexation
by Carrboro.
Duke Forest
The northern boundary of Bolin Creek basin extends through the
Blackwood Division of Duke Forest. At the 17 April 1987 public
hearing, Judson Edeburn, Duke Forest Resource Manager, offered
the following comments:
"The Duke Forest is best able to operate as a natural outdoor
laboratory in a completely rural setting. Development of
land surrounding the Forest is. however, inevitable.
In that the Rural Residential, Agricultural Residential and
Rural Buffer categories seem the most compatible with Duke
Forest uses. all lands surrounding the Duke Forest should
receive one of these designations. This would require a
change in the proposed plan south of Eubanks Road and west of
Old N.C. 86 Neal Bald Mountain.
The R-1 zone. which permits one dwelling per acre may be too
dense to allow for a true rural buffer.
A density of fewer than one dwelling per acre may be more
appropriate for the Rural Buffer. "
Density 1tandards
Three categories of residential land use were proposed initially
in the JPA Land Use Flan: Urban (6-13 units/acre) ; Suburban
(2-5 units/acre) ; and Rural (one unit/acre) . The standards
ultimately adopted included a two-acre minimum lot size
requirement in the Rural Residential category. resulting in the
Suburban Residential density range expanding to 1-5 units/acre.
The adopted standards did create another problem - some existing
subdivisions and others under construction were initially in
compliance with the proposed standards. With adoption of the
Plan, they became nonconforming in terms of the two-acre lot size
requirement. As an example. Fox Meadow Subdivision was developed
partially before adoption of the Plan. The average lot size was
approximately one acre. After adoption of the Plan. Fox Meadow
remained in the Rural Residential land use category but
subsequent phases were confronted with adherence to the two-acre
lot size standard.
Implications
Approval of the proposed expansion of the Suburban Residential
classification to the boundaries of the Bolin Creek basin would
be consistent with the following:
1. The expansion allows for the logical extension of
gravity sewer systems;
2. The expansion is consistent with growth strategy maps
for urban development;
3 . The expansion is consistent with Calvander concerns
i 012
in that high density and commercial/industrial proposals
are not involved. A range of low to moderate-density
(1-5 units/acre) residential development is planned.
Application of specific densities to property could be
controlled through the rezoning or planned
development/special use permit process; and
4. The expansion would provide consistency between Plan
density standards and existing developments in the Bolin
Creek basin.
If approval is contemplated. provision should"be made to address
those concerns related to Duke Forest. Specifically. properties
adjacent to Duke Forest should be left in the Rural Residential
land use classification. This would provide a low-density land
use buffer adjacent to Duke Forest. -`
Transition Area/Rural Buffer Designation
The Orange County Land Use Plan contains two land use categories
which have teen_.. referenced often in the JPA Land Use Plan
approval process. These categories include: (1) Transition
Areas, or land in the process of changing from..rural to urban,
suitable for urban-type densities and which would be provided
with public utilities and services within' the planning period;
and (2) Rural Buffer. or land adjacent to a Transition Area which
is rural in character and which should remain rural. .contain very
low-density residential uses and not` ' require urban services
during the planning period.
While referred to frequently. Transition Area and Rural Buffer
boundaries have not been delineated on the JPA Land Use Plan.
Exhibit A illustrates existing boundaries for each category.
Suburban and Urban Residential land use designations have been
incorporated within the Transition Area boundaries where higher
densities are permitted. Land Use designations for Rural
Residential and Agricultural Uses predominate in the Rural Buffer
area. If the Suburban Residential classification is extended
further into Bolin Creek basin, the Transition Area boundary
would be shifted accordingly.
4(0„AJA;,(0
Marvin Collins
Planning Director
EXHIBIT A
` k-
i—r-6--- i1 . 3-i'1<ç �
•,i k, ./ i .., 60,,,,E. - %.. . , , . , ..,..-c-v\11 .• ,,
1:i.`5.---'' '''"\.61601.... 1 g
../ re'6 :% ‘‘fi ' / l''' "Y / ..., ei m;'-fr % LAT,d) ''.11:::'''';':-: --'-
° ".
Jill,-". ,. ,i 0_,
. Ralf,jill.‘le \ r) ,.topp_4.- 1 „.t., 14 :tr.- ° ?
dilw.gliiiiii _iii :F ��/ „�
• - �� ;.Iy,;':• 1► — —1
um•ro mars r : Wr ' • )'
..
.- .•' 4 U�V 1NtQ '1-. /.': • r.Y , '••!r/' Y '••: .'fir ,.,,,. y /
--(---.--' ' / 4 a - •'I/
�� 1 _ +i r'c: :�1�'' A ..,•-..,, fit- 'Pp -:- ::.1.): 4
`� x
-,/7-....e....:15, i %ir cb ■ .... -8.-4; 41,,„.,,,„,-, N, 40,,,,,;,'„ ...... -. ...:;91 Ao.. •::..:..........:...$.•
/ is-C. j
.r.,\,,,,\, i, ,..,:i 7-7 ,- •'... . ., ... -
• 'I ( V ° d'i\-Ne,k.A:fVf 4 '''f'74
r. .. : t 1 r - /e �i �//. /Ji',01K,p,-r-4-P'" ,j01 ..;...::-A.;.-.-• '„, Silk ..,
. s .. .(e ) ...7 '''”; _e_,.- \ / 1 44C'; ••-c.4....\\::. 1.:::;.,...0 i
--I '14, —I—...., . ,././ ----et, ' —/-wp. :F.....:.:.-:-: ::;.,:.: :3/4 ' PlOr3/4 at; i:..:.....:
J M " : � far f=3•. • ' /!• ;,` i " :.l';: :.: -• � • .-a E
•te . 1/4,,... k. '\'''''.4" .7-A1:1,:::•:'''.:111111111*k. ■.,,, HU. is, :.? ,
R i Ni '‘‘..„,•". ,.,''.-.••..:,.;i•"11411111110 ' 4-z• It •--• jam•� �eN k
: {' %: Vii ...::;: •.
FLIP 1,% '•▪.•»•; •.a 14,•► ;fir,21.......:•••:::•/::•::••
• : :•.
.s J r-. ��._ _ 1,• ,ice:• �•::----• •'4r� ?�1•w s{.?-.' ... -t• ::.; -.i•
.1 c' �;i ,.fit 1t...▪ ..:. '�'• •' "'' ``` �Ek 1
lo-
.i:;.1.4 ir..*:,:,i,'4. ..;•^_ ..:, 11
rn County • �We ,...r_-
LEGEND:
■
, Transition Area-Existing
-Transition Area Boundary
qi
scare: i
Carrboro-Chapel Hill Bndry •
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
•. \• Transition Area-Proposed
' EXHIBIT B - DRAFT JPA LAND USE PLAN PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING 1/ 14/86 't 0 14
(SEE EXHIBIT C FOR INSET)
f\— ( --
- -- n
^- - - ^r--_--i— q `r �r, � I
_ -
_
._____ -_______ 1' �`--r- 6--- ^_ \ " -.< y • I
[ ky`
QlI ., ', �',IrK,h A G ,
. \ ( ■ 4i.r5 --'1..-.. 1`uu��``l!I{�;'pc,i` �T'' • V"1('7• �_ / P n 1, ' I-,. .
�-C/pD �, • 1 r^ r `q��I 1 Il�li�'I}�fl., fWC ' _ te,:.-1,41 �1•
���y . 1 4..to , ,'r:.'.�1„ ..,'
R ) A' r
11 f *EL, ! ,,;;,T...igir
\ A i n1e J i; V iiiptik Q � , T'i^il-�7,' `� �..,; t. ,� .r� i'.I� '! r�r . p..•
sr.
r,i 1 J 14,•''�.G ?V AY. •+,.�� �3;J .f. .. '� �1"x/71{" %J�.
'� � ', rr i'�}-`e.{J;7~Y:I _ �� ��?"4 '::;if Ry,7fh ! 49...: l •C�i►"
.03 t' __ . . O ...i'i l'6, A I,IiilllllllTr,
,::X37, *�I �r IA T .,
1 i .� 'I C.I 1 III,,, {::.:. y� ,f I R11 �h ').
1; F' I II' �,•, 11 1;11,{l0 „ 1W i�£>;
'IIII ii' 4116 �,.
`5.• fi '�,'.L ''fY I I' (IIII, 1`�.—
lio .i�",� ! ,4 J;,I I III �.�f � nIPI1Il '� II''IIJ� � {:
IA _ y ", a tI;IISILx mll ,IIIW -^' 1
t � ��-t:''= illili o 11 V '.'lii''I�II11I E"hlll'u I. ,,' �`' , ,
'll., L � I III lu!q,
A ��. { ;III IIII; I;p ';;;'J',Ihi, -I,I I it luHb.. ��.li!I I�
'�I 1 I '�I',�li,l, ,Inn1dl.F i.". sLll'�IIII., IIp �J\=q`:-�. ''".'.w' I;.I I',
.. f /1111 I�ry III ' 4.1,i ll r 1% I .',..• -ii.i ,1�
e dl'I'IIIII III' f•"II�A!IIIN9°`'�1�'1I'll f� 1 ;pul''P'I� T�'1il';i;-r"._,.,... htill' -. I a-
, c
-,• -. ,, I' ,Ill 4k IIII.II {I.,.. (I 41, I'�'',I,- \ /�• • S•1 l 111'1:1'II' 1, illl 1 1 Al!I l I ,Ill 111 -'' II,.,, :I,Ii,--` 1. l/ -, O
-1.7 � I 111 II IIII '.I' �II�II:" 7 'I I'`IIIiIII„'il'I Ii^i''I„”_ U
I' ,.+' N.
11.'lil�ll '',II' 1i..II I: IIIII'iII �;!I,I 'II.IIIll' II,:r I; 1y _ __.. ; ��
iII I 1. I I' '1 11,11, I',; q
1:1111'1 II;,.:.^'�;::'.::' III,I l jilll III I'I�, ' `
�� I'I Ili l l''1. IIII c��lll l'd it Ild,:,,1„�I,I�'1.1'I I�II,,•� I ,III, "'� l_._�
II Imp n '.s^ 'll 'III' :'IIII. I �'ul:ll;ll ` ,...,..
/` I ,,1I,1�11 I� I' I'..'..� II,'il I'�.I II III':,,I`
11041 i''il II fI,III'.'::::::`:: ?::. �.7`.a '.'11111111 lll!'.II,,1;'llll,'II '.11i!,i ll.il—— ,',
J lil111.'I1'i'!l II II,I :11 ;,,,:'•�:''. 1,..I,,:,;rr- : ea .
1, I II�II� 1:' .. I III C.:: - �, a� co Ii /, .,1.1,',11 !..lil'IIi'M; I II ll.III 1:: ll'iII z d I 1,1,11 .PI,,,I;,• ',, !:N.: ._ .—.Iin�;, ' E��y ..Lnno it's:: ':.l ' IIII tf,t: -I IIrY I,I:: II„>.:'::'.111111,9II I I.,1I,1�. ., r.;.;rIii;rlll �II;;'I„I
` ao Ma.`� Ye .A :,,G 11� l—:_ ,nl,,. ] f / 1 pm Ny•
, ii r A l „M 'A �II;I,I.--ulll'r ; ■
t + • • Legend:
,. ^; r riMwil '1, RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS E
' f 'a ' L i PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS ;
re A1k �. fr°' gm AGRICULTURAL AREAS r c,
{ yy _ C• ' ', , I RURAL RESIDENTIAL �i' • i
VI A jr. ,.v` II!!n!iIIIV�IIll SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL _
"i �` :e URBAN RESIDENTIAL
d 'A A .:;ge,„ �s: �do OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL
�' cal14. • RETAIL TRADE � �Jn i Ng p4 A 1 ;, ; LIGHT INDUSTRIAL `fie I`'
1 e C iell;:I
`� �"'A "`” .. \•' 1 EXTRACTIVE DISPOSAL USES •
�A , A 1, oW*�.f.}} th ,,/ \�� Ma WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA --` .
/ 'I - h � •� �, cr.. O ACTIVITY NODE i
1 A •
.i; \ 1�� A 1 1 ` ,.IIM ',f:,:. L. b .re1Rn. ;. (, -;194 1.1
. 4, 'WO/ :
\ / / ? ' - •• -•
1 l4 ; '. to- w.f. ,. 'VW .1 t r. ,Z#."Iki”.: •
iff 4 ‘1• Wr.41,,, 7. Ilk ..,, ,...,,... :. JII_f" • ''..1 '....1?,,
r-.4.-L,7-ii '-'?‘ 'lift." --':'''
r+aaerr+eeir�• •�r■•rir.e /. "�I/�"mil",%II,',1'l'rIG ,
•
r ■ u '1. 1
Chatham County
_ DRAFT - sCALLEL
JOINT PLANNING AREA 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
LAND USE PLAN t"• 2000
EXHIBIT C - PLAN FOR BOLIN CREEK BASIN AREA AS PRESENTED
IN DRAFT JPA LAND USE PLAN OF 1114186
Legend:
RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS
. PUBLIC /PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS
0 AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Q RURAL RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
® OFFICE/ INSTI TUTIONAL
RETAIL TRADE
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXTRACTIVE DISPOSAL USES_
® WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA
O ACTIVITY NODE
j
SCALE
iii �lli woo i
0
'ti
EXHIBIT E - -PLAN ''OR BOLIN CREEK BASIN AREA AS
ADOPTED BY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS 10/13/86
Legend:
RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS
" PUBLIC /PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS
Q AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Q RURAL RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
®
OFFICE/ INSTITUTIONAL
RETAIL TRADE
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
EXTRACTIVE DISPOSAL USES.
® WATER QUALITVCRITICAL AREA
ACTIVITY NODE
SCALE
0 2000 .4 00 6000 8000
L_
O R A N G E C O U N T Y 019
1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 23 . 1987
Action Agenda
Item# _
SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO ZONING JURISDICTION BOUNDARY
***************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X_Yes No
***************************************************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins
Agreement in Principle- TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Joint Planning/Watershed Hillsborough 732-8181
Work Group; Watershed Area Chapel Hill 967-9251
Development Density Calculations; Durham 688-7331
Zoning Jurisdiction Map. Mebane 227-2031
***************************************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed
exchange of extraterritorial jurisdiction area
between Orange County and the Town of Carrboro.
NEED: On February 2. 1987 , the Board of Commissioners
adopted a resolution approving in concept an
"Outline of Agreement in Principle" prepared by
the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group. The
outline contained 13 statements addressing
mutual interests in land use and growth
management, annexation matters. and watershed
protection.
Among the 13 statements was a recommendation
that Orange County conduct a public hearing on
the advisability of a change in extraterritorial
jurisdiction lines. Carrboro would release to
Orange County' s jurisdiction approximately 1800
acres in University Lake watershed. In return,
Orange County would release acreage north of
Carrboro to the Town' s jurisdiction.
Two alternatives are to be considered, with some
variation between the positions possible. One
alternative is an acre-for-acre exchange.
Approximately 1800 acres of land in Bolin Creek
basin would be released to Carrboro in return
for that portion of University Lake watershed in
the Town' s jurisdiction.
The second alternative would involve a much
smaller land area in Bolin Creek basin. Based
on existing zoning designations in the Carrboro
portion of University Lake watershed. 1140 020 0
dwelling units could be constructed. Assuming a
density allowance of five (5) units per acre
north of Carrboro. 228 acres would be required
to provide for the construction of an equivalent
number of units.
IMPACT: Approval of an exchange would place all of
University Lake watershed under Orange County' s
jurisdiction except those portions within
Carrboro' s corporate limits. One obvious
benefit would be uniformity of regulations
within the watershed. Property owners would not
confronted with different and sometimes
conflicting requirements and pu--1cies.
A disadvantage would be the loss of
representation before the Board of Commissioners
by those county residents north of Carrboro.
Offsetting this loss would be the gain by those
residents living in the University Lake portion
of Carrboro' s jurisdiction.
RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Orange County Planning Board and
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for
recommendation.
•
DRAFT OUTLINE OF AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPIAMMEM
LE FOR DISCUSSION BY JOINT PLANNING/02i
WATERSHED WORK GROUP
1/21/87
4:30
Carrboro Town Hall 04
Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County agree to proceed as follows:
1. Commission a water supply watershed study covering University Lake
and Cane Creek; study to consider among other things, the means of
protection to be used in these areas (clustering, water and sewer
extension policy, annexation policy, etc.); committee with equal
representation from each elected' board, and technical advisory
group to participate in definition and decisions concerning study
2. Commission/undertake rural buffer study, to include standards
and means of maintenance (such as water and sewer extension policy,
clustering, impact fees, annexation policy, funding for acquisition
of open space, etc.)
3. Review by staff and planning boards of County and Carrboro ordinances
in water supply watersheds to determine need for changes to bring
into conformity
4. All agree to enter into joint planning agreement as soon as possible
5. All agree to review status of OWASA and relationship of OWASA to
elected boards and respective jurisdictions
6. All agree to work to develop effective system of conservation easem
for use to protect watershed and rural buffer areas efts
7. County to go to public hearing on moving transition area line
north of Carrboro back to its earlier position (giving Carrboro
larger transition area to north to reduce pressure on ;
County also to go to hearing considering advisability oft supporting
change in extraterritorial jurisdiction lines to swap area now in
watershed for equivalent area (based on capacity) north of town
boundary; Chapel Hill to support both
Carrboro request hearing to be held 2/17oors2/23 Chapel Hill and
8. Carrboro to defer action on density changes in University Lake
watershed until County resolves its position
(or until watershed stuc!y campy
9. Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and County agree that Chapel
a-ea
will be established in the northern rural buffer area between 1-40 a•id
line .used on tentative County-Chapel Hill joint agreement map
10. Carrboro to defer requesting water and sewer extensions into Univers .t
Lake watershed until watershed study is complete y
11. Chapel Hill and Carrboro to agree not to annex into the rural buffer
or into each others' transition areas ffta
annexation) (either voluntary or involunta y
12. Carrboro to agree not to annex into watershed extrate
jurisdiction pending completion of watershed study rritorial
13. Pending projects subject to review by
watershed questions raised, and to le aarrboro to be considered with e
fi requirements and equity isS1e�e to
County and Chapel Hill positions may continue to be taken by tIu fr nineA
•
02}2
CARRBORO EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING DISTRICT
—WATERSHED AREA
WATERSHED ZONE ACRES UNITS PERMITTED
C 411 Acres 0 Units
R-80 747 Acres 407 Units
R-40 554 Acres 603 Units
R-20 60 Acres 130 Units
WM-3 ' :. .21 Acres --
g-5 • 12 Acres •
T O T A L S: 1,805 Acres •1,140 Units
(at 5 units/acres = 228 acres)
NOTE: All density information is calculated according to
gross area without regard to area required for
road right-of-way and other factors which would.
reduce actual density.
r
4
/I A I
:'"."*"r PROPOSED TRANSITION WNe r r ( .- I I - \, -
ii-
r^ /I g.^. :.',7"_mow 41-4..4i��•'1-'"! I -it. 3
. / •/ ■r— 1. �
/A :._ X17,ACn[�•: +.2 i I' I .- .
bilid I ,-,
∎ u�...� 1 III �'`�x� ��/1 ti...�! ■.
I ilk' TRADE • INIM
TAj1iIIRI• u: t. i
_,-;,,,..40,-,0. .ww.ciefOro.-70i$04,71::•-;ietow."Japja ....4 Iii''''-1 V:}7.:eig.liffilicirit?" AM, VA.'' .40°)41101
a .• `. � F ,
111N5 iiik
Y a r:
447" ,,ir- lift .1■111tr,,,agilliTEMIMIL... - - / I _...4.11
• %-t--1 -'"Cir-14 -.:-:•:-":..:.;WIPfr. . , 2-‘ ' i'.1' ......---"<..._
_ - :1�Ywi:IC +xr,1 /.-
�? �-/ "MAD AREA(a7 5 UN•.:s r ,c ?'';,''r•;;;
y S S',
Ty -228-ACRES , .A ;, ,#.;S.ii
`fir ,i• .J('
1
it Ni, �� 1iDt.,,,"rs: I
, $1,/ i N.._ ■_ \ R/ ••••.: ir--.?rf.:'/;■!'-4i. '- (YrY
7F,'r leg-- 11 tir 7.,.1:Y/MI5,x,, 1 _ ' . ` . . r.,rjyts,1Fs Muir,. 1,
- r7,�7r �:_ ����L� :� Itllli ITNUUlult 41i iP : 18 j '�
,... Y r ammo onimmo �� a-10 '•`�
,...e, ti1ii5,. e....4. 4,. tt#,0t..4 _..,4,.,.ix.. ,,,./ :)//,,,wr,a,.... .,v, ■1,,,6r,.._4,
NIL •••", . A - ‘ - ' '•'. 7 i, Mr;4.t4441blik,70734te) ' "4` ' -v "
la iii ------- 41:111 \. - /; • 'i •,k :- V4VAri,l'AT., <'' ,-1: , ' ---ei--- • -
. imil tti-- 'ill:- •. 0- . "',11- /
•
'Pia-I .:
a , WAECHSD. al‘ 1-__.: .., 4,, ..'41111° ---iistc.1. �-
Jr- 1 ,
- CI* , -0 1. I-ill ; \ \\Os .,,,„ Vito,*.4-11(1:11-1,141114 al .4, 4.11,11 '
i ) i liti.,.„3,,,rilliE,_ .,,.,:ity _11
1 i * ---: %,_ 0 -...) ----;1.17%\--.,.,!CL ..4 -. ,;" \ Li ,,..,,,,. .,,,,,,., i.„0,,„ p,„_._.- , .,
--'____TIMiik illoe 7
}
ORANGE COUNTY 025
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 23, 1987
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(ARTICLE 11.7 NONCONFORMING LOTS)
***************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _x_Yes No
***************************************************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins
Proposed Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Amendment Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
***************************************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
NEED: Article 11.7 of the Zoning Ordinance requires
that nonconforming lots of record. in the same
ownership and with continuous frontage. be
combined to create conforming lots.
On January 5. 1987 . the Board of Commissioners
approved the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district
designation and its application to 38.000 acres
of land surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
area. Data from the Orange County Land Records
Office indicates that 244 lots (5.7% of all
lots) would have to be combined to meet the
two-acre minimum lot size requirement. Of these
lots. 142 (3.3% of all lots) are developed.
A moratorium on enforcement of Article 11.7 was
approved by the Commissioners. pending a public
hearing to consider revisions to the
requirements. Any amendment would be applicable
in all zoned townships.
IMPACT: Approval of the amendment would allow the
construction of single-family detached dwellings
and customary accessory structures on
nonconforming lots of record. .As applied to
the Rural Buffer district, the amendment would
affect 102 lots (2.4% of all lots) .
Historically. subdivision activity has been 026
greater in Chapel Hill Township. Application in
all zoned townships would affect a smaller
proportion of lots.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed amendment.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
� S
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance 027
REFERENCE: Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: .,,,X_Staff_X_Planning Boa rd_X_BOCC__Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_x_High_MiddleLow
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 23, 1987
***********************************************
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 11.7 of the Zoning
Ordinance which requires nonconforming
lots of record, in the same ownership and
with continuous frontage, to be combined
to create conforming lots. A "lot of
record" is a lot created by deed or plat
prior to the existence of or amendment to
zoning regulations applicable to the lot.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: On January 5, 1987. the Board of Commissioners
enacted provisions creating a Rural Buffer (RB)
zoning district and establishing a two-acre
minimum lot size requirement therein. The
provisions were applied to 38,000 acres of land
surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area.
Data from the Orange County Land Records Office
indicates that 244 lots (5.7% of all lots) in
the Rural Buffer are less than two acres in
size, in the same ownership and of continuous
frontage. The lots would have to be combined to
meet the minimum lot size standard of two acres.
142 (3.3% Of all lots) of the lots are
developed.
The Board of Commissioners placed a moratorium
on enforcement of Article 11.7, pending a public
hearing to consider revisions to or deletion of
the provisions. Any amendment would be
applicable in all zoned townships.
Approval of the amendment would permit
construction of single-family dwellings on 102
lots (2.4% of all lots) in the Rural Buffer
district. Historically, sibdivision activity
has been greater in Chapel Hill Township.
Application of the amendment to all zoned
townships would affect a smaller proportion of
lots.
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Forsyth County, and
Mecklenburg County require the combination of
nonconforming lots to meet ordinance standards.
Wake County and Durham County do not. Alamance 028
County does not enforce zoning. 4
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: See attached.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Revised wording for Article 11.7
is as follows:
11.7 limICAataLain Lots
11.7.1 Use of Nonconforming Lots for One-Family
Detached Dwellings
A one-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory structures may be erected. occupied
and used on a separate nonconforming lot of
record in accord with other requirements
applying in the zoning district.
11.7.2 Rules Concerning Combination of Contiguous.
Nonconforming , Lots in Same Ownership and With
Continuous, R,ron�L Exception
(This article would be deleted in its entirety.)
*******,gar*******************************************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE:
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
ommmm
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
11.7 Non-Conforming Lots
•
11.7.1 Use Of Single Non--Conforming Lots For One-Family Detached Dwellings
• .. S
A one-family detached dwelling and customary accessory struc-
tures may be erected, occupied and used on a separate non-con-
forming lot of record, not in continuous frontage with other lots
in the same ownership in accord with other requirements apply-
.
ing in the districts.
l]•.7.2 Rules Concerning Combination Of Contiguous Non-Conforming Lots
In Same ownership• And With Continuous Frontage; Exception '
a) Combinations Required Where Non-Conformity was Created at
Enactment or Amendment of this Ordinance
Where two or more non-conforming lots in single ownership and
with continuous frontage exist, they shall be considered a single
zoning lot ands. Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing their use
shall only be issued when the lot area and lot width require-
ments are met for the district in which the lots are located,
except as provided in b) , below.
b) Exception: 80% Rule Applicable Where Three Lots or Less are
Involved
Where land in single ownership at the time of passage of this
ordinance and in continuous frontage is of sufficient width and
area to provide at least 80% of the width and area required for
three lots or less, it may be used and/or divided to provide no
more than three lots, each with at least 80% of the width and
area required in the district in which they are located.
c) Rules for other Combinations of Lots
Frontage of greater dimension than in b) above, if divided, shall
conform to all applicable district regulations, except that in
the division one remaining lot may have not less than 80% of
width and area generally required. Full yard requirements shall
apply to all of the newly created lots.
d) Combination Not Required Where tom-Conformity Created by Public
Taking or Court Order
Where the non-conforming lots were created by public taking
action or as a result of a court order, combination of the lots
shall not be required.
ORANGE COUNTY 031
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 23. 1987
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(ARTICLE 7 .20 -- PD-MHP MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT)
***************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: ___..X Yes No
***************************************************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins
Proposed Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Amendment Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
***************************************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
NEED: New mobile home parks must be approved as
planned developments and require the issuance of
a special use permit prior to construction.
Article 7 .20 of the Zoning Ordinance contains
design standards applicable to such parks. The
standards were adopted March 18. 1986.
Since November 3. 1986 . the Planning Board
Ordinance Review Committee has been working with
mobile home park owner/operators in reviewing
the design standards. The proposed revisions
represent changes to Article 7.20 as applicable
to new mobile home parks.
IMPACT: Approval of the amendment would allow more
flexibility in the design of mobile home parks
while addressing public health and safety
concerns.
The proposed standards provide for: smaller
mobile home spaces; foundation enclosures of
uniform design; unit access per State Building
Code standards; flexible setback standards;
street design standards; unit/street numbering
as well as traffic control signs; properly
maintained grounds; recreation areas; and
landscaping limited to buffer standards and
dumpster screening.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed amendments.
032
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance 033
REFERENCE: Article 7 .20 - PD-MHP Planned Development
Mobile Home Park District
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff_X_Planning Board_X_BOCC_Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_x_High_Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 23. 1987
t*********************************************;r
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 7.20 of the
Zoning Ordinance to address concerns
regarding development standards applicable
to new mobile home parks.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: On April 7. 1986 , the Board of Commissioners
placed a moratorium on the enforcement of
development standards contained in Article 7.20
as applied to existing mobile home parks. The
Board also directed the Planning Board to review
the standards and prepare a recommendation
regarding their application.
On September 16. 1986, the Board of
Commissioners, acting on the recommendation of
the Planning Board, conducted a public hearing
for the purpose of deleting Article 6.21.1 (a)
of the Zoning Ordinance. The provision made the
standards contained in Article 7 .20 applicable
to existing mobile home parks.
On November 3. 1986, the Board of Commissioners.
upon the Planning Board' s recommendation.
approved the deletion of Article 6.21 .1 (a) from
the Zoning Ordinance. Further study of the
mobile home park standards and their
applicability was also directed by the Board.
Since November 3. the Planning Board Ordinance
Review Subcommittee has been working with three
mobile home park owner/operators in reviewing
zoning provisions applicable to mobile home
parks. The proposed revisions represent changes
recommended to Article 7.20 as applicable to new
mobile home parks.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: See attached.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: See attached. Principal amendments to
Article 7.20 include the following:
(1) The mobile home space requirement
is reduced from 101000 to 5,000 square 034
feet. The reduced standard is based on
the model ordinance of the N.C.
Manufactured Housing Association. (Art . 7 . 20 .4 A )
Zoning district lot size requirements
are employed to control density rather
than enforcing a minimum standard of
10,000 square feet. Further density
control would be determined by method
of sewage disposal and water supply,
and Health Department standards
applicable to each. (Art . 7 . 20 .4 J . )
(2) Requirements for patios and decks
have been deleted. Mobile home
entrances vary by type of unit. Each
time a mobile home is replaced. patios
and decks would have to be shifted. (Art . 7 . 2o .4B)
(3) Specific setback distances from mobile
home space boundaries have been
deleted. Instead, spacing requirements
between units have been used to allow
owner/operators more flexibility in
placement of units on lots. The
minimum spacing required between
individual units is 20 feet. A 22-foot
setback requirement is mandated between
a mobile home and the street on which
the space fronts. (Art . 7 . 20 .40 )
(4) Mobile homes are required to provide
solid foundation enclosure or skirting
within 90 days of placement on a space.
The type of skirting must be uniform
throughout the park. (Art . 7 . 20 .4D)
(5) Access to entrances must be provided
in compliance with the N.C. State
Building Code. (Art . 7 . 20. 40)
(6) Streets must be at least 18 feet in
width and located in at least a 40 foot
right-of-way. Streets must be hard
surfaced. and cul-de-sacs must not
exceed 800 feet in length. (Art . 7 . 20 . 4E)
(7) Traffic control signs must be placed
in appropriate locations in the park,
and an approved unit numbering system
for the park provided to emergency
services personnel. Mobile homes must
have appropriate numbers located
thereon and in conformance with the
approved numbering system. (Art . 7 . 20 .4F)
(8) Grounds and buildings must be
maintained free of noxious weeds.
rimm
• abandoned appliances, automobiles and 035
other similar nuisances. (Art . 7 . 20 .40)
(9) Recreation areas are to be provided in
accordance with the Subdivision
Regulations and applicable provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance. (Art . 7 . 20.4x)
(10) Landscaping and screening is limited to
a 100 foot buffer requirement and
screening around trash containers
(dumpsters) . (Art . 7 . 20 . 4I )
*****************************************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: January 20 , 1987
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS (Fib
10 . Outdoor illumination of buildings , outdoor storage dreas4
and parking areas shall be designed and located to
prevent glare on adjacent property . It shall be tr-
applicant 's responsibility to show that the propos
lighting can meet this requirement .
11 . The applicant shall provide any other information
requested by the County to adequately review the
Protected Watershed Industrial Planned Development .-7 .20 h -'fit • ' 1/4t " 1 ► . - -y6 . ; , y • • L ;
The following regulations and requirements apply to Planned
Development-Mobile Home Park (PD-MHP) districts .
7 .20 .1 PD-MAP District: Defined . Intent. Where Permitted
PD-MHP districts may hereafter be established in accordance with the
general procedures and requirements set forth in Sections 7 .4 through
7 .9 , and with intensities and in locations in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Atlas , and the standards set forth
herein.
The purpose of this district is to provide for the development of
properly located and planned facilities for mobile home parks .
Adequate housing is fundamental to the welfare of County residents ;
however , conventional housing is not consistently affordable to , ,r
appropriate for, all members of the general public . Where pro_ y
regulated and located , mobile home parks address the public need ror.
alternative housing and achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjoin-
ing and nearby property.
The district shall be located in such a manner as to be compatible
with the character of existing development of surrounding properties ,
thus ensuring the continued conservation of building values and
encouraging the most appropriate use of land in the County .
Therefore , when evaluating an application for this district , emphasis
is given to the location of a proposed mobile home district , the
relationship of the site and site development plan to adjoining
property , and the development itself.
7 .20.2 k . y _ . 41 . _ ; ; - . - . - , 1 -
The minimum area of any site to be developed as a mobile home park
shall be ten ( 10) contiguous acres and the maximum area shall be
twenty-five (25) contiguous acres , including rights-of-way and utility
easements . (See definition of "mobile home park ," Article 22 of this
ordinance) .
7 .20 .3
Permitted principal uses and structures , as well as accessory use d
structures within the mobile home park district are listed below .
7-38
037
a. Mobile homes , as defined in Article 22 of this ordinance .
b . Caretaker 's or manager 's home or office .
•
a . Service buildings and areas necessary to provide washing and
drying machines for domestic laundry , sanitation , rest rooms ,
storage , vending machines , and other similar services provided by
the facility for the use and convenience of the mobile home park
tenants .
d . Recreation buildings/facilities and areas serving only the mobile
home park in which they are located .
e . Customary accessory buildings and facilities necessary for
operation of the mobile home park in which they are located .
f. Storage buildings (no longer than 12 feet by 12 feet in base , and
10 feet in height) for individual mobile home spaces .
g . Fenced , communal storage areas provided by the park operator for
boats, campers , and other accessory vehicles belonging to park
residents .
h . Sales of mobile homes to be located within the district are
permitted only for mobile homes which are already located on
approved and established mobile home lots or spaces .
T •1
a) Mobile home space requirements are specified below.
1 . A mobile home park shall be divided into mobile home spaces , with
the limits of each space clearly established on the ground by
permanent stakes . The minimum area of a space shall be ten
thousand ( 10 ,000) square feet per living unit; provided , however
that the Orange County Health Department may increase the minimum
area requirement for the park and/or individual spaces where
necessary to be consistent with groundwater resources and/or
limitations of sewage disposal systems . (See definition of
"mobile home space ," Article 22 of this ordinance .) The space
shall be of sufficient size to meet minimum dimensional , area and
separation requirements for the anticipated size and character of
the mobile home and any additions to be placed on the space . ( See
8 .8 .26 .4.4d of this section for separation requirements .)
2 . The location of the mobile home spaces on the ground shall be
approximately the same as those shown on the approved plans . The
degree of accuracy obtainable by working with a scale on the plan
and then a tape on the ground is acceptable . Precise engineering
or surveying of space limits is not required either on the plans
or on the ground .
7-39
038
3 . Only one ( 1 ) mobile home may be erected on any mobile home space
at one time .
4 . Each mobile home must be placed on a permanent stand or pad " t
to the specifications listed below.,
a . Each stand must comply with those standards specified in the
" , • - • f ' M. . le R. . " s _ c .
Bodular Housing",. The remaining area of the stand ( that
. area of the stand which extends beyond. the area on which the
unit has been placed) must have a base of at least three
inches of compacted crushed stone , gravel, or paved slab .
b . The location of each mobile home stand 'must be at an
elevation, distance and angle in relation to the adjacunt
access drive so that placement and removal of the mobile
home is practical by means of customary moving equipment .
a . The 'surface of each mobile home stand or pad and the area
around it shall be graded where necessary for proper
drainage .
d . The following separation requirements shall pertain to every
mobile home , single wide or double wide , within the park:
1 ) Minimum Depth of Front Yard*
Twenty-five (25) feet measured from the street right
- way line .*
2) Minimum Width of Side Yard*
Ten ( 10) feet .
3) Minimum Depth of Rear Yard*
Ten ( 10) feet .
* The term "yard" in this context is used to describe the
placement of the mobile home• within the mobile home
space and is not a "setback" requirement as defined in
Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance .
e . No mobile home stand may be located with direct access to a
public street .
f. An attached structure such as an awning , cabana , storage
building , carport , windbreak , or porch which has a floor
area larger than 25 square feet and is roofed will be
considered to be part . of the mobile home stand for purposes
of determining separation requirements.
5 . Each mobile home must have a permanent patio located adjacer o
• 7-40
039
or attached to the mobile home stand . The patio must be built to
the standards below.
a. Each patio must be at least one hundred eighty ( 180) square
feet in area .
b . Each patio must have sufficient gradient to provide for
adequate drainage away from the mobile home stand .
c . Each patio must have a well graded , well drained and
compacted base and be constructed of portland cement or
masonary .
6 . Each mobile home space shall have off-street parking facilities
for two (2) vehicles . Each parking space must be at least one
hundred eighty ( 180) square feet in area , with a minimum width of
nine (9) feet . It must be surfaced with at least four ( 4) inches
of compacted crushed stone .
7 . A walkway (constructed of compacted wood chips , crushed stone ,
gravel, or concrete) must be constructed for each mobile home
space to connect the parking spaces and the patio .
8 . The park must remain in unitary ownership with no sale of spaces
to an individual.
9 . The applicant must submit a numbering/location system of the park
to the Orange County Planning Department .
10 . The applicant must submit to the Orange County Planning
Department tenancy rules and regulations including , but not
limited to:
a . Prohibiting junked and/or abandoned vehicles within the park .
b . Prohibiting the accumulation of rubbish .
c . Prohibiting outside storage of any nature.
b)
1 . A mobile home park must have a minimum frontage consistent with
the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located .
If the proposed lot for the development of a mobile home park is
a lot of record , there must be a minimum frontage of sixty ( 60)
feet along a publicly dedicated street .
2 . The minimum setback of the park from a public street must be
consistent with the requirement of the zoning district in which
it is located . No parking is permitted in the required setback .
3 . Mobile home stands must be located at least one hundred ( 100)
7-41
040
feet from any exterior property line which is not a street righ'
of way , regardless of the zoning district .
c)
In order to control erosion, all disturbed land areas shall be
protected by a vegetative ground cover . (See definition of "grounc
cover" in the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Contro]
Ordinance) . The mobile home park must be designed and graded in suet
a manner as to provide for the adequate runoff of stormwater . Star-
drains must be provided with sufficient inlets located at points oz
surface water accumulation to adequately intersect surface flow. Any
other necessary requirements of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentatior
Control Ordinance shall be applicable . Protected water supply
watershed standards may also be applicable .
d) Vehiqular Access,
1 . The travelway for all streets within a mobile home park shall be
20 ' in width and must satisfy the drainage standards specified in
Orange County's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance .
All streets shall be constructed to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation 's depth of base and pavement requirements
specified in the Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction
Sdards ., All streets shall be identified by names approved by
the Orange County Planning Department . Street signs constructed
to Orange County standards must be installed outside the r4eht
of-way at all intersections . The approved streets and ■s
shall be used to assign mobile home space identification num. a .
2 . Every street shall have a maintained six (6) foot wide reserved
strip running parallel and adjacent to each side of the paved
surface . Such strip shall be used for walkways , driveways ,
grass , low-growing- vegetative ground cover, or utility right-of-
way only. No other use shall be permitted on a reserved strip .
3 . Each mobile home space shall abut upon an improved street which
shall have unobstructed access to a public thoroughfare .
4 . No mobile home space shall have direct vehicular access to any
thoroughfare other than those thoroughfares located within the
mobile home park .
5 . Unless unusual topography or configuration of property lines
dictates otherwise , cul-de-sac streets in mobile home parks shall
have a maximum length of 500 feet .
6 . Plans for ingress to and egress from each mobile home park shall
be approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation .
e) �dentifieat_icn inns
In order to prevent the occurrence of distractions to pa g
7-42
041
motorists and to prevent conflicts with adjoining uses , permanent
identification signs for mobile home parks are regulated as follows:
1 . Such signs shall be located on private property , and shall be
erected so that no part of it intrudes into the sight
preservation triangle (see subsection 9 .2 of this ordinance) .
2 . Such signs may be illuminated , provided that indirect ,
nonflashing lighting is used , and provided that each sign is
constructed in such a manner as to prevent a direct view of the
light source from any public street or right-of-way.
3 . Such signs shall be limited to sixteen ( 16) square feet in area;
the top of such signs shall not be higher than ten ( 10) feet
above the ground .
44. There shall be no more than one ( 1 ) double-faced sign or two (2)
single-faoed ,opposite-facing signs per park entrance .
f)
In order to eliminate visual distractions to passing motorists , reduce
levels of noise , dust , or glare , preserve the character of existing
neighborhoods , and in other ways serve the purposes of zoning , mobile
home parks shall be screened on all sides of the mobile home park from
adjacent highways and from existing , adjoining , conventional
residential developments or existing mobile home parks . Consideration
shall be given to topography, vegetation, site design and land uses in
the evaluation of the extent of required screening . Mobile home parks
must be located at least one-hundred ( 100) feet from any exterior
property line which is not a street right-of-way, regardless of the
zoning district . The disturbance of land within the one hundred ( 100)
foot buffer is prohibited . Existing vegetation within the 100 ' buffer
must be retained . Additional plantings may be required upon site
inspection to satisfy Class "A" screening requirements (See Article 12
of this Ordinance) along the perimeter of the site . If there is no
existing vegetation , planting will be required within the one-hundred
( 100) foot buffer to satisfy Class "A" screen requirements .
The following standards will govern the installation of screening for
bulk refuse containers (dumpsters) :
1 . the installation of a six (6) foot high stockade or redwood
fence so as to provide a continuous screening barrier; or
2 . the installation of a six (6) foot high evergreen hedge or
shrubbery so as to provide a continuous screening barrier . A
hedge of at least three ( 3) feet in height may be installed
initially provided it will reach six (6 ) feet within a two-year
period . (See Article 12 of this ordinance for planting
requirements .)
The following standard will govern the installation of interior
7-43
042
landscaping and materials:
An evergreen hedge or shrub of at least three ( 3) feet in he; `•
must be planted for every three ( 3) linear feet along e
separation line between units so as to provide a continuous
landscape barrier;
The following standard will govern the installation of street frontage
landscaping materials:
An evergreen hedge or shrub at least three ( 3) feet in height or
a small tree (See Article 12 of this ordinance) must be planted
for every five ( 5) linear feet along the edge of the road right
of-way, except for areas designated for driveway access to
mobile home spaces/lots .
These requirements are in addition to and do not replace Article 12
requirements applicable to the zoning district .
g) ,$anitary Facilities.. Water Sunoly . Garbage Collection . Mail Delivery,
and Utilities
In every mobile home park , all utility installations shall comply with
applicable building and health codes of Orange County and the State of
North Carolina , and the requirements of the North Carolina Utilities
Commission.
1 . Itaittjag_r_dattjar,_ligig_atizia. Each mobile home stand sha' e
equipped with water and sanitary sewer connections .
2 . Each mobile home shall be connected to
utilities provided at each mobile home space .
3 . Each mobile home park shall obtain water from
either a public water supply or a source as approved by the
Orange County Health Department , the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Services or successor agencies .
The above mentioned agent shall determine if the water supply and
pressure is adequate for the park requirements .
4 . Sewag.e and Refuse _Disposal ., Each mobile home park shall be
provided with an adequate sewage disposal system, either by
connection to a public sewer system or to a system constructed in
compliance with the regulations of the Orange County Health
Department , the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Services , or successor agencies .
5 . Garbage Disposal . All garbage and refuse for individual units in
each mobile home park shall be stored in suitable waterproof and
rodentproof receptacles which shall be kept covered with tightly
fitting lids . A central collection system must be provided wi*' 4n
the park either through a private collection service •
individual units or through the use of bulk contai.._.•s
-, I.I.
043
(dumpsters) . Where the latter are used , there must be a bulk
container (dumpster) per every six (6) mobile homes . For mobile
home parks with less than six ( 6) homes , one ( 1) container is
required. Bulk containers shall be front-loading wherever
practicable . A side loading container may be allowed where the
provision of a front loading container is not feasible and the
property is accessible to a regular route of a side-loading
refuse collection vehicle .
Bulk refuse containers and required screening devices must be
located so as to provide a minimum clearance of three ( 3) feet on
each side of a container.
A six (6) inch reinforced concrete pad shall be provided to set
the container and also to support the front wheels of the truck
during the loading operation. The pad shall be ten ( 10) feet wide
by twenty (20) feet long with at least ten ( 10) feet of the pad
accessible for the truck to drive onto in front of the dumpster
container for front-loading pickup . If side loading containers
are used , the pad may be twelve ( 12) feet wide by eight ( 8) feet
deep with no projection for the truck wheels .
6 . Mail pglivgrvt
Each mobile home park shall be provided with a clustered mail
delivery system which is in compliance with the appopriate postal
service guidelines . Consultation must be made with the
appropriate agency for provision of this system. The access to
the mail delivery facility must be so designed to allow 3-4 cars
to atop at the mail delivery facility without conflict from
passing vehicles .
•
h) Recreation Areas and Facilities
Adequate and suitable recreation areas shall be provided to meet
the anticipated needs of the residents of the mobile home park .
The character, shape and location of the recreational space shall
be suitable for active recreational purposes , taking into account
topography, convenient access for residentis , drainage , size and
proposed improvements . When choosing improvements for
recreational space, the anticipated characteristics and needs of
the residents shall be considered in conjunction with the size of
he development . At least 8% of the total site area must be
devoted to recreational uses . The provision of separate adult
and children 's recreation areas is encouraged .
Recreation areas include space for community buildings and
community use facilities , adult and child play areas . Suggested
improvements which are suitable for various age groups include ,
but are not limited to , the following:
RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Au 1R0UP FACILITY RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED
SPACE SIZE AND ORIENTATION
REQUIREMENTS DIMENSIONS
Families Tot Lot 2 ,000-4 ,000 Enclosed play None specified
1 . Fnr!ingad nlav MMe„ wo 11
4444,
area with play ft . per family .
apparatus Turfed area and
and sand box . shaded area of at
least 40 sq. ft .
2 . Open, turfed area each .
for active play.
3 . Shaded area for
quiet activity.
Families Basketball Court 4,400-8 ,000 46 ' x 74 ' to Long axis
Adults square feet 50 ' x 94 '
north-south
Court dimensions
with 5 ' unobstructed
space on all sides .
Families Tennis Court 6 ,200-8 ,400 36 ' x 780 JNTS Long axis
Adults square feet 12 ' clearance north-south
Senior on both sides;
Citizens 21 ' at both ends
Families Swimming Pool 0 .5-2 .0 Minimum of 27 None
Adults acres sq. ft. of water
Senior surface per
Citizens swimmer . Ratio of
2: 1 deck vs . water .
Families Badminton Court 1 ,500-2,600 Singles - 17 'x441 Long axis
sq. ft . Doubles - 20 'x44 ' north-sour
with 5 ' unobstructed
space on all sides
Families Volleyball Court 2 ,800-4 ,000 30 ' x 60; with Long axis
Adults sq . ft . 10 ' clearance north-south .
on all sides .
Families Soft Ballfield 1 .5-2 .0 Baselines - 65 ' Locate home
Adults acres Pitching distance plate so
40 '-46 ' . Field pitcher throw-
radius from ing across sun
plate-275 ' and batter not
between foul facing it .
lines . Line from home
plate through
pitchers mound
runs east-
northeast
Families Soccer Field 1 .7 .2 .1 165 ' to 225 ' x Fall season-
acres 300 ' to 360 ' long axis
with 10 ' mini- northwest to
mum clearance southeast;
on all sides for longer
periods , t i
or south .
7-46
045
Famil2ss Horseshoes 240 sq . ft . 6 ' sq . pitchers Long axis
Adults box . Steel stakes north-south .
Ste^ Lor 1" diameter, 14"
C 'ens above ground ,
spaced 40 ' apart .
Families Park bench One ( 1 ) picnic Minimum table None other
Adults picnic tables table per 50 dimensions - than
Senior and grills residents . 50 arinisfor
Citizens and trash 36"fix?2"Lx30"H. of shading for
sq. ft . of Tables , benches picnic tables
receptables . land per table . and other similar and benches .
facilities
securely anchored
to ground .
Families Picnic shelter One ( 1 ) open Minimum shelter None .
Adults structure shelter per dimensions-
Senior 60 residents 20 'x30 ' with
minimum of ten
( 10) picnic tables
and accompanying
benches located
therein and securely
anchored to ground .
Fireplace shall be
installed at one end .
7-47
c O46
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 7 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
PD-MHP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT
Revised: 1-13-87
1-19-87
7 .20 PD-MHP PLANNED DEULOPMENT7 MOBILE HUB PARK DXSTRnT
The following regulations and requirements apply to
PD-MHP Planned Development-Mobile Home Park Districts.
7 .20.1 PD-MHP Districts_ petinit1.9n A Intent
PD-r•9HP districts may be established . in accordance with
the general procedures and requirements set forth in
Sections 7.4 through 7.9 and with intensities and in
locations in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. the
Zoning Atlas. and the standards set forth herein.
The purpose of the this district is to provide for the
development of properly located and planned facilities
for mobile home parks. Adequate housing is fundamental
to the welfare of county residents; however.
conventional housing is not consistently affordable tor
nor appropriate for. all members of the general public.
Where properly regulated and located. mobile home parks
address the public need for alternative housing and
achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjoining and
nearby property.
The district shall be located in such a manner as to be
compatible with the character of existing development of
surrounding properties. thus insuring the continued
conservation of building values and encouraging the most
appropriate use of land in the county. Therefore. when
evaluating an application for this district, emphasis
shall be given to the location of the proposed mobile
home district. the relationship of the site and site
development plan to adjoining property, and the
development itself.
7 .20.2 ALga ROZUILAM=Itg fDt Establishment DI Pistrjct
The minimum area- of any site to be developed as a mobile
home park shall be ten (10) contiguous acres and the
maximum area shall be twenty-five (25) contiguous acres.
including rights-of-way and utility easements. (See
definition of "mobile home park" in Article 22 of this
Ordinance.)
7 . 20.3 permitted Principal DsPs And .5tructures,
Permitted principal uses and structures. as well as
accessory uses and structures. within the mobile home
park district are listed below.
A. Mobile homes. as defined in Article 22 of this 047
Ordinance.
B. Caretaker 's or manager's home or office.
C. Service buildings and areas necessary to provide
washing and drying machines for domestic laundry.
sanitation. rest rooms. storage. vending machines.
and other similar services provided by the facility
for the use and convenience of the mobile home park
tenants.
D. Recreation buildings/facilities and areas
serving only the mobile home park in which they are
located.
E. Customary accessary buildings and facilities
necessary for operation of the mobile home park in
which they are located.
F. Storage buildings for individual mobile home spaces
and intended for the exclusive use of the occupants
of the mobile home space.
G. Fenced, communal storage areas provided by the
park operator for boats. campers. and other accessory
vehicles belonging to park residents.
-H. Sales of mobile homes to be located within the
district are permitted only for mobile homes which
are already located on approved and established
mobile home spaces.
7.20.4 Development ZtjanDia.rds for Mobile H9me parks
It is the intent of these standards to provide for mobile
home parks which are aesthetically pleasing and provide
an overall healthy environment for the residents of such
parks. The design of mobile home parks shall respect the
physical qualities of the land. including areas of steep
topography. floodplains. and unique natural areas. and
the preservation of existing wooded areas to serve
recreation. open space. and scenic purposes. Mobile home
park designs shall clearly reflect the needs of intended
park residents and shall provide services and facilities
accordingly.
A. Mobile Home Space Requirements
1. A mobile home park shall be divided into mobile
home spaces. with each mobile home space having
an area of at least five thousand (5.000) square
feet and a minimum width of at least fifty (50)
feet; provided. however. that the Orange County
Health Department may increase the minimum area
requirement for the park and/or individual spaces
where necessary to be consistent with groundwater
resources and/or the limitations of sewage 048
disposal systems. In any event. the mobile home
space shall be of sufficient size to meet
separation requirements based on the anticipated
size and character of the mobile home and any
additions or accessory buildings to be placed on
the space.
2. The location of mobile home spaces on the
ground shall be approximately the same as those
shown on approved plans.
3. Only one Cl) mobile home and its customary
accessory buildings may be erected on any mobile
home space at one time.
B. Mobile Home Band Re uireTents.
Each mobile home must be placed on a permanent stand
which meets the specifications listed below.
1. The location of each mobile home stand must
be at an elevation. distance and angle in
relation to the adjacent access drive or street
such that placement and removal of the mobile
home is practical by means of customary moving
equipment.
2. The surface of each mobile home stand and the
area around it shall be graded where necessary to
provide proper drainage and prevent the
accumulation of water.
3. Each mobile home stand shall have a solid
base surface consisting of at least three (3)
inches of compacted fill dirt. crusher run or
Chapel Hill gravel. or paved slab. and it shall
comply with those standards specified in the
Stake Q.f north Carolina ,Regulations fox. Mobile
toms apd Modular Hpusing. Prior to installation
of the base surface. all top soil shall be
removed from the area to be occupied by the
mobile home stand.
C. Separation Requirem9ntp
The following separation requirements shall pertain
to every mobile home, single or double-wide. within -a
mobile home park.
1. Each mobile home shall be located at
least twenty (20) feet from another mobile home
and/or building within the mobile home park,
except small storage buildings located on the
same mobile home space and intended for use by
the occupants of that space.
All attached structures, including storage
buildings. carports and covered porches. but
•
excluding open decks and porches► will be
considered part of a mobile home for purposes of 049
determining separation requirements.
2. Each mobile home shall be located at
least twenty-two (22) feet from the right-of-way
line of an access drive or street providing
access to the space on which the mobile home is
located.
3. A detached structure located on an individual
mobile home space and intended for the use of the
occupants of the space shall be located at least
five (5) feet from any mobile home or other
building.
D. Installation Individual Mobile Roles
1. Each mobile home shall be set up and
installed in accordance with standards specified
in the State ol North Celina Regulations fDL
riobile Rpmes And nodular Rousing.
2. The owner/operator of a mobile home park
shall designate a uniform type of solid
foundation enclosure or skirting fully enclosing
the crawl space beneath each mobile home in the
mobile home park. Foundation enclosures or
skirting must be installed in accordance with
applicable standards of the North Carolina State
Building Code and. in any event. within ninety
(90) days of placement of a mobile home on a
mobile home space.
3. Access shall be provided to all
entrances of a mobile home by-way-of steps
(including handrails) installed in accordance
with the standards of the North Carolina State
Building Code. where the residents of a mobile
home choose to install decks adjacent to
entrances. the mobile home will be required to
have steps and handrails which meet the standards
of the Forth Carolina $tte Oullang Code until
the decks are completed.
E.Vehicular Accesa
1. Each mobile home space shall abut upon an
improved access drive or street which shall have
unobstructed access to a public thoroughfare.
2. No mobile home space shall have direct vehicular
access to a street or thoroughfare other than
those located within the mobile home park.
3. The street layout within the mobile home park
should be appropriately related to the
topography. locations of abutting land uses.
drainage patterns. street function and other
mmw
natural features of the site. The planned layout
of streets should minimize overall length of ?v
streets and provide for the safe, continuous flow
of traffic within the mobile home park.
4. All streets within a mobile home park shall
be located within a forty (40) foot right-of-way,
and the travelway for all streets shall be at
least eighteen (18) feet in width and must
satisfy the drainage standards specified in
Orange County's .Soil Erosion and Sedj.mentation
Control Ordinance. All streets shall be
constructed with paved, all-weather surfaces
consisting of four (4) inches of base material
(crusher run) and one and one-half (1-1/2) inches
of 1-2 asphalt or tar and gravel surface
treatment consisting a minimum of six (6) inches
of base material (crusher run) covered with
alternating layers of tar and pea-size gravel.
5. Every street within a mobile home park shall
have a maintained six (6) foot wide shoulder
running parallel and adjacent to each side of the
paved street surface. The shoulder section may
be used for walkways, driveways, grass or
low-growing vegetative ground cover or utility
rights-of-way.
6 . Cul-de-sacs or deadend streets are permitted
within mobile home parks; provided, however, the
maximum length of a cul-de-sacs shall be eight
hundred (800) feet. Cul-de-sacs shall have a
paved turnaround radius of forty-five (45) feet
with a right-of-way radius of fifty-five (55)
feet.
7. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect
as nearly as possible at right angles, and no
street intersection shall intersect another
street at an angle less than sixty (60) degrees.
The turning radius at street intersections shall
not be less than thirty (30) feet. Offset
intersections are to be avoided, but where
permitted, they shall be separated by a minimum
distance of two hundred (200) feet between street
center lines.
Where streets serving a mobile home park
intersect with a State-maintained street, the
intersection design shall conform to the
standards of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation specified in $11bdiviplAn Roa 1s
Rinimum Construction nandards.
8. Each mobile home space shall have
off-street parking facilities for two (2)
vehicles. Each parking space must be at least
nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in
depth and must be located entirely on the mobile
home space. Required off-street parking spaces
must be surfaced with at least four (4) inches of
compacted crushed stone or an allweather paved 051
surface.
F. Identification Signs/Street pumberirm
To prevent distractions to passing motorists and
adjacent property owners. yet permit ease of
identification and access for emergency services
personnel. identification. directional and street
signs within mobile home parks are regulated as
follows:
1. There shall be no more than one (1)
double-faced sign per park entrance announcing
the name of the mobile home park. Such signs
shall be limited to sixteen (16) square feet in
area and the top of such signs shall be no higher
than ten (10) feet above ground level. In
addition to the name of the mobile home park.
such signs shall identify the name of the park
owner/manager and his or her phone number.
All such signs shall be located on private
property and shall be erected so that no part of
said signs intrudes into the sight preservation
triangle required by Article 9.2 of this
Ordinance. Such signs may be illuminated.
provided that indirect. nonflashing lighting is
used, and provided that each sign is constructed
in a manner so as to prevent a direct view of the
light source from any public or private street
right-of-way or adjoining residential property.
2. Traffic control signs (stop. yield. speed
limit. children playing signs) meeting the
standards of the Uniform Traffic Control. M
shall be placed throughout the mobile home park
where necessary. Cul-de-sacs shall have deadend
street signs erected at the entrance to such
streets.
3. All streets shall be identified by names
approved by the Orange County Planning
Department. Street signs shall be constructed to
Orange County standards and must be installed
outside the right-of-way at all intersections.
The approved streets and names shall be used to
assign mobile home space identification numbers.
4. Each applicant must submit to the
Planning Department a mobile home space
numbering/location system for the park based on
the equal interval house numbering system
employed by Orange County. Upon approval of the
mobile home park. the applicant must submit an
approved copy of the space numbering/location
system to the emergency services/fire protection
agency responsible for providing such services.
5. Each mobile home space shall have a permanent 052
site number sign. The number shall composed of
reflective materials or contrasting colors. shall
be at least six (6) inches or greater in height,
and shall be affixed to the mobile home at a
point six (6) feet or more above • ground level.
The number shall be affixed to the mobile home
when the unit is placed on the space and shall
match that number assigned to the space on the
approved space numbering/location system plan.
G. GrounKl.s and Buildings
1. The grounds of a mobile home park
shall be maintained free of litter, debris and
trash, including but not limited to abandoned
appliances, automobiles. building materials or
similar materials.
2. Grounds. buildings and storage areas
within the mobile home park shall be maintained
to prevent the growth of ragweed. poison ivy,
poison oak and other noxious weeds.
3. Each mobile home park shall be provided
with a clustered mail delivery system which is in
compliance with the appropriate postal service
guidelines. Consultation must be made with the
appropriate agency for provision of this system.
Access to the mail delivery facility must be so
designed to allow three to four cars to stop at
the mail delivery facility without conflict from
passing vehicles.
4. All garbage and refuse for individual
mobile homes in each park shall be stored in
suitable waterproof and rodentproof receptacles
which shall be kept covered with tightly fitting
lids. A central collection system must be
provided within the park either through a private
collection system for individual mobile homes or
through the use of bulk containers (dumpsters) .
Where the latter are used. there must be at least
one (1) four (4) cubic yard bulk container for
each sixteen (16) mobile homes which shall be
emptied weekly. For mobile home parks with less
than sixteen (16) homes. one (1) container is
required. Bulk containers shall be front-loading
wherever practicable. A side-loading container
may be allowed where the provision of a
front-loading container is not feasible and the
property is accessible to a regular route of a
side-loading refuse collection vehicle.
Where bulk containers are provided, a six (6)
inch reinforced concrete pad shall be provided to
set the set container and also support the front
wheels of the truck during the loading operation. F ,
The pad shall be ten (10) feet in width and 0,5 3
twenty (20) feet in length with at least ten (10)
feet of the pad accessible for the truck to drive
_ onto in front of the dumpster container for
front-loading pickup. If side-loading containers
are used. the pad may be twelve (12) feet in
width and eight (8) feet deep with no projection
for the truck wheels.
5. Each applicant shall submit to the
Orange County Planning Department tenancy rules
and regulations governing the operation of the
mobile home park.
G. Erosion ,d 5t9rmwater Contr91 Requirements
In order to control erosion. all disturbed land areas
shall be protected by a vegetative ground cover as
defined in the Orange County Erosion ,
sediments on C9n_trol Ordinance. The mobile home
park must be designed and graded in such a manner as
to provide for the adequate runoff of stormwater.
Storm drains must be provided with sufficient inlets
located at points of surface water accumulation to
adequately intersect surface flow. All other
requirements of the soil Fusion And Sedimentation
C9ntrpl Ordinance, shall also be applicable.
Protected water supply watershed standards may also
be applicable.
H. Resreat}on Areas And Facilities
Adequate and suitable recreation areas shall be
provided to meet the anticipated needs of the
residents of the mobile home park. The character,
shape and location of recreational space shall be
suitable for active recreational purposes. taking
into account topography. convenient access by
residents. drainage, size and proposed improvements.
Recreation areas and facilities shall be provided in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 5 and 6.12
of this Ordinance. and Section IV-13-7-b of the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations.
I. EandscApina And Screening
In order to eliminate visual distractions to passing
motorists. reduce levels of noise. dust and glare,
preserve the character of existing neighborhoods,
mobile home parks shall be screened on all sides of
the mobile home park from adjacent highways and from
existing, adjoining, conventional residential
developments or existing mobile home parks.
Consideration shall be given to topography,
vegetation. site design and land uses in the
evaluation of the extent of required screening.
Mobile home spaces must be located at least one 054
hundred (100) feet from any exterior property line
which is not a street right right-of-way. regardless
of the zoning district. The disturbance of land
within the one hundred (100) foot buffer is
prohibited. Existing vegetation within the one
hundred (100) foot buffer must be retained.
Additional plantings may be required upon site
inspection to satisfy Class "A" screening
requirements along the perimeter of the site. (See
Article 12 of this Ordinance. ) If there is no
existing vegetation. planting will be required within
the one hundred (100) foot buffer to satisfy Class
"A" screening requirements.
In addition to the requirements above. mobile home
spaces must be set back from a public street
right-of-way a distance which is consistent with the
front yard setback requirement of the zoning district
in which the mobile park is located. The disturbance
of land and existing vegetation within the setback
area is prohibited. Likewise. plantings may be
required where no vegetation exists or is of such a
sparse nature that an on-site inspection indicates
the need for additional plantings. Where required.
plantings must meet the standards for a Class "A"
screen.
If bulk refuse containers (dumpsters) are provided in
the mobile home park. such containers must be
screened through the installation of a six (6) foot
high stockade fence so as to provide a continuous
screening barrier. In lieu of a stockade fence. a
six (6) foot high evergreen hedge or shrub may be
provided to provide the required screen. A hedge of
at least three (3) feet in height may be installed
initially. provided it will reach six (6) feet within
a two-year period. (See Article 12 of this Ordinance
for plantings requirements. )
J. Utilities
In every mobile home park. all utility installations
shall comply with applicable building and health
codes of Orange County and the State of North
Carolina. and the requirements of the North Carolina
Utilities Commission.
1. An adequate. safe and potable water supply
shall be provided for the mobile home park. The
source of the water supply shall either be
through a municipal or public water system with
the mobile home park connecting to the water
system. or when such system is not available. the
mobile home park must be serviced by a supply
approved by the North Carolina Department of
Human Resources or the Orange County
Department as required by law.
2. An adequate and safe sewage disposal system
shall be provided in the mobile home park.
Collection systems. sewage treatment facilities 053
or individual septic tank systems shall be
approved by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management or the Orange County
Health Department as required by law.
3. Street lighting shall be provided
throughout the mobile home park with street
lights located at each street intersection.
Where the distance between street intersections
exceeds five hundred (500) feet. additional
street lights may be required.
4. All utility systems shall be located
underground. and easements necessary for water.
sewer. gas. electrical, cable TV. stormwater and
other utility systems shall be shown on the
mobile home park plans.
056
N1
057
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date February 23. 1987
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: Z-1-87 (REZONING REQUEST) W.E. & RUBY S. BLACKWOOD
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes — No
Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK
APPLICATION
VICINITY MAP
SUMMARY SHEET
IMPACTS STATEMENT
AGENCY COMMENTS
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the
Zoning Atlas.
NEED: W. E. and Ruby S. Blackwood are requesting rezoning of a 2.0
acre parcel located on the north side of NC 54 opposite its
intersection with White Cross Road (SR 1952) . The property is
known as Lot 9 of Tax Map 30. and part of Lot 13 of Tax Map 30B
for Bingham Township.
The property is located within an area designated Agricultural
Residential and Rural Community Activity Node in the Orange
County Land Use Plan.The present zoning classification of the
property is Agricultural Residential (AR) . The applicant is
requesting the lot be rezoned to Local Commercial 1 (LC-1) .
IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of the full
range of commercial uses for the LC-1 district at this loca-
tion. Properties to the south and west are currently zoned NC-2
Neighborhood Commercial. comprising a total of 4.35 acres of
land. Rezoning of the property would allow for the expansion of
commercial areas near the intersection of N.C. 54 and White
Cross Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend denial - Applicant fails to meet traffic
generation criteria for the LC-1 Local Commercial zoning dis-
trict.
r
65,8
059
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MLLSEOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
wi
illir.i
y T_ 'n�)
- -ti 52 w
f o
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Eddie Kirk. Planner II
DATE: February 5 . 1987
SUBJECT: Z-1-87 W.E. and Ruby Blackwood
GENERAL LNFO$MATION
APPLICANT: W.E. & Ruby S. Blackwood
Rt. 4 , Box 208
Chapel Hill. NC 27514
LOCATION: North side of NC 54 across from the inter-
section of White Cross Road (SR 1952) with NC
54 in Bingham Township.
STATUS OF APPLICANT: Owner
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a rezoning request from
Agricultural Residential (A-R) to Local
Commercial-1 (LC-1) .
PURPOSE: To allow commercial development on the 2 acre
tract.
LOT SIZE: 2.00 acres or 87.120 square feet
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant wooded land
SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING:
North - Vacant wooded land zoned A-R
South - A corner store zoned NC-2 across NC 54
East - Vacant wooded land zoned A-R
West - Vacant land zoned A-R and the old school zoned
NC-2
LAND USE PLAN: Designated Agricultural Residential and
Rural Community Activity Node.
060
061
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
60.4 or 4 O �.
11 �!i 5:
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FROM: EDDIE KIRK
DATE: FEBRUARY 9 , 1987
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS - Z-1-87 W.E. AND RUBY
BLACKWOOD REZONING REQUEST
WATER ANP WASTEWATER SERVICE$
The lot would be served by an individual well.
The tract will also be served by an on-site septic system. A
letter has been received concerning the appropriateness of
the soil for a septic system.
ROADS/TRAFFIC
The property is located on NC 54. It has approximately 473
feet of road frontage on NC 54. (SEE VICINITY MAP)
The latest traffic count information is a 1984 NCDOT traffic
count. This information indicated a count of 6000 trips per
day on NC 54 at Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) . Trip generation
studies indicate that a hardware/paint store produces 53.1
trip ends per day per 1000 square feet. For a freestanding
retail store. trip generation is 36 trip ends per day per
1000 square feet. Applied to a 9600 square foot building
would result in 490 and 346 trips per day. respectively.
The Local Commercial-1 zone permits low traffic generation
which the Zoning Ordinance defines as an average of less than
200 vehicle trips per day. Based on the traffic generation
figures above, an NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial district would
be more appropriate. The district permits medium traffic
generation - 200 to 800 trips per day.
POLICE, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM PAGE 2
W.E. & RUBY S. BLACKWOOD
REZONING DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
FEBRUARY 9, 1987
The Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department. Sheriff' s Depart-
ment and Orange County Rescue Squad have all commented on
police, fire and rescue services for this tract and have
indicated their willingness to serve this lot with no
problems. (See letters dated January 8. 1987 ., January 7 .
1987 and January 8. 1987 respectively. )
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE.
The property is located within the Bingham-2 Rural Community
activity node. The Rural Community activity node designation
corresponds with a limited range of commercial zoning dis-
tricts including Local Commercial-1 (LC-1) and Neighborhood
Commercial-2 (NC-2) .
The Zoning Ordinance states that property to be designated
LC-1 must have direct access to arterial or collector
streets. as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. NC 54
is designated as an arterial in the Orange County Land Use
Plan.
The maximum amount of land zoned LC-1 at any node cannot
exceed five (5) acres in rural areas. Within the Bingham-2
Rural Community activity node. there are no properties zoned
LC-1. There are 4.35 acres of land zoned NC-2 Neighborhood
Commercial. leaving 0 .65 acres available for NC-2 develop-
ment. Given the problem identified previously with respect to
traffic generation. amending the rezoning request to apply
for an NC-2 district would offer no solution.
permitted Uses
The purpose of the Local Commercial-I (LC-1) District is to
provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited
commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neigh-
borhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal
services. Rezoning of the site would allow for development
of the property for those uses permitted by right in the
district.
In the LC-1 district uses permitted by right include:
P_ERM.ITTED BY RIGHT
Daycare. Day Nursery. Private Kindergarten
Family Care Home
Rehabilitative Care Facility
Accessory Uses
Botanical Gardens
MEMORANDUM PAGE 3 063
W.E. & RUBY S. BLACKWOOD
REZONING DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
FEBRUARY 9► 1987
Bus Passenger Shelter
Church
Community Center
Parks. Public and Non Profit
Schools of Dance, Art, Music
Governmental Facilities
Sewer/Water Pump Stations
Assembly Facility Less than 300
Banks/Financial Institutions
Beauty/Barber Shops
Clubs/Lodges
Health Services
Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services
Libraries
Motor Vehicle Service Stations
Nightclubs/Bars
Office/Personal Services (no adverse impacts beyond building)
Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non profit)
Golf Club/Course
Electronic/Applicance Repair Services
Retail Trade Sales & Rental-Convenience Goods (low traffic)
Retail Trade Sales & Rental-Durable Goods (low traffic)
PERMITTED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Public Utility Substation
PERMITTED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Group Care Facility
Radio/Television Towers and Elevated Water Storage Tanks
Transmission Lines
Recreational Facility (Non-Profit)
Development of the lot (s) requires compliance of the appli-
cable requirements of the zoning ordinance► including the
Land Use Intensity System (floor area. open space, etc. ) ►
landscaping and screening. parking and signage.
062
LINDY PENDERGRASS 064
Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278
Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431
Chapel Hill 942-6300
Residence Phone: 929-5535
To: Planning Department
From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass
Re: Rezoning Request
Date: January 7, 1987
With reference to the property owned by Mr. Everett Blackwood and located
at White Cross, this is to advise you that if this property is rezoned to
Commercial and a commercial building is placed there, that it will not adversly
effect the Orange County Sheriff's Department and that the Department will be
able to furnish security for same.
Lindy Pendergrass, Sheri Of Orange County
/0,30
REFERENCE NWnBER DATE
MAP REFERENCE 0 63
I..nT E v C►I_t" T T rj;,.I 08. 25. PC, 2749-41-7170 6. 70P. . 13
REQLESTEE: DYIMER
uHv 1 a 4'F RNUN SHI Pp JUNKIE CHEEI!
065
, U BOX 2463
L l 1 'EL HILL MC 27514 775 1ST ST
TELEPHONE: 942--4436 HERRTTT MI. rI;.1Tl rI :,?5-
'iPECIFICATIQNS:
T. RTTE PRE=LIMfl'npy
=Am.,/DIRECTIONS:I )(61 %.%G
'•lY 54 14 Cp/fJ
EE: RECEIPT: SIGNA7A OR IWTHOAIZED AGEp
',
:QIIFIRMED BY PLANNER: PLANNER 1
se.44s CLERK y,6
tLLUPE TEXTURE STRUCTURE DEPTH
rt. lIUR IN. DRAIN EX. DRAIN - PERh1EAB
Uvt.RALL G 1 _
�i�Lr1ARKS: ee_6-
5 61-es P S 2 4 -3 6 ÷- ----- _ _
IIIOIe v
Pr
I,s
P
x ps
x cps
• X ys
12111 e: SANITARIAN ____ Acy;0.-/efr--%
ORANGE GROVE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. 064 f
ROUTE 3.HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
066
January 8 , 1987
Planning Department
Courthouse
Hillsborough, NC 27278
To whom it may concern :
Mr. Everett Blackwood has indicated to us his intention of
building a hardware store, approximately 80 ' x 120 ' in size , at
White Cross on NC 54. He has asked us to comment on our ability
to provide fire protection for the building .
Since the location is within our tax district , we are , of
course , responsible for providing fire coverage. In my opinion
we will be able to provide the necessary protection , either by
ourselves or by calling in mutual aid from neighboring fire de-
partments . We also would request that the operator of the business
cooperate with our fire company in pre-planning how we would
attack a fire on the premises and in sharing with us the nature
and location of any hazardous materials.
Signed,
Edward S . Jo son
President , OOVFC
•
in-7/47.0A4A,i)(drat
f O/EJ9 v E E c e V,.v T y '� ry c..v:ry
f tgcm: EP/EACE/kiej SCI,v, CES
Rte : /, •S • 5ttzv.'ccs
Of?TE' /—
oA) iy6e co v^.7-7,f 9ivp So.ryi, G/C 9A'( �'i escue s‘p✓r91:›
fro yid;es Lm6 -c4J4cy PrED,e4 T' /,At Bi.. c,,e ea)
1-0,00& . ry La c.4 %I Dir /f, E hw0 y - - a,es 7 DKLEL,f,,,,tw;
i 1V %or;$ dd.t p f S // CI,nLi s l•4"-o v M d T CI; u S tm
r'ow, p 4_, SEA(/-6.es
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 068
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT (J66
Date : .7Vee14 q_ /qH
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 .
�, �/yl r097 St f ;'l�
1 • The property is Located on the (}r A side of "S-'R-. #
( Street/Road) between, S .R . # and
S .R .# _,,. It is known as Lot (s) r Bc ' fr � �/
of
Orange,�5�four)ty p�'-,lgl �,/ —f�jlMIAP. M, Township . It has a frontage
of J. feet 8"nd a de th of —In 4 feet , and contains
square feet or _acres . r)vu�.
P oiztw , : 4 J�. .'
2. It i s desi edn a d. requested ha , the foregoing property be rezoned
from a yj/.62.144 .k. �• to )
vittCif-n//,r�E to i..- ,
The folL•.wing information has been attached .in . support of the
application for changing the Zoning Atlas (# — required on all
applications) .
sa. A fully dimensioned sap et a scale of not lees than one (1) inch
equals one—hundred (100) feat nor more than one (1) inch equal&
twenty" 1201 teat" showing the lend which is proposed to be
rezoned.
•b. A Legal description of the and proposed to be rezoned.
•c. A statement of justifioeticn addressing one or more of the
following:
(1) 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.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in the County generally, which asks the proposed amendment
reesonabLy necessary to the promotion of the public health,
safety end general welfare.
*(31 The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or pert
thereof.
4,(41 All other circumstances, factors and reewons which the
applicant offer■ in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not limited to, documentation from service
agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision capability to the development.
d. A List of all individuals, firms or corporations owning property
adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property
ught for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of
(Data)
I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate
to the best of my knowledge ./ /� Q+
Applicant s ) :• I eta, �. / � �L•�'d1f
Address : , 4- A,/e260
1- P. c _SV7- ›I
Phone:_ 41/`l-9 sl-;,^-5570
•
•
;_ _ .. 06,E
U��
y y '
it
• v
at
t
t
w
27
.. .
GREEK
-.. . .
, .
, ,
, ,
0y
. . . .
Gov
. _
:_.
a .
.. . ;.''. .. .
F_ •
SEE
- Fv 42
- 9901 - _ (WEST -
•53 AC.CAL �`
. I
44111ft . I -' .
•
I
■
P/'`''t� d WHITE CROSS
C)ise9
-■....„... ......., /
_.� 7• `•.y. ^ Yb Li
OF", Z-4ffi I .
'...__VIIVI" aVAr.709 1 ----- Itil
i -....,.....Zaft.......".'''."•••...m.
-)",-..---,-? 0 --.„.....
\ 1.87 - 4:2: I I.,., Cs
8 ErHI _ 7ii : .0■
3517 i. \ - 40 n .
39.81 A.:.CAL.
Nor - -.I.* --_ 1._. ��___ "__� .__.....
r
1
u rf ( r
I
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 07
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 23. 1987
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT
(SECTION IV-B--8 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS)
***************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: K Yes No
***************************************************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins
Proposed Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Amendment Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
***************************************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed
amendment to the Subdivision Regulations.
NEED: On December 6. 1986 . the Board of Commissioners
suspended enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 of
the Subdivision Regulations. pending further
study of standards requiring installation of
plants materials in building setback areas and
on parcels designated for recreation/open space
use. Concern had been expressed by land owners
and developers about the high cost of complying
with the standards. Clarification of
application was also desired.
The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
has been working with a developer, forester and
landscape architect in reviewing the design
standards. The proposed revisions represent
changes to Section IV-B-8 as applicable to new
subdivisions.
IMPACT: Approval of the amendment would allow more
flexibility in installation of required plant
materials. Street frontages are required to
have a canopy comprised of at least one (1)
large tree per lot, with additional landscaping
comprised of large and/or small trees.
Side/rear yards as well as recreation/open space
areas are still required to have one (1) tree
per 1.000 square feet of area. but trees may be
grouped. and large and small trees may be
installed. Coupled with reductions in required 672
plant sizes, the new standards result in lower
installation costs.
Emphasis is given to installation of healthy
plants and proper maintenance rather than plants
reaching designated heights within specified
time periods. Furthermore. areas in which
buffers are required or utility/drainage
easements provided are excluded from compliance.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed amendment.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations 0 7
REFERENCE: IV-B-8-c Landscaping Standards
IV-B-8-c-1 Required Landscaping
IV-B-8-e Recommended Standards for Installation
and Maintenance
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff_)L Planning Board_X_SOCC_Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_x_High_,_Middle_Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 23. 1987
***********************************************
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the
Subdivision Regulations and related
• sections to address concerns regarding the
number. location and cost of plants to be
installed in new subdivisions.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: On December 1. 1986. the Board of Commissioners.
acting upon a recommendation of the Planning
Board, placed a moratorium on enforcement of
Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision
Regulations. pending further study of the
standards. Concerns had been expressed by land
owners and developers about the high cost of
complying with the regulations. particularly as
related to side and rear yard setback areas.
Clarification of application of the standards
was also desired as related to the location of
plant materials within setback areas.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The existing provisions of
Section IV-B-8-c are as follows:
IV-B-8-c LandAgApins $tanjards
"Where a subdivision is proposed either on land
which has been previously cleared. or trees have
been approved for removal under one or more of
the exceptions listed in Article IV-B-8-b-2
above, new trees shall be planted in accordance
with the provisions of this Article. "
The existing provisions of Section IV-B-8-c-1
are as follows:
IV-B-8-c-1 ReQui
"As a requirement of subdivision approval, the
subdivider shall plant sufficient trees so that
there is at least one (1) tree for every
thirty-five (35) feet of frontage along both
sides of all proposed streets in the 1074;
subdivision. In addition. there shall be at
least one (1) tree for every one thousand
(1.000) square feet of land area designed for
required recreation or open space area, and side
and rear yard setback areas as required by this
Ordinance or the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Approved open play fields. building sites and
other similar recreational facilities are
exempted from landscaping requirements.
Trees to be planted in required recreation
and/or side and rear yard areas shall be spaced
thirty-five (35) feet on center. Trees to be
planted in required buffers areas shall be
installed in accordance with the provisions of
Article IV-B-8-c-1 of this Ordinance. "
Existing provisions of Section IV-B-8-e are as
follows:
"At installation, trees should not be less than
ten (10) feet in height. and shrubs should not
be less than twenty-four (24) inches in height.
In any event. plant material required for the
purpose of this Article should be of such
initial size to reach the required height within
two (2) growing seasons after installation.
Installation and construction practices should
be utilized which preserve and replace existing
topsoil. "
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Revised wording for Section IV-B-8-c
is as follows:
IV-S-8-c-1 Land2ZADing $tanda;dp
"Where a subdivision is proposed either on
unforested land or trees have been approved for
removal under one of the exceptions listed in
Section IV-B-8-b-2 above. new trees shall be
planted in accordance with the provisions of
this Section. "
Revised wording for Section IV--B-8-c-1 is as
follows:
IV-B-8-c-1 Fequired Landscaping
"As a requirement of subdivision approval. the
subdivider shall plant trees along the frontage
of both sides of all existing and proposed
streets in the subdivision. In calculating the
number of trees required per lot frontage. tree
types have been assigned a value in linear feet
based on the average mature canopy spread. The
values are forty (40) feet for large, deciduous
trees and twenty-five (25) feet for small trees.
Each lot. including approved recreation/open
space areas. must have at least one (1) large 0 75
tree per street frontage (value of 40 feet) .
The number of trees to be planted on the
remaining frontage (total frontage less value
for one large tree) is determined by dividing
the remaining frontage by the value(s) assigned
to tree types selected for planting by the
subdivider.
For example. the number of trees required on a
lot having a frontage of 130 feet would be
calculated as follows:
TOTAL LOT FRONTAGE 130 feet
LESS: VALUE/RE JIRED LARGE T$E1<= AD feet
EQUALS: REMAINING LOT FRONTAGE 90 feet
Option ii: ALL BEALL TREES
90 feet divided by 25 feet (value
for small tree) = 3.6 or 4 trees.
Required number of trees = 4 small
trees + 1 required large tree.
Option 12: ALL LARGE TREES
90 feet divided by 40 feet (value
for large tree) = 2.3 or 2 trees.
Required number of trees = 3 large
trees (1 required + 2 optional) .
Option 1.3.: COMBINATION/LARGE AND MALL TREES
90 feet - 40 feet (1 large tree) =
55 feet.
55 Feet divided by 25 feet = 2.2 or
2 small trees.
Required number of trees = 2 large
trees (1 required + 1 optional) + 2
small trees.
Upon installation. trees shall be spaced at
least fifteen (15) feet apart, but preferably no
greater than the spread of the canopy normally
achieved by the tree species upon maturity.
Street trees shall be planted within the
required front yard setback area. Selection and
location of trees shall consider existing and
future site conditions including. but not
limited to. overhead and/or underground utility
lines. vehicular access drives. the location and
extent of existing vegetation. and soil
suitability. Selection of tree types shall be
made from the list of acceptable plant materials
provided in Appendix C. 076
In addition to street trees. there shall be at
least one (1) tree for every one thousand
(1,000) square feet of land area located in
required recreation or open space area, and side
and rear yard setback areas as required by this
Ordinance or the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance. (See sketch below.) Approved play
fields, building sites and other similar
recreational facilities are exempted from
landscaping requirements. In unzoned townships,
a forty (40) foot front yard setback shall be
provided adjacent to the street right-of-way for
the installation of new trees. A twenty (20)
foot setback shall be provided along side and
rear property lines for the same purpose.
STREET RIMNT—OF—VAY
•rr
•
Is
FRONT YARD 40'
1.11111111 _
SIDE SIDE
YARD YARD 90' 150'
REAR YARD \\\` 20'
•
20'--160' 20'
/ 1 100'- :1
SIDE YARD AREA - 20' x 90' - 1800 SQ.FT.
x 7 SIDE YARDS
3600 SQ.FT
REAR YARD AREA • 20' x 100' - 2000 SQ.FT.
TOTAL-SIDE/REAR YARDS - 5600 SQ.FT.
DIVIDED RY: I TREE/1000 SQ.FT. - 5.6 OR 6 TREES
Trees to be planted within recreation and open
space areas. and side and rear yard setback
areas shall be installed to reflect the natural
growth patterns of materials selected. Tree
species shall be spaced in a manner which
permits full spread of the canopy upon maturity 077
and shall be selected from the list of
acceptable plant materials in Appendix C.
When buffers, as required by Section IV-B-B-d,
or , approved utility and drainage easements
overlap or cross setback or recreation and open
space areas, those areas shall be exempted from
computing the number of required plant material
to be installed. Existing vegetation may be
used to meet the requirements of this Section,
provided, however, use of such vegetation will
be determined by site inspection by Planning
Department personnel. "
The proposed amendment to Section IV-B-8-e is as
follows:
"At installation. trees should not be less than
six (6) to eight (8) feet feet in height with a
caliper of three-fourth (3/4) to one and
one-fourth (1-1/4) inches. Shrubs should not be
less than eighteen (18) inches in height after
installation. Installation and construction
practices should be utilized which preserve and
replace existing topsoil. "
The above change in tree/shrub size is
recommended to reduce the cost for landscaping.
Standards for the number of trees to be planted
in side and rear yard setbacks and recreation
areas have not been reduced to achieve this
goal. Flexibility in the location of and number
of trees is also permitted. Furthermore.
provisions requiring that landscaping reach a
certain height within two (2) growing seasons
have been removed, since growing rates from
plant species to species vary so much. The
focus of the provisions should be to encourage
healthy plants at installation and proper
maintenance.
****************************************************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: January 20, 1987
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
078
ORANGE COUNTY 079
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 23. 1987
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS-FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
***************************************************************************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: __„Yes No
***************************************************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Greg Szymik
Proposed Ordinance TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Amendment; Summary of Hillsborough 732-8181
Changes to NFIP Criteria. Chapel Hill 967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
***************************************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed
amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
NEED: On August 25. 1986 . the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) published final rules
revising National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
criteria. The criteria became effective October
1. 1986 and require. as a condition of continued
validity. that communities revise their
floodplain management regulations to make them
consistent with NFIP criteria within six months
of the effective date.
Orange County' s Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance must be revised to bring it into
compliance no later than April 1. 1987.
IMPACT: The proposed revisions provide for: changes in
the definitions of "mobile homes" (now
"manufactured homes") and "start of
construction"; flood proofing of mechanical and
utility equipment; the use of openings in
enclosures below a structure' s lowest floor;
the use of available flood data; and
certification of floor elevations.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposed amendments.
4.,
crkl 0(
O8
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO 8 7
NATIONAL FlOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA WHICHI BECOME.
EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1, 1986
For S60.3 (c), (d), and (e) communities:
C (c) i.e. , FIA Administrator has 'provided a notice of final
flood elevations for one or more special flood hazard areas on
the community 's FIRM and, if appropriate, has designated other
special flood hazard areas without base flood elevations on the
community's FIRM, but has not identified a regulatory floodway
or coastal high hazard area]; -
-p.1(d) i.e. , FIA Administrator has provided a notice "of
final base flood elevations within Zones A1-30 and/or AE on
the community 's FIRM and, if appropriate, has designated- AO
zones, AH zones, 499 zones, and A zones on the community's
FIRM and has, provided data from which the community shall
designate its regulatory floodway];
C(e) i.e. , FIA Administrator has provided a notice of final
base flood elevations within Zones A1-30 and/or AE on the
community's FIRM and, if appropriate, has designated AR zones,
AO zones, A 99 zones, and A zones on the community's FMK, and
has identified on the community 's • FIRM coastal high hazard
areas by designating Zones V1-30, YE, and/or VI ).
1. Manufactured Home Revisions. The final rule made significant
revisions to NFU criteria that apply to "manufactured homes"
(previously mobile homes) . If your community permits the -
placement of "manufactured homes" in special flood hazard
areas, make the following changes: -
(a) Definition of "manufactured home." You should replace the
definition of "mobile home" in your ordinance with' the
definition of "manufactured home" in 559. 3 of the final
rule. Note that the definition of "manufactured home"
includes "park trailers, travel trailers, and other
„ - - . - . . . - • _ - - - . . ; 1
• , - - . - - Y. . . r . r . - • . -
provision 1n your definition if vi a can demonstrate that
• - - - - - . . . - 1 ation which WAUtr1
reclude erm t s
or limit placement to less than 180 days.
(b) Definition of "manufactured home park or subdivision."
You should delete definitions of "existing mobile home
park or mobile home subdivision," "expansion to an exist-
ing mobile home park or mobile home subdivision," "mobile
home park or mobile home subdivision," and "new mobile
home park or mobile home subdivision_" You should add the
definition of "manufactured home park or subdivision" In
the final rule to your ordinance.
�1 4
• • r
2. •
(c) Requirements on placement of manufactured homes . NFIP
criteria no longer allow you to grandfather existing •
"mobile home parks." To make this change , replace your
current ordinance provisions on placement of mobile homes
in mobile home parks or subdivision and on individually
owned lots with the following or its equivalent:
All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially
improved within Zones Al-30, AH, and AE shall be
elevated on a permanent foundation such that the th:IL:12;12felt:altronndulraris=u►e is at or aboveurely anchored to
an adequately anchored foundation system in accordance
with the provisions of (cite the manufactured home
anchoring provisions of your ordinance) . -
(d) Removal of prohibition on the placement of manui:aptured,
,)tomes in f loodways,. If* f loodways have. been designated in
b- revision in our .rd ' n-
ance that prohibits the placement of manufactured homes in,
• - . a .ele e i . .v' " ■ x
hose loo■ . - •
option. Manufactured homes to be placed in f loodway. - •
.
would have to meet the same standards as conventional
housing and other development (e.g. their placement would
be prohibited unless it could be demonstrated that there
would be no increase in base flood elevations in the
community) .
NO+ (e) Removal of the ho eshinlcoastal placement of (zones V.
manufactured
VE, and V1-30) . If V-zones have been designated in your
community, there will be a provision in your ordinance
which prohibits the placement of manufactured homes in
those V-zones . You may delete this provision from your
ordinance at your option. Manufactured homes to be placed
in V-zones would have to meet the same standards as conven-
tional housing (e.g. meet the provisions at 56O.3(e) (3) ,
(4) , (5) and (6) of NFIP criteria) .
083 89
3.
•
2. Mechanical and Utility Equipment. You must have a provision
in- your ordinance that specifically requires mechanical and
utility equipment to be elevated above the base flood elevation
or designed so as to prevent water from entering or accumulat-
ing within the equipment components [see S60.3(a) (iv)) . You
may meet this requirement by demonstrating that your current
ordinance already contains such a provision or by incorporating
the following or its equivalent into your ordinance:-
Electrical, heating, ventilation. plumbing,
and air-conditioning equipment and other `
service facilities shall be designed -and/or
located so as to prevent water from entering
• or accumulating within the components during .
conditions of flooding.
•
3. Definition of Start of Construction. The final rule modifies
the definition of "start of construction" to eliminate incon-
sistencies in treatment between pile and column structures and
other types of foundations and to incorporate the -"manufactured
home" revisions. You must replace your definition, "start of
construction," with the definition in the final rule.
4. Use of Openings in Enclosures Below a Structure's Lowest Floor.
The final rule adds a provision which requires that fully
enclosed 'areas below the base flood elevation be designed to
allow for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters -to
equalize hydrostatic flood forces [see S60.3(c) (5)1 . You can
.comply with this requirement by prohibiting the enclosure of
areas below the base flood elevation or by incorporating the
following provision or its equivalent into your ordinance:
For all new construction and substantial improve-
ments, fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor
that are subject to flooding shall be designed to
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces
on exterior walls by allowing for the entry -and
exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this
. requirement must either be certified by a
registered professional engineer or architect or
must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
A minimum of two openings having a total net area of
not less than one square inch for every square foot
of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be pro-
vided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher
than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped
with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices
provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit
of floodwaters.
084
4.
5. Use of Available Flood Data. The final rule revises the
requirement at S60.3(b) (4 ) that communities obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize base flood data available from any source to
regulate construction in Zone A. If your community has flood
hazard areas which are designated as Zone A or could annex such
areas, you must revise your ordinance to 'xnclude• the .following
or its equivalent:
The (local administrator) shall obtain, review
and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation
and floodway data available from a Federal,
'State, or other source, as criteria for •
• requiring that new construction., substantial •
improvements; or other development in Zone A
• (reference provisions of your ordinance which
meet 560 .3(c) (2) , (3) , (5) and (6) and (d) (3 ).] .
Note that available base flood data include data submitted with
subdivision proposals and other proposed developments greater than
50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less, including manufactured home -
parks and subdivisions [see S60.3(b) (3)] •
6. Elevation Certification. Current NFIP criteria require that.
communities obtain and maintain on file the elevation of the
lowest floor (including basement) of new and substantially .
improved structures in all special flood hazard areas . The
final rule rem9ves this_ reauirement in Zone A except in those,
instances where base flood elevation data from other sources are
utilized e as •rovided for in ,60. 3 b 4 of NFIP ri -. . --
iaL. You may_mod. fyyouu .ordinance accordingly. Please be
aware that substantially lower flood insurance rates are
available for individuals that construct to these other available
base flood elevations and submit elevation, certificates as. part
of their flood insurance applications . You must continue to
obtain lowest floor elevations in all special flood hazard
areas other than Zone A.
N1P 7. Functionally Dependent Uses — The final rule adds a special
provision regarding the issuance of variances for functionally
dependent uses. You are not required to make this change and
should do so only if your community has navigable waterways
and has encountered difficulties in applying NFl? criteria to
these uses. To make this change, add the definition of "func-
tionally dependent use" in the final . rule to the definitions
sections of your ordinance. Also add the variance provision at
S60.6(a) (7 ) of the final .rule to the variance provisions in your
ordinance.
•
'RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA 91
1. hanufactured Noste._,pevisions
Significant changes have been made in how the regulations apply to
what are now called "manufactured homes" (formerly "mobile
homes") . These changes involve definition of terms an well as
ordinance text changes. A portion of the definition of 'manu-
factured home" is optional (as indicated below) . The remaining
changes are required.
EXISTING ORDINANCE -
ARTICLE 2. DEPTNITIONS
Delete the following definitions:
"Mobyle Hojne", is a portable manufactured housing unit designed
for transportation on its own chassis and placement on a temporary-
or semi-permanent foundation having a measurement of. over thirty-
two feet in length and over eight feet in width. Mobile home,
shall also mean a double-wide mobile home which is two or more
portable manufactured housing units designed for transportation on
their own chassis which connect on site for placement on a ter.-
porary or semi-permanent foundation if over thirty-two feet in
length and over eight feet in width.
A_ means a
parcel (or contiguous parcels of land) divided into two or more
mobile home lots for rent or sale for which the construction of
facilities for servicing the lot on which the mobile home is to be
affixed (including. at a minimum, the installation of utilities,
either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads, and the
construction of streets) is completed before the effective date of
the ordinance.
, ',g�ansion�f a� n existing mobile h ie park _ d�mobi1e ho p
SnMivision" means the preparation of additional sites by the
construction of facilities for servicing the sites on which the
mobile homes are to be affixed (including the installation of
utilities. either final site grading or pouring of concrete pads,
or the construction of streets) .
"Mobile home space", means a parcel of land occupied or intended
to be occupied by one and only one mobile home, and for the
exclusive use of the occupants of said mobile home.
"New mpbile hone rr mo 'le_ horse s bdivi,ion" means a lot in
single ownership (or contiguous parcels) proposed to he used for
the placement of two or more mobile homes for use as dwelling
units for which the construction of facilities for servicing the
lot on which the mobile home is to be affixed (including. at a
minimum. the installation of utilities, either final site grading
or the pouring of concrete pads. and the construction of streets)
RECONl•1EtJPED RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NATIONAL FLOOD s NSUI 1 NCE QGRAN
FLOOL�PLAItI MANAGEMENT CRITERIA o
PAGE 2 •
is completed on or after the effective date of this ordinance.
•
" means the first placement of permanent
"Start Qf�..5�.'�S�1��l�f�s2L�
construction of a structure (other than a mobile home) on a site,
such as the pouring of slabs or footings or any - work beyond the
stage of excavation, including the .relocation of a structure.
Permanent construction does not include the installation of
streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a
basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of
temporary form; nor ' does it include the installation on the
property of accessory buildings. such as garages or sheds not
occupied as dwelling units or not as part of the main structure.
For structure (other than a mobile home) without a basement or
poured footings, the "start of construction" includes the first
permanent framing or assembly of the structure" or any part thereof
on its piling or foundation. For mobile homes not within a r,oile
home park or mobile home subdivision, "start of construction" i-=
the date on which the construction of facilities for servicing tI'
site on which the mobile home is to be affixed (including: at
minimum, the construction of streets, either final site grading ox
the pouring of concrete p;•ds, and utilities) is completed. -
•
PROPOSED AMENDMENT -
ARTICLE 2. DCPINTTIQx$, • •
•
Add the following definitions alphabetically. -
"Manufactpred home", means a structure, transportable in one or
more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is
designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities.
(The following may be added to the definition of "Man_ufactur e:es
home" at the County's option: For floodplain management purpocz.s
the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers. travel
trailers, and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater
than 180 consecutive days. For insurance purposes the term
"manufactured home" does not include )ark trailers. travel
trailers, and other similar vehicles.)
means a parcel (or
contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured
home lots for rent or sale.
"Si-art of construction" for other than new construction or
substantial improvements under the Coastal Barriers Resources Act
(Public Law 97-348) . includes substantial improvement. and means
the date the building permit was issued. provided the actual start
of construction, repair, reconstruction. placement. or other
improve:,1*nt was within 180 days of the permit date_ The actual
start means either the first placement of permanent construction
cf a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab, or
_RE.CONNENDED RESPONSE TO CFiAI.. DES IN NATIONAL FLOOD Ii1SP.RA ICE PROGRAM
FLOODPLAIN NANAGEEIENT CRITERIA 081 93
PAGE 3
•
footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns,
or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a
manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does
not include land preparation, such as clearing. grading and
filling; nor does it include the installation -of streets and/or
- walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings,
piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does
it include the installation on the property of accessory build-
ings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or
not part of the main structure. .
EXISTING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 4. SECTION 4.5 }IOBILE HOMES,
(a) On the effective date of this ordinance. no mobile home shall
thereafter be placed in a floodway. Zn an exipting mobile -
home park or existing mobile home subdivision. a mobile home
removed may be replaced at the same location.
(b) All mobile homes located in the floodway after the adoption
of this ordinance shall be elevated and anchored to resist
flotation, collapse, or lateral movement by providing cv4r--
the-top or frame ties to ground anchors or other acceptable
anchoring techniques. -
Specific requirements shall be that:
(1) over-the-top ties be provided at each end of the pobil e
home, with one additional tie per side at an inter-
mediate location on mobile homes of less than fifty feet
and one additional tie per side for mobile homes of
fifty feet or more;
(2) frame ties be provided at each corner of the mobile hone
with four additional - ties per side at intermediate
points for mobile homes less than fifty feet long and
one additional tie for mobile homes of fifty feet or
longer;
(3) all components of the anchoring system be capable of
carrying a force of 4,800 pounds; and
(4) any additions to the mobile home be similarly anchored.
Other anchoring techniques specified in the FEMA•s manual,
"Manufactured dome Installations in Flood Hazard Areas",
published September, 1985, may be utilized in place of the
methods specified in subsections 4.5 (b) (1) and (2) .
(c) Mobile homes may be permitted in the floodway fringe for new
mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions; for expan--
•
F�' IN NATIONAL FLOOD I?SS[i?F+Lgt:r. PK[3Vr.�,�t
RECOtlrlr^,tXDED RESPONSE TO CI�ANG�a � _y4
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
PAGE 4
•
sions to existing mobile home ' parks ' and mobile home sub--
divisions; for mobile homes not placed in afQllowle hoeeupar}
or mobile home subdivision as long as
ments are met:
of
(1) stands or lots are elevated So that
ayove°the baseofload
the mobile home is elevated
elevation;
(2) adequate surface drainage and access . for a hauler are
provided; and' _ . •
(3) in the instance of elevation on pilings: -
(a) lots are large enough to permit steps; -
(b) piling foundations are placed in stable soil no
more than 10 feet apart; and
(c) reinforcement is provided pilings. more than 6
feet above the ground
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4.5 ' 1 r'`1 .
- `-rtrPC�
a. On the effective date of laced in ordinances In an ex ' � _
home shall thereafter P � rgZtvia=4n a ,� t �i
in m
home removed may be replaced at the same location.
.
b. - - 4 4 $ 13 - t. •pin. S - 2 6 all �3,�� 1R�
- ice. .`s-u ." st �►f the F►an s=
, fet�ndatiQILSySrl
•
(1) over-the-top ties be provided at each end of the i i=
home, with one additional meside at less ess
an
i x
intermediate location on 1131 -uX
than fifty feet and one additional tie per side for
EMMulagtUte homes of fifty feet or more;
(2) frame ties to be provided at each corner of the manmIps=
liaxa home with four additional ties ones Iesi etbat
J
intermediate points for Datac �'
fifty feet long and one additional tie for Kratfita ►a.-r
homes of fifty feet or longer;
(3) all components of the anchoring system be capable of
carrying a force of 4,800 pounds; and
RECOmNENDED RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE: PROGRAtr
y F]IOODPLAIN MAt1AGEI;ENT CRITERIA 9 5
PAGE 5 089
(4) any additions to the Dapufpcturod home be similarly
anchored.
Other anchoring techniques specified in the FEtA's manual,
"Manufactured Home Installations in Flood Hazard Areas"
published September. 1955, may be utilized in place of the
methods specified in subsections 4.5 (b) (1) and (2) .
(c) Manufactured homes may be placed in the floodway fringe for
In u acfures1 home parks pr subdivisimg and for panpjpctu Lod,
homes not placed in a manufacta j, Iip a park or • ; •
' as long as the following requirements are met:
(1) stands or lots are elevated so that the lowest floor of
the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base
flood elevation;
(2) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler axe
. provided; and
-
(3) in the instance of elevation on pilings: -
(a) lots are large enough to permit steps;
•
(b) piling foundations are placed in stable 'soil so
more than 10 feet apart; and. .
(c) reinforcement is provided for pilings more than C
feet above the ground level.
2. • - - • . 4 . 1 - ! - 1 _ - . ! t1 1_itr Equ ipVPn t
The existing requirement that mechanical and utility equipment be
elevated above the base flood elevation or floodproofed must be
supplemented further by requiring that the equipment be protected
from water entering or accumulating in equipment during flooding.
EXISTING ORDINANCE .
ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4.3
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN FLOODWAY AND FLOODIS d F' B M:ED
(c) No new non-residential structure may be constructed and no
- substantial improvement of a non-residential structure may
take place within any floodway fringe unless the lowest floor
(including basement) of the structure or improvement is
elevated above the base flood elevation or floodproofed so
that below the base flood level the structure. together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities. is water tight
with walls substantially imperneable to the passage of water
and with structural components having the capability of
•
RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NATIONAL FLOOD II:SUP NCE PROGPJ?.i
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA 090 7
PAGE 6 •
•
resisting hydrostatic or hydrodynamic load's and effects of
buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect
shall certify that the standards of this section are satis-
fied and the floodproofing q;
methods used are adequate withstand flood forces associated.with the base flood. Such
certification shall be provided to the Zoning Officer as set
forth in Article 5.3 (g) .
PROPOSED AMENDIlENT
•
ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4.3
e1 T o • ■ _. . " . : 0, iii 4 - � Z « i T y
(c) No new residential' structure may be constructed and no
substantial improvement of a non-residential structure ' ma�
take place within any floodway fringe unless the lowest floor
(including basement) of the structure or improvement is
elevated above the base flood elevation or floodproofed so
that below the base flood level the structure, 'together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities' is water tight
with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water,
s lt9ring _acculaulealag_dtaginz
conditions of i i r .e of resisting b,-dro-
static or hydrodynamic loads and effects of, buoyancy. A.
registered professional engineer or architect shall certify
that the standards of this section are satisfied and th.':''.
floodproofing methods used are adequate to withstand flog
forces associated with the base flood Such certificatit•.
shall be provided to the Zoning Officer as set forth in
Article 5.3 (g) .
3. 1)efinitiori ofMart oL Copstruati.23. •
A change in the definition "Start of Construction" is required to
eliminate inconsistencies in treatment between pile and column
structures and other types of foundations and to incorporate the
"Manufactured Hone" definition. This change has been included
into the first part of this material' Manufactured Home Revisions'
as a revised definition.
4.
e F s. & a fi
The existing ordinance does not address the enclosure of areas
below the base flood elevation. The ordinance must be amended to
either prohibit or regulate such enclosures. The following
amendment will regulate such enclosures.
EXISTING ORDINANCE
No text. The topic is not addressed.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
•
RWOt►MENDED RESPONSE TO CHANGES Iii NATIONAL FLOOD IL SURANCE PROGRAM
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
PAGE 7 09.1.
• 9'7
ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4 .3
t)STRUsa 2T OP1 W2r±'J1,!N PLOW AY Awn .fL onir v !R.TTJGIL:0, REs
PARAGRAPH 4.3(c) renumbered 4.3(d) •
PARAGRAPH 4.3(d) renumbered 4.3 (e)
NEW PARAGRAPH 4.3 (c) •
For all new construction and substantial improvements. fully
enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding
shall be designed to automatically equalize' hydrostatic flood
forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of
floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be
certified by a registered professional engineer .or architect. or
must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a, minimum of
two openings having a total net area of not less than one square
inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding
shall be provided; the bottom of all openings shall,be no higher
than one foot above grade; openings may be equipped with screens.
louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit
the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
5. Use of Available Flood Data
The ordinance must be revised to incorporate changes In the types
of data that may be used to establish base flood elevations when
• those elevations are not specified by the Flood Insurance Rate
Naps.
EXISTING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 5 SECTION 5.3
DILTI "0 C' - TT .C'. • _ r• ► 1 FFICIM
(i) When base flood elevation data has not been provided in
accordance with Article 3, Section 3.2. the Zoning Officer
• shall use the Orange County Soil Survey and any other data
available from a federal, state or other source. in order to
administer the provisions of this ordinance.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ARTICLE 5 SECTION 5.3
pUTIE& AND RESPONSTBILITTES OF THE Z-ONflJ OFFICER
(i) When base flood elevation data has not been provided in
accordance with Article 3. Section 3.2. the Zoning Officer
shall 1y3_11-tillge_ ny_.hs3 ood
elevation pa fir/9131,w y _data from a federal. state or other
source, in order to administer the provisions of this
ordinance.
•
•
-
RECOMMENDED RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN NATIONAL FLOOD IPPSURM CE PROM-11%11
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
PAGE 8 692 98
6. E1evat
Current regulations require communities to obtain and maintain on
file certification of the elevation of the lowest floor of new and
substantially improved structures in all special flood hazard
areas. Orange County may now revise its ordinance so that this
certification is no longer, required for Zone A except where base
flood elevations are established from other sourcesr per item 5.
It is recommended that this revision not be incorporated into the
ordinance. The current provision requires documentation estab-
lishing compliance with the ordinance for all. construction within
the flood hazard area. The revision would require this documen-
tation only when the base flood elevation is established prom
sources other than the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Knowledge of
base flood elevations does not necessarily mean that structures
have been built in accordance with this ordinance. -. -. Vie required
certification will verify that construction does comply with the`
ordinance. • For that reason it is recommended that this change not
be incorporated into the ordinance.
•
•
•
•
•
0193 99
MOBILE HOME PARKS IN FLOODPRONE AREAS
ORANGE COUNTY. NC
TAX TOTAL NO. NO. LOTS
NAME REFERENCE LOTS FLOODPRONE
Orange 5.26. .16 37 3
Woods 5.26. .17 18 2
Baileys 5.26. .23 28 3
Wilma (Walkers) 5.26. .54B.56.57 9 2
Flowers 5.26. .33/33A 43 0
Brachs 6.39A. .1-7 7
Pineview 6.29. .31 20 0
The Ranch
(Forrester)
(Tanglewood) 6.27. .9A 19 2
Birchwood 7.15A.A.11.13.14 107 ?
Hilltop 7.19. .23B 35 • 0
J & J 7.19. .15B 13 0
Counts taken using aerial photographs and FEMA maps. "?" indicates
inability to determine number of mobile homes in floodprone areas
from aerial photographs.
JA
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23 , 1987
7 :30 P.M.
SUPERIOR COURTROOM
NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
A. BOARp COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so
that you are not overlooked. )
2. Matters not on the Printed Agend_.
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange
County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct
themselves in a respectful. courteous manner, both with the
Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any
member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this
public charge. the Chair will ask the offending member to
leave the meeting until that individual regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will
recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment
to this public charge is observed.
C. _INTRODUCTORY REMARKS - COUNCILMAN DAVID GODSCHALK
- ALDERPERSON JUDITH WEGNER
AGE NO. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
005 1. Land Use Elan Amendments
a. JPA Land Use Plan - Expansion of Suburban Residential
Land Use Classification
b. JPA Land Use Plan - Boundary Designations for
Transition Area and Rural Buffer
019 2. Orange County-Carrboro Zoning Jurisdiction Boundary
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendnent5
025 a. Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots
031 b. Article 7 .20 PD-MHP Planned Development
Mobile Home Park District
'AGE N 0. �,
4. Zoning Atlas
057 a. Z-1-87 W.E. And Ruby Blackwood (R-1 to LC-1)
5. Subdjyision Reaulations Amendments
071 a. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping and Buffer Requirements
079 6. Flood Damage Preyntion Ordinance Amendments
E. ADJ OUI N 1 NT
. ...,.•._ ..... ..7:.. '
:....., ..,.,...... . _
_._.7. ._. .._.__. ._ .'.1..). .A:2.. t_ .... ..1......"7. . .
i•.- : ::.
.., '-':''.....----:'.1 .. -------.. ---
. -. --------_,-------7_:-------------------
-- . --------- --.7. "---- ..
. ------- ----=' .--.-.-..... . _
. 1
c
je
, g4/4„.'
1,2 A .� / LL,
J-et
1
%A ` G" - /b
migim
1 .
•
# , r1' _
6
+_ •
(FN., .r--- -
/
w _ -e
I
( �∎i, _ .L./. i.
...--- //7/9.;e34,
i . - ,p, ,T ■
f
/r�i� / ,��•
. .c...,,..crL,
it
o�Qr f .V-----
..
V
■.^ _ '
a•
. - ~
- ----
_ ____
'
_ --
-- '
..
� - ' ' `
� ' --
�
-
__.' - _ _-'
_-
' �._ , .
-. --. - �
-- _ __
. � -
' -------
�
' . ,� '
' . . .
- ' ..� - '
' -
- -_---___ - ' __
_-�-
- _- ---__---'
� ,.
- ` -_-- ����—
- - --' _--
' .-- - � `
, ., _- _--_- __
_--_- �
-- _
-
-- ' --
., —... _— _
'
- __ --
�_ _�
.. � --
� -_
-- ' '
' -
-' . -- -----_ __ -- -
--_-_---_ _----'_ -
' _--_
-
_--__'---_' .
`� ' . - _-----_---_-
--a.- -
' _- - --a.--
-
- -
-
�
' _ �_--
'--- '
- -,-
'
-----'
-
' . � ' ---~
' �
` - - ^� _-
� �
__ -- ,
-----'
/ ' ' '--_--_--
---------
� ` -_ ---__- '
' �
_---_ �
'
`- '
. ..
. -
_
-_---- � ^'
' ^
� _ -----
—
` . �
' - �'
` ^~ '
—.------
-_ -
_
I,.
_ _'__---- � ` �'
e a- ex_
4
4.
%.
. _ 4*,
---
•
p
N r
�5r 7124 -
/ .
SAV
,._
6 -
- 1
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL - December, 1985
MAYOR: James C. Wallace
Term: 1985-1989
Kings Mill Road
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 942-1322
Mayor Pro
Tem William Thorpe
Term: 1983-87
709 Tinkerbell Road
Chapel Hill, NC -
H: 967-5813
Jonathan Howes
Term: 1983-87
108 Cedar Street
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 942-3688/ 0: 962-3074
Nancy Preston
Term: 1983-87
517 North Street
Chapel Hill, NC .
H. 942-4450
R. D. Smith
Term: 1983-87
200 Caldwell Street
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 942-5883
David A. Pasquini
Term: 1985-89
249 Indian Trail
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 967-7177
David Godschalk
Term: 1985-89
•
209 Glendale Drive
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 929-5013/ 0: 962-3983
Arthur Werner
Term: 1985-89
2501 Millwood- Court
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 942-2941
Julie Andresen
Term: 1985-89
614 Beech Tree Court
Chapel Hill, NC
H: 967-3661
e" =' r �. •,r•••:', The Chapel Hill Human Services Advisory Board is
' proposals from
�.^, �� °�•�,' �'� requesting pr po s local human services
work ,r
:h_'''- . ,woo agencies to address the following
,t g ow g community needs•` ;',r that have been identified
�:�� „- - n led as being important to
,,,--,, ;:t- 318',W:.•
Franklin St„_Chapel H_ ,”N:C,27$74:,.0.-�„
'..,"V 1: ;9191929-2075_ 'Mon_Sat.'�0-.6' ...; Chapel Hill citizens. •
,
•Affordable Day Care for Low Income Families. f .
ORANGE COUNTY •Preventive Education Programs to Deter Alcohol
.= PUBLIC HEARING • and Drug Abuse by Teenagers.
f •Education Programs and Support Services to Prevent
Pursued m the requirements al the General Starts&M North Caroline,Chapter 163/.Seaton 323 and Teenage Pregnancy;
343,Arede 20,Secdorw 20.5 and 206 M the Orange Cowry Zoning Ordinance.and&Pion VIII M the • •Legal Assistance for Low Income Citizens.
Orange County Subdivision Regulations,notice is hereby glean Mal a public hearing will be held In the
Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse(New),106 East Margate Lane.Hieeborough. •Counseling for Victims of Sexual Assault and Abuse.
Not Carolina.on Monday,February 23,1867.at 7:30 pm for the purpose of giving all interested citi-
zens an oppornuuty to speak for or against the 80Opdon or proposed amendments to der Land Use
Plan,Zoning Arias..Zoning Ordinance,Subdivision Regulations and Flood oemage Prevention omit •Counseling for Women Who are Separated or
11A"ce Divorced.
ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
I
Thu proposal areendmenta to the Land Use Plan under COn ideratiOn Me as,allowa• Nutrition Services and Social Activities for proposal the
1.Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and text to change clan laud use eda • Elderly and Homebound.
property insu�on'Ik'wocated�In the land portion nor�creek drab nand le •Emergency Housing for Women who have been
bounded generally by Duke Forest on the north,Union Grove Church Road(SR 1179)and Dairy- Victims of Domestic■Violence Transients and other'
land Road(SR 1112)tome west,NC Mignon 66 and Buck ham Creek to doe south,and Rogers r
Road to the east. Individuals who are Homeless.•
The current Run/Residential designation it assigned to properties whew development is to
occur at*entitles of no more men one(1)dwelling unit per two(2)acres of land.The Suburban . e
Rem on e5ows development ranging spin one(1)o (5)units pat. Contact Tina Vaughn,Town of Chapel Hill
2•Amend JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN map and tad by prpripfg boundary dp{prua- ,968-2700 for eligibility requirements and
dons for Rural Butler and Tragedian areas U alstem with the countywide Land Use Peen.The
Rural Butler
designation includes land adteeann to an Urban or Transition wee end which Is runs application. Deadline for receipt of application
In oharecter.should remain rural.domain wry low-densiy residential uses and not require urban
et urban-type s process Wales annd °"` is 5:00 p.m., Friday,March 13,1987.
ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO ZONING JURISDICTION `
BOUNDARY
The Town of Carrboro currently exercises zoning.subdivision and budding kapedlon aWrordy in
approximately 1.800 acres or the Univawity Lake watershed.orange County exercises sinker authority
in the wmainin g portion of the waawhedd in the cawgy. : 1.-",:•Proposals will be made which waxes panel Orange County to Incorporate di or the wa ererad into ha �'
jurisdiction and.enercts.zoning, subdivision and Coding inspection authority therein:in Men.
. Orange County would release to the Town of Cerbero's jurisdiction an area northwest of and aJjacem • _ ".. ' S
to the Town's current planning jurisdiction line.The Rost proposal world be based Co dewkpmeM den- ■
sines equivalent to that currently permitted in the University Lake pardon or Carrtoo's Jul-indiction,tion,In- i..
solving approximately 230 acres W land.The second proposal would be based on an acre-Mr-acre se-
change,Involving apprmdmately 1.600 acres
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinar&under Consideration are as foam; . B ..,:
1.Amend Amid.11.7 NONCONFQFIMiNG LOTS by deleting provisions which require the cambint rra^ ,
ton or contiguous nonconto ng lots to create co forming lots.The amendment would agow
owners M lots which do not meet lot arse and width idth requirement.and ern&existed prtor to the „; !,r.,,
adoption of zoning regulations tq build a onebirittly daubed dwelling on add such lot in their
ownership.provided Whelk and applicable Health Department reputations are met.
2.Amend Artlde 7.20 PD-MHP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT by te- '!.
r
vising current design standards for nor mobile horny parks.The design standards proposed In- 41 • r*iar,
dude,but are not fretted to.a minimum lot sal at 5,000 square lest a minimum spacing be-
twren units of 20 feet/22 feet bMwaon units and the street requkenMnie for urattstrest nwd*,
•Ing;hard eurtaced streets/minimum of 18 Met in width;wed skirting or foundation enclosures ' .I
wound each unit base;a 100 foot leaflet strip requirement along the project perimeter.and 444•recreation areas as required by zoning and subdivision regulations. it
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS 444-44.
The proposed amendment to the Zoning • f
arising Atlai unit Cgmaderaton M as WW1= ` if
Z-1-87 W.E.AND RUBY S.BLACKWOOD
The precerty n question Is located on the north side of N.C.Highway 54 west at Its Intersall& • Children's • u-Is‘
with White Cross Rod(SR 1952).It is known as lot number 9 of Tax Map 30,and part of lot num-
ber 13 er Tax Map 308—Bingham Township.Tits property contains 67,120 Maume feet of xo crewneck sweatshirts.
acres.The present zoning of the property is Rural Residential(R-1).The proposal zoning dame-
ficatlon is Local Comrerelal-1(LG1).
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS • ��;' —
The proposed amendment a the Subdivision Greek `"�'L-f•� /
IV-B-8 LAND° PING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS by changing me standards ddeMni ra g the `,.r. !�
nu b beo trees t be paned song area bantagse and reducing Me minitwm required tse/wub mugs, /�
FLOOD.._ glasses, -
_ DAMAGE PREVENTION-ORDINANCE tumblers . (./
The proposed amendment to tee Flood Damage Preventldn Ordinance would melee the provisions e V -
consistent with National Flood Insurance Program floodpan management criteria revisions enacted and VVV Sweatshirt`'
August 25.1998.The criteria restrict mewpctured homes(mobile homes)from Rood prone Mess:re- Y
Sweatshirt-
quite noddprooftng of mechantcd/uddty equipment regime fully enclosed areas subject to needing to much, --
allow for entry and exit of Roodwaters;modify requirements for certification of the lowest moo elevation; • ,
and requlw to use w bass flood elem.&end toodway data, much more. jerseys ly
MI interested citizens are invited to attend this hea ring and be hoard.Public comment must be received
•
P.O.Box 337
a r r b o ro 301 West Main Street
Carrboro, North Carolina 27510
,frititxeiif (919)968-7700 (919) 942-8541
N. .
I �
January 28, 1987 . d"' 1.41
Ms . Shirley Marshall , Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
707 E . Franklin St.
Chapel Hill , N .C . 27514
Dear Ms . Marshall :
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at Its meeting of January 27,
1987 , adopted the attached resolution entitled , "A Resolution
Regarding Joint Planning , Watershed Protection, Annexation
and Related Matters . " Would you please make sure that this
resolution is distributed to the the other members of the
County Commissioners and that it is made available at the
public hearing scheduled for February 23, 1987 .
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Robert W . Morgafi
Tawn Manager
RWM/scw
cc : Ken Thompson
David Taylor
Mayor James C . Wallace
it
P.O. Box 337
arrboro No WestMama27510
Carrboro, North Carolina 27510
(919)968-7700 (919) 942-8541
N.C.
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Judith
Wegner and duly seconded by Alderman Tom Gurganus .
A RESOLUTION REGARDING JOINT PLANNING, WATERSHED
PROTECTION, ANNEXATION AND RELATED MATTERS
Resolution No. 18/86-87
WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel HiII and Orange
County have mutual interests in land use and growth manage-
ment, annexation matters, and watershed protection; and
WHEREAS, a Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group , including
representatives of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel HiII and
Orange County has met several times since the fall of 1986 to
discuss such matters; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group has
developed an "Outline of Agreement in Principle" dated
January, 1987 and containing 13 statements of principle; and
the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group has agreed to submit
this document to the Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County
governing bodies for consideration and recommends approval in
concept of the 13 principles .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF
THE TOWN OF CARRBORO :
Section 1 . The Board of Aldermen hereby approves in concept
the attached "Outline of Agreement in Principle" dated
January 21 , 1987 and including 13 principles .
Section 2 . This resolution shall become effective upon
adoption .
The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote,
received the following vote and was duly adopted this 27th
day of January, 1987 :
Ayes : Randy Marshall , Tom Gurganus , Hilliard Caldwell , Jim
Porto, John Boone, Judith Wegner , Zona Norwood
Noes : None
Absent or Excused : None
•
•
OUTLINE OF AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
PROPOSED BY JOINT PLANNING/WATERSHED WORK GROUP, 1/21/87
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County agree to proceed as
follows: •
1. Commission a study of the water supply watershed carrying
capacity of University Lake and Cane Creek; study to
consider among other things, the means of protection to be
used in these areas (clustering, water and sewer extension
policy, annexation policy, etc. ) ; committee with equal
representation from each elected board, and technical
advisory group to participate in definition and decisions
concerning study.
2 . Commission/undertake rural buffer study, to include stan-
dards and means of maintenance (such as water and sewer
extension policy, clustering, impact fees, annexation
policy, funding for acquisition of open space, etc. ) .
3 . Review by staff and planning boards of County and Carrboro
ordinances in water supply watersheds to determine need for
changes to bring into conformity.
4 . All agree to enter into joint planning agreement as soon as
possible.
5. All agree to review status of OWASA and relationship of
OWASA to elected boards and respective jurisdictions.
6 . All agree to work to develop effective system of conserva-
tion easements for use to protect watershed and rural buffer
areas.
7. County to go to public hearing on moving transition area
line north of Carrboro back to its earlier position (giving
Carrboro larger transition area to north to reduce pressure
on watershed) ; County also to go to hearing considering
advisability of supporting change in extraterritorial
jurisdiction lines to swap area now in watershed for equiva-
lent area (based on capacity) north of town boundary; Chapel
Hill to support both proposals; Chapel Hill and Carrboro
request hearing to be held 2/23.
8 . Carrboro to defer action on density changes in University
Lake watershed until County resolves its position (or until
watershed study completed) .
9 . Chapel Hill, Carrboro and County agree that Chapel
Hill/Carrboro joint/courtesy review area will be established
in the northern rural buffer area between 1-40 and line used
on tentative County-Chapel Hill joint agreement map.
10. Carrboro to defer requesting water and sewer extensions into
University Lake watershed until watershed study is complete.
11. Chapel Hill and Carrboro to agree not to annex into the
rural buffer or into each others' transition areas (either
voluntary or involuntary annexation) .
12. Carrboro to agree not to annex into watershed
extraterritorial jurisdiction pending completion of water-
shed study.
13. Pending projects subject to review by Carrboro to be consid-
ered with eye to watershed questions raised, and to legal
requirements and equity issues. County and Chapel Hill
positions may continue to be taken by their OWASA represen-
tatives.
■
9
ORANGE COUNTY P L: TLNG DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
a' i1:
A'
All
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Marvin Collin
SUBJECT: Rescheduled Planning Board Meeting
DATE: February 20 . 1987
The Planning Board meeting scheduled for February 16 . 1987
has been set for March 3 . 1987 .
Please make plans to attend this meeting. Agendas will be
distributed shortly.
The brief meeting scheduled prior to the public hearing on
March 10 . 1987 for the purpose of preparing a recommendation
on amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance has
been cancelled. A recommendation on the amendments will be
considered at the March 3 meeting.
9
The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Judith
Wegner and duly seconded by Alderman Tom Gurganus .
A RESOLUTION REGARDING JOINT PLANNING, WATERSHED
PROTECTION, ANNEXATION AND RELATED MATTERS
Resolution No. 18/86-87
WHEREAS, the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and Orange
County have mutual interests in land use and growth manage-
ment, annexation matters, and watershed protection; and
WHEREAS, a Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group, including
representatives of the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and
Orange County has met several times since the fall of 1986 to
discuss such matters; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group has
developed an "Outline of Agreement in Principle" dated
January, 1987 and containing 13 statements of principle; and
the Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group has agreed to submit
this document to the Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County
governing bodies for consideration and recommends approval in
concept of the 13 principles .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF
THE TOWN OF CARRBORO :
Section 1 . The Board of Aldermen hereby approves in concept
the attached "Outline of Agreement in Principle" dated
January 21 , 1987 and including 13 principles .
Section 2 . This resolution shall become effective upon
adoption .
The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote,
received the following vote and was duly adopted this 27th
day of January, 1987 :
Ayes : Randy Marshall , Tom Gurganus , Hilliard Caldwell , Jim
Porto, John Boone, Judith Wegner , Zona Norwood
Noes : None
Absent or Excused : None
OUTLINE OF AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
PROPOSED BY JOINT PLANNING/WATERSHED WORK GROUP, 1/21/87
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County agree to proceed as
follows:
1 . Commission a study of the water supply watershed carrying
capacity of University Lake and Cane Creek; study to
consider among other things, the means of protection to be
used in these areas (clustering, water and sewer extension
policy, annexation policy, etc. ) ; committee with equal
representation from each elected board, and technical
advisory group to participate in definition and decisions
concerning study.
2 . Commission/undertake rural buffer study, to include stan-
dards and means of maintenance (such as water and sewer
extension policy, clustering, impact fees, annexation
policy, funding for acquisition of open space, etc. ) .
3 . Review by staff and planning boards of County and Carrboro
ordinances in water supply watersheds to determine need for
changes to bring into conformity.
4 . All agree to enter into joint planning agreement as soon as
possible.
5. All agree to review status of OWASA and relationship of
OWASA to elected boards and respective jurisdictions.
6 . All agree to work to develop effective system of conserva-
tion easements for use to protect watershed and rural buffer
areas.
7. County to go to public hearing on moving transition area
line north of Carrboro back to its earlier position (giving
Carrboro larger transition area to north to reduce pressure
on watershed) ; County also to go to hearing considering
advisability of supporting change in extraterritorial
jurisdiction lines to swap area now in watershed for equiva-
lent area (based on capacity) north of town boundary; Chapel
Hill to support both proposals; Chapel Hill and Carrboro
request hearing to be held 2/23.
8. Carrboro to defer action on density changes in University
Lake watershed until County resolves its position (or until
watershed study completed) .
9 . Chapel Hill, Carrboro and County agree that Chapel
Hill/Carrboro joint/courtesy review area will be established
in the northern rural buffer area between I-40 and line used
on tentative County-Chapel Hill joint agreement map.
w r 9
10. Carrboro to defer requesting water and sewer extensions into
University Lake watershed until watershed study is complete.
11. Chapel Hill and Carrboro to agree not to annex into the
rural buffer or into each others' transition areas (either
voluntary or involuntary annexation) .
12. Carrboro to agree not to annex into watershed
extraterritorial jurisdiction pending completion of water-
shed study.
13. Pending projects subject to review by Carrboro to be consid-
ered with eye to watershed questions raised, and to legal
requirements and equity issues. County and Chapel Hill
positions may continue to be taken by their OWASA represen-
tatives.
. —
8; 1
•Ir % I 0 •
,• •
.
40 "1
/t. 110 III •
<(..
0 . ?I.
#0 . • •
ct- f
t. •
■ .. % JOINT ,s61116.1P°411.• iv
1 •QS up mt 011 •
• qb
..■.
-- WM in,gat UP/
I . a
* ; ,
-J-177.,....C■A
•
r..,, 4 1
. .1 ' jr:ittiAl RD.
% r
o •
•
Ph %-
ARTHUR MINN'S AD. 0 .
co y r--1-.ZAA, 0, 4.0-A■%04 I L
, ,eli 40 t.....aktrFORESTZ,-...A i
CO
W ••■ NY
' I\ ‘ -:- , 6 it• 0: 4
wC e \ ikl:1 ''t' 4:: .-0.• Vit
AD.
TIFIELD h
....1
- - --- ••••. •11
....., ,.._ _ v1•47,44 1. 0 e •
u " ...v . ....:11
-- .. -K /
s..0
i- :A R 4ir."Pe, / /-• -... - •:el
% CI
bailey ND / .•.:;:.'•• :"..-•%:•
16. . 5
* - ..., ...
I'
i V, V I 1 ,
..- 4
4..
I
I'
st 14
• 11 ,Z4-' 04° II .
% AD ,• ,'/„.• ..
•..
.. • rp
il
• •• • -
•—iit• , .-#:-.-:--", * . ::.;::%•......:•:.•
) Calvander , - % 4:: 1 -". t, 4
D . .._4.4''..., .0.+;"' '44
ft •tm , I / %.----..:::• .., 04 4.
.... ,,tc .....
. , ...I •••0
...a t
r
CARRB0
•
• N.C.54 _ -_-, ..„....4.1;at .
••••
OP -to"...._`"....... ILL :•.::".1
i acicirc„wik .
. ,,IS •
II r...'•' . ..;
14111.34abt- lik - -
• .•••& L... ......... I .. •-.•-r-
...i
•••• .•... '•• -•
• ‘4 . .. ......,„:....,A, . %tit,
-
‘' ("6(7' -04...•
li AI, Ng
1 aik, I& LA *Via
1 -we* it
Ra. it. .. • • •• . . • •• • .• • ..
..
-Pll'*%%6-***47,:-... .• ,. . . . II
t....;■
ci ii a
O is 0
I lo-- •• ••;.• '.• ' -.4:::.."..•• '12'..%(.:c
71.. :••••. • '' 1.. : ..•-..: .1x■•• '' 1.141 ,011 2
O c <
%S de 4 a 2
4 a k
I 72 . .. .• .. ......... i
.....?•• •,,, ,„,ce
. .
...t: ?....:..,..:.:::.* ...,do 08 oRANGE c. . .is ury ..!
"is •■• ■■•■wabmil 10.4.1.2"..soap v ,,,- _i4 Tie Illre a°a
CHATHAM CO.
=ALE. -
LEGEND: "..I0. ••••• • University _Lake Watershed Boundary
z.......z.z:
Transition Area t.,.... , _Uni versi ty Lake Watershed in E.T.J.
Transition Area Boundary swami Proposed Addition to Carrboro
Transition Area
Corrboro-Chopel Hill Bndry
1■1111•11•1 Line Indicating Potential New
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Carrboro E.T.J. Based on Capacity
".:.:i.
(Existing) . Equi valency
-nom= Line Indicating Acre/A.cre Equivalency
AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County agree to proceed as follows:
1. Commission a water supply watershed study covering University Lake and Cane Creek;
study to consider among other things, the means of protection to be used in these
areas (clustering, water and sewer extension policy, annexation policy, etc.); committee
with equal representation from each elected board, and technical advisory group to
participate in definition and decisions concerning study
2. Commission/undertake rural buffer study, to include standards and means of maintenance
(such as water and sewer extension policy, clustering, impact fees, annexation policy,
funding for acquisition of open space, etc.)
3. Review by staff and planning boards of County and Carrboro ordinances in water
wupply watersheds to determine need for changes to bring into conformity
4. All agree to enter into joint planning agreement as soon as possible
5. All agree to review status of OWASA and relationship of OWASA to elected boards
and respective jurisdictions
6. All agree to work to develop effective system of conservation easements for use
to protect watershed and rural buffer areas
* 7. COUNTY TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING ON MOVING TRANSITION AREA LINE NORTH OF CARRBORO
BACK TO ITS EARLIER POSITION (GIVING CARRBORO LARGER TRANSITION AREA TO NORTH TO
REDUCE PRESSURE ON WATERSHED); COUNTY ALSO TO GO TO HEARING CONSIDERING ADVISABILITY
OF SUPPORTING CHANGE IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION LINES TO SWAP AREA NOW IN WATER-
SHED FOR EQUIVALENT AREA (BASED ON CAPACITY) NORTH OF TOWN BOUNDARY; CHAPEL HILL TO
SUPPORT BOTH PROPOSALS; HEARING TO BE HELD 2/23/87
8. Carrboro to defer action on density changes in University Lake watershed until County
resolves its position (or until watershed study complete)
9. Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and County agree that joint Chapel Hill/Carrboro couresty review
area will be established in the northern rural buffer area between 1-40 and line used
on tentative County-Chapel Hill joint agreement map
10. Carrboro to defer requesting water and sewer extensions into University Lake watershed
until watershed study is complete
11. Chapel Hill and Carrboro to agree not to annex into the rural buffer or into each other's
transition areas (either voluntary or involuntary annexation)
12. Carrboro to agree not to annex into watershed extraterritorial jurisdiction pending
completion of watershed study
13. Pending projects subject to review by Carrboro to be considered with eye to watershed
questions raised, and to legal requirements and equity issues; County and Chapel Hill
positions may continue to be taken by their OWASA representatives
*The hearing tonight is to focus specifically on questions raised in this item.
ORANGE 4"
"
"16' BEAD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING
AGENDA
PROCEDURE FOR JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PresentatiOn by Staff.
2. ComMents or Questions from B/C
or Planning Board.
3. Presentation by the Applicant.
(if applicable)
4. Comments or Questions from
Citizens.
5. Refer to Planning Board for a
Recommendatien.
(at appropriate tine)
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1987
7:30 P.M. � .
SUPERIOR COURTROOM
NEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
A. BOARD COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that
you are not overlooked. )
2. Natters not on the Printed Agenda
PUBLIC CHAR OE
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County
its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a
respectful, courteous manner, both with the Ord and with fellow
citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen
fail to observe this public charge, the Chair -'$.11 .,a the offending
der to leave >the meeting until that iadiv regains personal
control. Should decorum fail to be restored, Chair will recess
the meeting until such time that a genuine coawatment to this public
charge is observed.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE
005 1. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - SM - N RVIN CQF TNS WILL MAKE THE
ESENTATION r -- 1
7•Irnig;;;!1:11,!r••;,•:.,•,"hi!",, I: ;;,,,,,4:; ::;,:',, ! 4r,,,.,1; 14, 1;:', ' :; ;,; !!! ,1,i1:;.,!',;:1;;p';',;;■;.,,.;,,!!: :': !' .,!;;;.;
1!!!!!!!!1;1111{!1,!1111..!IIIIII`!1111,11' ';':rl'1111! 1111,111111'11:Firl'll'!!!7111"; "!;1:'77!1"111'1'11■1!Irl!J,"'1711:1"I,1";[,f,1!1;117111111,;:, f'/;! .i, ;,1,:111! 11;,.:11;!;(;) 11::tilL!111.[1!;::!!111;1'!'111.11,1,'„Ill11.1i;!;,111T;1:',;'!:! i,'„ „41!:,1;.:■!!; !,;;■ ' ; 1 ' • '';'!';!: !!!':■!'l 'I „
■::,:„,:, 4.,,.:1;,: :4.1::Hill.,:, 1:::L:;;,I 1;,,,, .,1, :
j l';',!1!"!!!;;;!d!!!!!':•!,1 !1'..ro !, ,.!!!: 1.41,"::::11:11!!::,11!1:111114.:1:;!'!1!;;;1143,1,111!‘;:i':1 !'1,!:' ;',';''It,„!1,!!!;,11!1!'17.
:;1 H';,;!:';;',,1,J,,i!!1'1,i':',i'!,,,;..1i,.;::,,,,!,4;ii!!!!::::!!;;;,;,;,i!:'!!1•:,;;;!1,;;!!!';'!!„!1:i!:!.'',:! ,';':it'll'r!';'.!!r4';11;!;;
/1.1
1,,4 4,,,i,4,,,toil44;,,,,,,,„4 „•4,•44,„ „,4 ,• ,•,„ ,,, ,4,1,4i,4 4i.:, ;, • „, ,, ,,,, , ;,,, , •;:i.1.1,;!•,1;[1•.;;;,,,iii•4,,,,15.,••„•••,,, ,.:„..4,1:,1,1!,,,4411,14441,,,,,,:i;„.4,„„,i4.4.14,11,1,,,,,,,i,1,,..„,•:i., :4:4:4•,,,,[1,„:1,1,1„,4:
1
1:1 ,41,;1,1„,,4,,,,4444.„ ,;44.41,1,;;.: •,,,,:;,•,,,;,,,,,i,„! ;4 4. . ,, ., 4,4 .1 4 4 ,1,„.44,444,, 411,:,(:4„bit;l:.,,i,,,4„..,,,441.,,..„:1,4,,,:,..ii,..ii,,,,,,,,;.,,,,,,44,,,,,.,;;„,..„4,1•144,11,44.,,,,,, !:„•,,,,,,,,•••4,4,,,4•••••, 4,,,,,,,,/•;441i..4144,44,,•,:4.,: ,
1,4...
,,,,,•, ,,41.,,, •: •„ , 4 ,,,,,„. :,„•„,i11,1,4•1.,H,,,,.4•4,..,1,..1,1.,,,, , :: ,.,, . : ,;.„. , , ••,,,,,,,,41,14,,i,„,„ , 4 4 •
11„.,,,,,,,..,„1„,,,4•4„44:,,,,,,,,• , ,, , : ., ,
• :1,. ,, ,, .
4 ,
444: 44.444," „.,,„,1:4;14,1i,1„:14.4i.„ ,• , .ii .4,!:.i,,,, : , ,, : ,
, .
. ., .
•: :, , : • ,,,14.44.ri.,,,,,,i44:414,4 , ,
,
:,.: „,4•,,,,r4,44.11,,;.:1,44,.••• ; • •14•11.•;;;„:„:„.iii•
4,, „ ,,, ,•
1 " , , , , ,1„1„,,,,,,..i1: ,. ,. ,•.;, ,
,,4•4•,441i4,4,14,,,4;4,4,,,1: ; • "4„44;r1;ig...11,,,..4, •• . :, ,
.„,,,4 .1,, ;„•4 ,,,, ,, 1„ : ., , „, ., 4, 4 ,..; 14,iiiiii,,,,i ,,,,,,,,,e4,1,. , ; ; : ; ; 40„..,,,..:Ip•44r•••,,•,.. 4 : 4••,,,,, •
11 „ , , • . , . • ,, :„,, , ,•::,,44, . . •,,,:i, ,
, , ,,,id, l,„: „..„ .,,,,,4•41: ,
,•,,, 4,44,„,i,.. , , .
, ; :4 : ,;., ,,,,,, ,.,,• „,..4,,,,, ,
, , 4,, 4,.4 1. ,, , ,, ,.: ,, , • 4., , 1,,,,.1 ,„ „,,,,.,, ,,,,,,•,, ,,,,,,,.„,:4,4,44.4,.,,,,,, , , ,
.,,, . ,, ., . . ,
, „ , .,
; ;• „; :, ."
:„•,,,,•,,:,..3 .,
• , 1 ; ,.. ,, , :41 , „44444,4,4., ,;:••.,•,4 „:444,„:„it:;44:„;
;
, , ,,,.•,,,, ,o, ,.,,,,,
,, , . , ,. . ;44.,
,., .
„ •, , : ,,i",,,,.4,4, .
,,, . . . .
• 4
,:,4..,,,, . ,:,.:, :.,:d , • .4 •4:; ,,,, ; ;•, , ,4„.,;:,,,,,,„•••
„.,.,.,i4:4;•„,41:,,,,,,i„f4„1,,,:::,144•,,,,i,,„, .:4 „,44., ii; •1: ,•4. 4 ,,,,,,i• : ,
: • 1
,, , , • ,4"„,44i•ii,,,,,.,,,4..!1 :::,141,1,,,,14, 1.,;•,444:11•14,4.,441,4, 44: • , i,„,444,44,„ ,.;,, „.::.: ,, •,,,,.".:•,,i11. ;: , •,,H, .4 ;,,,,,i,i,„,: ,
• ,, ,,. „
44,:.1.1•1141;4„•,„ , , :, :, • , , , : ;,,, • ,i,, t...41.1.:4:, ,,,,•„;i14.,1, 4 •.;.•„, , ••4,44,,,.•,.. ,,,.4.,• ,:„.4.4:,4 „„ 4.,44.444,11,.4.,:: .,..• ;.,4„4•44,i;,,,,4 ,
• , ; i!4,„44,,,,,,,,,,1 LH,. ;•„„,„•,,,i,i),„4::, ;: ,, 4 ; ,,,,,, ,,,•41. •„ : „;,; ;i;: i.,4:,,,,,
,,,,,,„,,,,4 :, ;„,„;‘, ",,,,,„:4„,, ,, ,,,•,,,,,,. :,4 : : ,, :,,,,,,,, , : , :
,•
,1 ,, ,,:. ..,.,,,:,•„, ,
, , , 44,„„ , , • : ,
; • ,
• ,
,
„
. ,
1 ,, 1
4 ,. 1
,, , , .• : 1 •, .„, :,1.„, ,„ ,.:. , •,:..
14. , • „. , ,, : : : ,,„ • 4., ,„, , , , 14:,,:„, ;,•,.,:,, , , ,, 1 41: , ,. H..
1,• ,."11• , , ,,
1 , 1,„,,,,,• ,.,,,,, . .„,4.1. 4., 4„..1i ,...,,,. .•, , . .1,14 .„ 4, . 41,.,,,,,,,,14:,,,,,,..,, • , ,,, ,
.„ .
l• 1 ,,, „,•,: :
;4.4 „. ;11,„1 :„.., ;,., ,, . :: , „„ •,,,i, ,, • .4 , „ 444•,,,,,I,4•,,, „.444:„,4„4:4,444,44:,..,„!•44,14,„:1,4i41r,,,,„,,
, ... , 1, , , . • : :4•:4;4•„4 : .„,4.;,4 4,,,,,4 :,:•,4,,,„. . .„;,.,, . , 4 ;:•
0,, , , ,,:: 1, . , „,,,,4, 1,; 11 , 4 :,,,, ,, ,., ,.,..,. , 4,, ,.: ,.,„,,4 ,,, , 4 4„, ,, , , •• ,„, •,,,,.,,,... •• ;
; • ; ,,,,,,, : •
,,,, , 4.411,,i,::•,:
„ ,:„ , ,,,,„ ,. ,• ,,, ;4: ., 1 , „,,,:,•;i,4.„.44,.„.. :4444,4;4,4i4-4,4,, ,,i;;,, ,, , . ,.; • ;; •
i , , 1 ,, ,, ,, , ,•„,,,,..
: 11
• ,,,„ „ ,,1 :,,•4:: . , , ,.,„ 4•, ; 1.„,„,,,, ,,„.., ,,•, , ,,,.44; ,, 1
, .
• ,,,,,,,,,.• : 1. „ ,, ,,,,,,,,,„, ,, „,,,.,, ,,••„ „,,,,, „•:.,,,i ,,,,., :,,,,,,.„41,,,,,,4„,,,,,4,,,,, • 4. 4, .,
• . ,. 1.,4.,,,, ,,,,,,,,,„,•,;444:::•;4:4;4,•o,,p11,441,1„:4.,;,44„,;:.4,:.4i,,,,,,,,,..,..„;f,•,,,1•141'.P. •.,•,. •,..,• , ••1.i•1, • • , -,,
: : •••,•• . . • •,
•
,,, • •
'1 • ,•••••••• ,•,•H• „ 4.,•-• , , •,,•4!••;••• l''',' , '..•• ••,,•,,!'•1,'.•II' '' 1:•••• H.'••••• !•• „ •
, •
. „ • • •••••:,•••-•••••••k •1,1 1,•• ••,••, -•,••,,,•••11, , • •••••... •, •, il,",•;•:••-•:•;••:,,,,•••, i•J1:1•1. • , •
••,••• • • • •• I , ,''•,:, r",,1,111 Ii, ,";;:',1'Li; ;„; ,:',..,, ; 4i;i:
; ';' 1; • ”' : ' ' ' ';''"r1I 'II...,Ill; 1 ''' r, , ::,, ',1''1 II„.1::!;P: ",,1[;1",;.;1,1'.;'.III,r1 "1,41;' ,„1;;,-il,,,,,,,;.1,;;,1, ;,1:',I,';',.;;11".;!,::,;.:,,,'fil,'''';',';;!".,.'',I);11.1,1',
11.',. , ::' ' ';".:, 11,-,111,I;;;V;''•
' ' ': ;':,., ' ',:;:.:1 '': : .! ;:,',1:‘,4,,:;,.';' '';:':'' ,,,;;I:;:r'.1::'':: '■;;i!:,P”:;4'; -,..;''','' •;;,•;;',..•'";'; '•
, „ , ' ' i.' .;;' ';'';':' ';',•',;'' ;L.;'';',LI,' •' '-4' • • ' ';;'I .:'',. ;;;', ;' :1 '..,!..,i; ' ,
; '• ; ..1•;;;., ” ;,!4,;‘•;"'; . 1. 1,-;;;;;;Ir"" • . '.' ; .; 1;:I;ILL';d4.•;:.1; ";;;:,''; ';'"11;11 ,
' , : •, ,,,, ,;;,;;.1,„ ••;';,: ' ,,.,.2 ;., .,'. ,:j• •;; ,,;,.;;;;;,,,,,„i,,: ,•,•.'l',..,:!-,"•",1,",• : :: •: ,
, L 1 ,, ;,,:il,',11.„tr,'•::::.$'1,1,1:1"-:„ ;;',.,',',-,;',:,•••;.,.,', ':'"-:'' 1';', ;p, y
;,•,.;.1i1;lir:,!'41. ;;;;,,,,,",',1,:;,,,..,,,I,,,, ; • ;
; ;• • ; ,' ' ", , . ; : ; : .1:-';::; ',"';':.- ;';'.;':;" !'•!'':' • .. ! : • ';'","; ',..;,;,;;',', -.;• ; ,' ; ■;;:-
1 ' ,
; ,,, :„:, 1 ',1 .: ::„, ,,,; 1,,'• ;;;:1; ' ; 1 •;11: ,,,.:.- ;; ,::: ,,;,.,,,1; ,
LP.,: 1 ;;:- ,: ' -'::, • ,;''1'1 •' .' ,•„ .;
; ' ' '• :":1:-;:;',„"'";11:: 1: h:, : '• :, •,;. .'H;l'il;',:,,•1,;ii':, ;:",l';';',.;• ' 11i;;.J,.,':' • , '.; i 1
1'',E,,'' ;,, p.;;:1,;; ; ;A." , ,:;,1, ,, : :;,•":1"1,''1; '.' ; ' " ' ' ; , ; ,' •::,:tr,": 11.:,•,,,Hr: ;,,:4,10,,,:;111,,,,, :. , ; . "-L.:
; , ' ,;• ,,,,,,':,,, lik f.::,1,:1,l':;" ,' ,,,'• ," !..;1'11,•1',,-",'; ' •
,; ; HI 111;:,;,i;L; •'; ''• ,,,' , , :'., ,';•'...-,,":•;;;":!;'1, I'' ;• ;: ",y; •: ;'..; :; ,' ':;',■ ;,,F.,..':...;;,
, .
,.„
,. 11,, iT., , ,,• ,; ,,, t., ,, ; ; ,, ..:,, ..,,,. :•.: „,?,,i, ' ; ' , ; , ' ,
' "- " ' • ' ' 1 1;, ""; ,',:"'"':;;;, ',:"1'j : "' '• ';;:-R'L'•: ''''''';';'-- ' ; ' -
,; •, ,
„ ,•:;;;'", ::,'il,'',4,,, :!'" 1'•1- '
, .
";;'',,,"':' , .
, ; , , 1,,,,, -,, •,.'11;:'':„'
,
1' ! 1.'t'•:;: ;.i.
',..1 1':;!1'...;',.:;1'‘:::1;I:;;A'1 11;1•■,:;1.:.;-: • :': 1 ILI t'i'I i 1":1!..1,1 '1';.,;'1"11;;;; t./',': ":',:' . .1 '
:: '',Id , .::'111;;Ile,1,..; .1.{1:.'d':,:t; 1;,, • ",1.',",11;;l'iji,'':4 IN;;.!1;''r' : '';, :''
• '. , I : •• ',.. ',i'::I :r,'1,;II'I;f:‘,LI.:!1:L"'I'.1'.:;;111I';i'll',;;;;1!.. I''4. ,;',.: 11.I.'1,I;111I1 ,Iiili;;II....•ri:;'; :11; ';:'''1';11;;;;I!H ]'''iic'',1,.',' ' , LI,•''.1, ,,', ,
';,.•fli.I.H,,,:,„;.,,..L.,4',•.,,,',11,,,,HI,:,l'it I'll!RIIIIIiiii'1;ifli',0111,1' , ..,k;111,1,1qA:•II;I'',,I,I ', 1, . .1: 1 • 1 :I.;
' • ''1 I ,!I 1.1 °,111,':1'04 4114,;4.•■ •;•I;;',H•;•';'• ;••';.'44,i)lil ; ',..,,;,; ;,„ ,„;,.,1,;;;,.",;.; ;;;.;;;,, ••,,,,,,,,
' 11,1',; L; ''';I'L; L ' ' L'.' ' L ; " : . ,;,''' '' ;•; '''''114;•L;'44::;;;Lp"r ;;''1;•:',•••'•' •••;•r'I'•"; '4 C•;";;;‘,...i!'1 4,',;!L•1;111,tiL (•. ;:'1!0•Jr!'1 !';'1.'1,,; '..•I ' H '•.:
; , ; .;;; •;Id;L;•'';'41:;;;',1•.;11i14'1,4,,•••'L' 4'.:1 !..'7,'L.'•"•' '
, H','''::■:',L.:;'i2'.,,I,,!! lilr•ii, 11'',:'11'.'iiVi'''l' 1 i,. 4 :''
, ' i,,,,,,,,,,■: :!!1,111.:..,'i,,b,r',',',il'Ir.11,H''.:4,i':,li'...,,:,-;'''.H, ''''-
. ' ' 11:,,' l''''!.i ,.' ,,! ' '' !• , , .,., „
: — • , 1'
... •I 1:1 •-• • ''' 1 1•,, ,,,'''1' r.'■•, ,
i,
, , ,, 'I' ' '1,1 ' • , ' !. '1 I • 11,','''l' : , ,. , ' ,
i 1'•
, :;I,,
HI' 1 '," , '' ,l''.',L'' . ', ,
" ' ' • , , ,' .,,,,, , :,,: ! .,,,,, ''' 1 ''',' H '. "rr''''' '
:,• , ,,,, .,,1: ,, ,„, , ',, 'I , ', ,'.'l• 1,1'.1 ,' ,,1• • ' :, .,1,I' ,I., ,,. .',i,, ,,
,,,. , ,,,,,H,,., , ,,, Hd 1 ,'1:•11',:„.1 '., •' - , ,' ,,,4'1.1',1,-,',, 111,, i ' L.,1
, .
' 1 , ,1 ,., ., •, , l'', ', ‘'' HI 1 • ' '''•■'•,','1:• ''..4 '•' ' '' ''',,•11,H'HHC.,,' ■',,‘.. ii '''.'•
!,'..' '!, .'r,::''''''..■'•''r ,11;li',,l'I'',11.2'11:''''i'l.'Lii h,'''' :''' ,'.1:",1'.
•i'k .,'H111' lli;‘11 ,I,'.'..‘L,'.:''':I .,...;I Ii.II,,:'''';'.P';11,'.i'''''F''011'.1." 1"."‘..i:11',',.liAtZtd!k,It'1:1, '''.1'1,PLi'' ! '
41
.': '''.'..'•'.L.,:'HLII,,1'',.,. . ,,,, : .,14 i„,, ... L.• 1,„:,.L„.,',';','iii....1r;;,11;10'11.■:ii,'''.i''''','''ii'll''''':!1' j•• ''L:, ''' ','''''''''' 1, : :H11,:. ,4ILli:,,,,',',Ii:,'',',..,
' . ',..,4i j,,I, , 1''''',•'.',''''.■r,,,,1 11. ,,,"', ',P '.'''4. , 1",,,: , ' , .'•! '.' ,..t.14.,1',1,.,'1,:i .1 , 1
"F
, ,.:"'''..": ,,., ,,
, ■
. ,
' ' ' : • ' ,L•,,,,'I' 'il, ,., '' ,' I I,' ,I,.1 : .1.:•'',''; ; ,,j.:',•,,,'j'•''
' , ,1 :'', '''','', ''l 1 1 ''''. , . •, '. ••..11r,i.1:,'C,?H'il'... ' ' .
1 ,
_rralL ,
, '
4,9r I 'Ors Wb!L4 . ,, . . . •1 OILMAN DAVID GOCOMIALK
ALDERPERSON JUDIT i
a.. JPA Land Use Plan -- Expansion of Suburban Residential
Land Use Classification)
b. JPA Land Use Plan - Boundary Designations for Transition
Area and Rural Buffer
019 2. ORANGE COUNTY-CARRBORO ZONING JURISDICTION .BOUNDARY - S
DAR M -MARVIN
MARVIAI .'
CDLLINS WI MP „THEE . ,_SEN'PATION
MOTION: RE- TENS a lb and 2 TO THE �P � �. �t - , FOR THEIR
'_.. -'�_.. RE WD AT THE 6 -i:{_
5 MINUTE RECESS
�.. 3.. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - BJ - LLI
PRES_ ATION THE
025 a
• Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots (RURAL BUFFER)
M. ION: ....PER • :i° PLANNING BOARD FOR T' B! CEIVED AT
r .1% . i- p-i -plarlzuk MEETING
10 MINUTE RE. S - LET THOSE FROM CHAPEL HILL AND TEAS
031 b. Article 7.20 PD-NRP Planned Development Mobile Home Park
District - MARVIN C LLI S
057 4. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS - BJ .. MARTIN ALL MAKE THE
PEES P1 A ION
a. Z-1-87 W. E. and Ruby Blackwood (R-1 tO LC-1).
071 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS - B,T WILL THE
PRESIMATION
- -
a. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping and Buffer
ReqUirements
079 6. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS .. 3J -,oug SZYMICK
WILL lap WE PRESENTATION.
MOTION: �- v�. - 3b 4
'A'W.'ION TO 1 • ",- '� �,M AND,5' TO THE P I G =�. vr,?-_ .: A RECOMMEN-
B 1 GH BY APRI :1 2+p' g Fa i, r GZilir 4 0 `?3 i:. +,�,SE
,. i
`CO i tip' D. � - ‘CE- =D =Y THE BO :i- + r�.� t-M i .e PAN A
THE-BOARD C9N u;;
E. ADJOURNMENT
SHIRLEY MARSHALL.
I' { 1 1, 'i p q17rg"� 9 C''tl'sl,l•IImN a•
N d• , " I '{' • 1'1' ' ,P , I ' If d�, II 1 l 1 1,I II•i1 � ], .II I•I ,Pall '' I� �1`1111 l I �1 II •� 1i; t I
P 1;1•,, I,. v 1 p 1 t , i•f y l 1 d1'I r H1,1 t7,,t i l• I,;j ,;:,.,d, ,1 ,,;i'; 1! ,,.•
,p: I III •�t' : ° I.1' i•111' I I•r �,,.Ii II' 11 II 1^ 1
j 1 d•, ,, ii,l'.i,.i1t; :I';I,^' L 1;.f,: ,1111 J i,,11�,,;01, ,, I al' ' ,pal ,II, 1�.
, ::i i'I' �9 1 •' '96'';,,11,.'ill �' •i'�'^:y'�id���'•1,�.I yn: .1!,;�� ��.; rl+ �1� '1.•
1''I�j: h hi, il.ld 11'',i!r: I'�'I,;i' 1• j,l q19,"'ni,ll,v.,a•I,a,.+.. .6,,:;•�„ 'll, :03, I�d;a
n 1.•I;' ili 99 6 1•cl 1111. It I 1 q 1• a., il! I' • X11
11
Ii
1
r 4'� ! �I
II 11;
o' d. 'i ;'I.1' i i'I
� ,� ill.:; 411,
Ilt • ,,I .;1 11 Tl ,,,,, :,,,.I r ,:i 1 ,,, ',..,I ,i, : .1I,. ,,• ;dll,i l L',r..{;,"1j•aIj.'Y I,1
1. •
•1 i:,l.• i8;i I
I
n
Ia
1 �i
"'liw
^L.I
.. '�I �11'w I,. i'
I d'ay'-:1 a'p.
I :I I,j
I r. 1
i .I
I '11'
i,
I1 'll'.
�� I:I�r 1. L..
i:. I
,n'. I
'1�,1 1' 1. ;I, :Ili •1' ..
I'
a j'
';117,1 , ' '1'
�n.
I .
•'''•1' 11,1':11;L+1 I,N• 'r.,•;''r}.,,, '.I,i.,l 1 ii1 l{', ,Ilr ;n+' �''
ui, f 1 .'.• :III..d9.lyl;lr,, �,.. ,..71• 1 I
•
11'1" �• ,'k'I1q• i`'d :, III !1i
'1'k.!I"'� a1,11''1(11: il' I, 9. dl, I;.•
' ' .�7,; :I,,ht.? It'"••••••!.I. 1;li�� � , 111.;lj.•i, �•I,Ii1,
1..'11 1 .;i'1f''1
„'I ''IIe':1 : 1.,;;, i s .1'i:
1
I. I•I I �� 1
d'Lj,l iilgdll.: :'It;f d'I„11"., ';. . . , .
1,11 1 q1. '' .t I�
i' I '!I'a j' <31�, I1i.' '',II H. '1• .
'•11 1'1!'1,1 1 :1, Ili ''jl ;.
1111!;11, .i I 1:, ;..;'..'"" i! Id j"!' ,• I:I r , •I ":1.111,•••111",',• I I� l 1
7 i'll %' rrrl 11.1,. ,r,; ilnl'd,.,•
• ' ,�I11''� hhh l:ii4 i•'1•••{ii1':Vkl','fiiia,'i�l:,�11gy�,'}•, . 1;111,1;�,1;1•: �,1%::,',4111' �• 1 ht it•1,,;r.f,", j III:•j. .„... i:, d
1'
w ,••j i�
I
1':
!t'
j
i
1
q,
I
I•.
'{I. ,11'1
, qd,, PI yl' 1 I.I. . � .
I
a 1.11 I
< I h•j ii i II ^v1r „11..�I•,' I. .1••• . : •I •+i .•1, I. '11 I"III,{{
•j .�'1•,•• .4 1 .I. 1°11 a,^.'I�„Il1• 1''1'`11,
{ i'i' '•9. ,:I t.;.I' �;',i.,•.,I' ,II,'1{,� �I�F"r�a'1111'Fl�;l•
1• llj.,''I,II,II ;1'da !,'f9 ..I[P7;' ,i•, I I, 1'1'y1:V111:1
,1 �'fi. I,,I ',0, •..r, I •I ell 1,11 r',ht"'"11;,.,,,11I3 r d 11"II:is:� •
,,.,' .I g':I•rr Iii r'I',ry � � I;:, d�
'li,�•ll .�1'•,ga,l•:�11, •1' 1
h9!1� II 'I� 'rl.k 111,,. Ili.
1.. �1� I.' �` .I, 1.1{V h9.• it i II' '•11111: I •
�. r
i'1 1111 I 1•I;'
{
^ 1 1
r"
IIu,'.L
u
it
ri 11,:
I
j. ' "M 111111
"w 1a' 9• 11'''' dlra: i i'h.1'I k'.,.
J, II 1"
11 ,1',I',,1I. • �I,';,l1 I•L� VI' 111`1lrn.§',,,sj,p,GI'�. • i�1Ilijii`.1 l';„:I ''llI I I'Ii'dl,•I��II'' 1•
1, II � , I, ,1 : � �
ii ,i ! 11' :1''1'1
ril 1 I, ,1'I. '41,'1 i•'iri. �i el'• j
11
• 'I:I
I X11
J
Ir s 4'�,4! II. I, I',ii,l 'lljsl� iv,1 ,I?Il:�l'I�` •r ��{, !11�Ik;'I�I
' x•1•1 ■1 ,'917 ht,:, ry •; . •r ,•I`' 1 lil
��II'� 1•Irl,'' �il:r. pia l' � ��i
1
l.
r1 - a
Ir I '■1 'III'', k�
.I n, i� �, I
d1. �.
III
.
.
r.
1 I ,".
f
'
,r
,r' r
:J;, d,', Ili.
!Ill' 1'', r � I r
1 , "' 1 i
I 19' ,
1 ,
I
1 1:
I .�. I
1
fi
. •I,1
1 111: � ��,1� '�,„ I'1�',1,.111�I, .
1
1
I.
�, ;Al' I
I1.
I j'i!
:"r
1
ji
i!iV;
I
1
'I
r. •
I I
'.I 1,111 Ildl..,i;�. ';11 11111-
":;;:•;):;
,1
l
9... .,'
.' 11: yIL; c'' .
1., , i1: G' .3 1' ,w: rll,
1 I .. rl PI•
1 tali •1 :I II
In
'li 1
� I 1. �I' l
l,p; la s;
,'Ia
1x
r
r
ai.
'r, yl
1 1 ..I
1 � .�.k!i:�hlf` I �i:^i11 d �4e I �".1+ '�!•i�� `I"��i;'1� 1 ii�i�'';I; � ��I I•
,I �, :,. 1 4 9111
111::''
1' � � 1 ?I,1 ., 1' 111 .
1 � � � �� � ''1,61.1 i .„
I
I r,l
`I'll . i...
f
,: Ii
1 ", "q' J11
,
I I I
II I ��
iiai •
r
I
1
Pf
� III
I 1 I'
• 1 1 VII i'X11;�,,. .I 1�1.11!" I;, '"rl Y• 1•
,, 1 .hl liV' �, ,�'1, 'I'i� };11. I•i li,:A 1.1111{•,
'•‘,'�111x; ' 111,.1., I�I • �I'v4 •i' {I1.j'i� l ,il irIli Ii �'i{Ij
1 1 a ! 111
I, 1 1 I;d°..•lip .a, " 'i ,1�,:� a, .I I,
1 .,Pi• 1!9.11 �,fhi • :II11`�,Ih'1•1:�;I'1 I'�ii,1 �Ili�('.
1 h1 'v II,�r •1� III1 'I. Lx•9 d, ':M1i' 'i''
1
I. II�� � � 4;�,1�I �'i�l�"�r'1' 1 1� I�,i'' 11:1111, I I
"d,,' iir' I'•'7i il' 1,11 °:',
'li 1 IFI'I41, .1 v Ii r
I I ,. 1 91 ,I•Ili. 1j ,.'':"'i1':•;'• ".'491k'alll"'i ll�ll' •• qF ,11i'I-h :d1r•d i� :,1�:•;.II:^,•3111 j1'••i:1�:j Jg II III", 1�. a �11'�I�
' � • 'r I:.. ,�fil;l�rl. �.�g,ln1,{''':11,9?•''Pl;r ',.le.� ry { •I• 'LI'v:�. � ,.I'ILdI �r�
fii
J ''9111' .
hrlvM rrl. 9x11..: . , I•
!,r• ;,,I,,, I .ICI qq ,.�ala•:• .i '1 II 111N�
Ii'1'1 .q�1i Ifi ;,I, '�rq!�li', ��i:!tl'�^.••I•.�'i"iII�;1 11 {:11111 Iliu�!i-0I11. 1J'i41,•� ^, '.
ti'"I',,i.l,. 1 11 L1 ',4l' 'I� 1,111 1 -
111' I'IIr
il:',
1''ll'
,
,.,:I,l.II11,.�'i,""' 1`14.1
il.; n 'il � I,II' dd"
'.I'' 1'r I I
�I,'1
I' '
'I'
li iII�1 n'
;' I
•.�I '.nrl I r' .
i
I' 'I
1 I 1h' Ilf'1
�1
k19;
Idy, ,�i',; Ili' r
�.' j �I�II �»i I
I i 1.. I I
I 1�
CIS' I 'I, r1 I:
,1'
I' I
v. I I
;'1 I 'd�, =1,.11
I I"i
``II 1i•I 1 Pi i L. I
I li ^r
81 •9;1';1 I'"'v
„i1�' ;1111
,'i I i ir,�1 Y'.1� 11'" l
ql" '11 ,.r"" „1„'I'. '1' y' 1.11' , ,
,I'� .'�I� I', .1 '.U.. .11•' 1 1
r'y1, 11:I. ?111
.1 , fY ttII
•l 119. �""••��I '11'.
r 11'1'1•�I� "r1+, •;•;",:11
I j .. III Id'•1';:. 'Y.: yy I
f{ ii
11' I I I
" ;
t
i� II'?
jll �..Irl 1
1
!'R;il' 1,1
ill ri ;,1•1i ,i
i d. �1• 9,
{{
1 :. 1111,
, 111 � I
,.
ii
1
r'I
I�•
. I
11'
11'1 ,•
I .•i' i.' i l'
1
^b'
I.
i•' I
•i I ' 1(11. .111-I�1 � �, ,�� ', .
I 1
I
a
•
1
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO,NC
February 23, 1987
I am Virginia Cunningham, President of the League of Women Voters of Chapel
Hill/Carrboro.
We have watched with interest as Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Orange County
have worked toward an agreement on joint planning for areas outside the
planning jurisdiction of the two towns. We commend the Joint Planning/
Watershed Work Group for their perspicacity in proposing an Outling of
Agreement in Principle.
We have concluded that joint planning is the best method of assuring
equitable decisions for the residents of the transition areas in the
tricky questions of land use, zoning and development.
We strongly support the recommendation that a study of watershed protection
for University Lake and Cane Creek be made. Such a study should result in
the presentation of a factual basis for determining the future use of
those watersheds.
Your deliberations have been difficult, but, given objectivity and good
faith on the part of those involved, a successful outcome can be expected.
Intergovernmental cooperation among the three jurisdictions calls for
statesmanlike thought by members of the governing bodies.Working together
in the spirit of compromise is necessary for achieving acceptable decisions
in the public interest.
Feb . 23 , 1987
Madame Chair and other County Commissioners ,
We ' re sorry we are unable to attend the public hearing tonight
because we feel very strong about the issue at hand . As long-
time residents and landowners in the heart of Calvander and
members of the Calvander Community Association we are bitterly
opposed to the take over of our community by Carrboro Officials
and we question the legality of a swap . We feel it would
eventually destroy our neighborhood which a lot of us older
residents have worked long and hard to preserve . We don ' t
appreciate a bunch of strangers planning for what we can or
cannot do with our own land . In our case , it has taken me 60
years of hard work to accumulate the 70 acres we now own in
Calvander . We think the Calvander people are quite capable of
taking care of their own land . . .we ' ve done pretty good with it
so far . It ' s a pity that things have gotten so out of hand that
the burden of proof is now on the taxpayer and never on the
boards , who are paid people .
Calvander residents and Carrboro officials do not see eye to
y p To give you an example ,
eye or�_ how the land should be developed .. T
we purchased several lots across from Barrington Hills many years
ago , while it was still in the county jurisdiction . The lot at
the intersection of Old 86 and Fayetteville Road was zoned for
commercial use when we purchased it and we planned to eventually
build a nice store there . Carrboro involuntarily annexed all of
that land , and of course , the property tax on all the lots over
doubled . They also rezoned our corner lot to residential . Now
we cannot do a darn thing with that lot except let it grow little
trees . A man came to us a couple of years ago and wanted our
qt.
permission to display a few nice tombstones on that corner .
We said "sure" thinking they would look better there than just
trees . When he went to Carrboro to get a permit , they said
"no" . Soon after that , Carrboro sent us a diagram of a
"Welcome to Carrboro" sign which they wanted to put up on that
" "
corner lot . It was then our turn to say no .
In closing , we would like to impress the importance of our
strong opposition of total control by Carrboro officials and
we are counting on you , Our elected County Commissioners , to
keep us under the county jurisdiction and to not turn control
of our land over to Carrboro .
Yours truly ,
J . V . Brockwell
Opal C . Brockwell
(yr,07,14:9,--) • 11111
/� (.vim
(r,
50 - F-,-441.14'L /�S /A/ a4IP,tNc /) / S`
AO -- Feet /L/ -i9. 1F S/a-A)E7P
February 15, 1987
x7 - 3/G/uprrv �5
• W® the undersigned, who are all residents of the Celvander Community area
and/or of Barrington Hills area adjoining and Orange Countr tanpayers, do
hereby strongly, any plan to include Calvander as pert of the Town of
Carrboro. ,,>
1. /v %2 A � 4,/ G,li
-‘7;-.-. 4i 2. ''k ,‘+-1 7 60yAkka_-0-4,:-, /05 O - b1-'r""^ i of 4.1 I-I IS, 4`7lir t u 5 - 4 LT wva 1 0 ''L<-e Itnz i e.i.-s .
3• Ilit � �Q,1 rlC�4 Y1 L Qt) e
5. �'- -/ % , C /!'6c- _ eft • s,'
6. • ■�° .— i0- e# .1�14?.g7/
=. '',6a,y)-e i-e-J,e,,i-Le____ / 45. 'il, ef- ,
o,.. 4-• ?)0.-->." 46'- T.4 I I
9. ./. ,lir 9., ' , . to v- ,--,., d n
io. le". - P AV/* ' it) / OoLiird /fii 6"/ "/ 1 '47.41K/ArrivriAl 11-/445. •
11. i I " - 70(
12. Co, > 1( * z*-7 6-4, �,.---
■ 5 r4RRi No TO.4 ,.n'---5
13. 1.2,7 - .. . . ' . / 0 q 8 ev-T6A1 ,bRivr,14. 4. `770.4.. 1/5 i ,►A,,l--1 /J-,'. Ale-i'67
15. Aft i.et 54UX 07oK 13,tiL Liii JK 5
ICJ 1 -*n -. �h A,14::L -
17. cjt Ilk"' Ciac Ckri0 °2 00 n'--u-Io v‘ �e ) P a.fn 1 ,V-ILQRs
18. �--e- �'t V_1g t **� " /i-e J G
20. .r ir, Pax . . to .6 w 1 f
21. .. , ! e-1/4--/ Icy 7- /' /i°121.4. ial,
1 d,,- � VGA.
22. r
23. ;.i.eir&C-Lcif- e �, �' -
24. f c H'"A`e'c' �i- .2c I n W
5. /
/45 ,OVa:¢0eLd .21,4^- /Pk '
,olk. 1'I 7 - i. -4,,gir,(Az_
,, , 41 ti, 't 0‘. 1,-1315L,,j:A.14_,.._ e --0 r 6.-. 1/4-i•-•c.].s:,. sirk., N. ,
February 15 , 1987
We, the undersigned, who are all residents of the Calvander Community and
Orange County taxpayers, do hereby strongly oppose our neighborhood's planned
inclusion as part of the Town of Carrboro. We want our community to remain
under the jurisdiction of Orange County, where we are represented by our own
elected officials.
1. I it-
2. � �'"' ` 43v4,1 4/4_ ch.C'
3 e C
t
4' galt,„,
5• . 1/ ,-;e/7 2_ 4 '
7. 1"4"4. R �� �x Z is t C � h.i l 1 N C�,
8. IrP- (C)i /<-41( -
9. l ZED a-.-*z, to ' - / me
II
10. c, et ,/60140-4a'* OD _ bite,
1Pd 1/ ' z-r [v e4r2,e. !v
12. /,�, (,
/��) �T .�-,
1
407‘74 6
3. C�[:.�' j / 1 , ' , vitiQQ/� , [� N
14. , /Z1L1/ /30X (3/ r / i, -
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
wrilorrimair
February 15, 1987
We, the undersigned, who
Orange the
County ign are all residents of the Calvander Community and
Onangeion nt payers, do hereby strongly
part of the Town of Carrboro.y oppose our neighborhood's remain
under the jurisdiction of Orange We want our community to remain
elected officials. g County, where we are represented b
i� `� y our own
1. _)Z L(.61,c 2. w-ilijj,` ed.,„14_ (4: Pc3 °
Nyac.f
o
4.
5. chv ,2 ce CU,-/.1
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
February 12, 1987
We, the undersigned, who are all residents of the Calvander Community and
Orange County taxpayers, do hereby strongly oppose our neighborhood's
planned inclusion as part of the Town of Carrboro. We want our community to
remain under the jurisdiction of Orange County, where we are represented
by our own elected officials.
2 i . L- c� . Dr1 L.-r l [4' t /U• C
d� 2t . i( , 1� 21 � c p g . r'1 c r - . ,
3. Ja�� SO 64.) � 1
4. ! Dy - C A/C___,
5. -421-0151- z4 '-1'l 3 ch i -v,4) 1► 0Q,--1-wf x+11( ii c�d--)3-7 y
Ar Box 53 e .de L, pie Z7574(
6. 1.4,4ielkz46.10.2/...-erha
7 apiilko ray L� too $4,1-1/0,5, 20( e._, ,
8. 16� ,D �o9 ��- �SZ- �- ��
y. ma, 1 I W kz-. LQ (/i " l a Y- C , Ap t / A4// A(-"C ,
10. 21,_9.\ci•,.A ., LA v,/au/`�r• Ch j2d, } ! /-
ii. I /l )3oy- 2 1 Cit e! / ! ,'/ / A/ (' . C-7'r, /
R
12. V gilt-- PI- g/ SoYs7631 l2 e/ ifin M c' d r's-/ i .
13. GPI /1 /lay, r36, e..,At "0` a 7 si/
14- ..2J641serat ) I I )3 /ac J 71.( 17 S',c
15. (,c1.r.(--(f7a-x-s— j r y P er P ,../ ` X a 7siy
16. 7/1/&t_ ce,d/t) 2 1p-1 122/ '
/frkii, �`' . lam`
18.
19. �yI, LC FF 4- 3-)5A ' , p6 -2.-?s---f 4
20. 4-e -t 137r4
21. QlY• Q-- �` `� b'..a1-7-1 4 3 IA
!
t.v
22. ' ' -C w-�C_fa-- �.. e.44, . 101 S---t-A-12 ) 'JL _ C~_� , 'J C . '7 7�.
24. / tJ` /V:, �� 1 dam, ji-eVe_� ) 4(
February 12, 1987
We, the undersigned, who are all residents of the Calvander Community and Orange
County taxpayers, do hereby strongly oppose our neighborhood's planned inclusion
as part of the Town of Carrboro. We want our community to remain under the
jurisdiction of Orange County, where we are represented by our own elected
officials.
1. ;1,1Ye./;) ate � LT-- B 2d0 p / ,vz
2h r;s )C Rooi- c..( go x ao ),, , r
3. 1. A.w_r .t. 106 S Q C.t S (12,1. • c. N
5. � ' /may ' Ad 1-FJ ( `6�,cY C'lu �/ ((,'( A/C._V�
6. : .,__ _ _ Nt
7. aa,Ct -" y a a is Cl 4A-v\
8- --I� � � L e�+- -.-..�'� `r 4/ c o-K /6 7 c
9. b ce� 2 �� /67 c. xi •
10.
lJd�(v,✓, �wc �'
11. �l \Q,� �S 663 I � woo . �.� - L... ,
f✓ ,�'' �'
/ 7, ,V; 11. 41.(.
12. 40'
y 6ox a4c1.- c- If.
13. Ck 4._ && 515-
::: 1 �� /
16. e' o teZ ('� `,� F'W�'
17. % n/1' dam !
18. '4/ 6 (",l�cpdi (+11
19.
20.
21.
•
22.
23.
24.
February 15, 1987
We, the undersigned, who are all residents of the Calvande-r Community and
Orange County taxpayers, do hereby strongly oppose our neighborhood's Manned
inclusion as part of the Town of Carrboro. We want our community to remain
under the jurisdiction of Orange County, where we are represented by our own
elected officials.
1. 7� � ... NT (( ' • . (' / � NtG�
2. :4* t
3. .6 -_- . ii �L 93 C�afiki )J J W, IUC
4. a 75/x/
l I. e�c S'-i C. . .¢.Q. (*�.1i .tic , 7- 7
Rr ,I g ' O 4 ,ll n Q 27 LI
5.6. '// - l7 91�.
7. ailice.ft:,,,, f• . ,
8. 14&- 4 9. -1/Y— i p
14::Gl I ' -gj_ //- a7,-/e I 47L s
et,.,,,,,e4
W ft)/ , /4.6 II 44 i1c
i1. kj R'►. II encic J , 7 Aid.,
12. ,E �,s / /
. 0 >� k+ 11 �� log I n C
13.
14. 4 . Ay te. ,. ! (.• tt*.S- MLL. h C
15. e7V7/ '4: A 03— p r*'
16. k'P l/ 1// ( g o,(',
17. la g/ /3 flit //b C.•4
19. '�e-Y� .r 1- 11 Rj,..x I.. �-1 �In 642-0.-0 Nt&D - _)
20.01-6-1-erk-77/940.--- 0_4' 8 1",3-.( /2—(( el-7a- /I" 71i e__
ch,12_,Le W_Le., 0 ns,/
22. .. ,, /tf.
23. ••imilmr
24. i4l1I 10 ho �5PI 4/ 801C Z l� '`� / , /• .
CS r� � 17 T &I, ,i- ( 4. `/4 C
C'', `'! /•.7 6-- , y )_ ( %% 9d/ / / "-Act
Q g , / /A6 ti $o)L /Y7 rc.
aq,
30,
February 15 , 1987
We , the undersigned , who are all residents of the Calvander
Community and Orange County taxpayers , do hereby strongly
oppose our neighborhood ' s planned inclusion as part of the
Town of Carrboro . We want our community to remain under the
jurisdiction of Orange County , where we are represented by
./(7
our n elected officials .
1 . _e_u_c_eC2)///(44.)
2 . �9 ,
3 . 72
4 ..AZD ica layki,
5 .0V4A_Ai k/7. eillti
6 . i �`'�
8 . 4'4-'-'`�7
9 . , / dilk_
10.
dip
"-tat, 1!
1 I d__&elLAV
11
12 . 04v67-
13 .
14 .
15 .
16 .
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .
21 .
22 .
a3 ,
a4.
.q5-.
My family owns approximately 115 acres along Homestead
Road which is within the 1800 acre tract in the
proposed swap with Carrboro. I would like to remind
you, the Commissioners, that during the public hearings
for joint planning, over and over again, we heard how
you were trying to protect our voice in the political
process -- that it was right for residents to have the
right to vote for elected officials who control the
planning for their area. I hope the statements made at
those public hearings came from honest belief. I also
hope that you recognize that a vote for the swap would
be a complete refutation of that belief. I ask you to
continue to allow the residents of our area a voice in
their planning process. I encourage you to vote No on
the proposed swap.
Ellen Hogan Ke ley
2/23/87
ORANGE COUNT PUBLIC HEARING -- February 23,1987 on Jurisdiction
of UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
:fir name is Margaret Helton, ', cities o Orange County.
I wish to speak on the Orange County-Carrboro Zoning Jurisdiction Boundary.
The issue most important to be considered tonight is WATERSHED PROTECTION of the
University Lake water supply for 55,000 Chapel Dill/Carrboro residents. Placing the
total area of watershed land of University Lake that lies in Orange County under the
jurisdiction of Orange County would mean that citizens would have the more restrictive
WATERSHED ORDINANCE protecting it. This would mean one less government for Orange
Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) to work with in applying for W-I Water Classification
by the State Office.
Citisens wish to congratulate the three governments--Chapel Hill. Carrboro and Orange
County,for their hard work in coming up with this 13-point Comprehensive Agreement.
I have observed with deep interest the give and take of those small 8-man committee
meetings attempting to work out a solution, and I did attend all of them. Remember
that the 13 points are all parts of a large pussle that will need all its pieces to
work. We welcome the recommendation that a study of the water supply watershed
carrying capacity of University Lake and Cane Creek be commissioned.
Good quality water is at the top of the list when citisens are interviewed on their
environmental concerns. The county ordinance does not allow water and sewer lines
into the watershed except in emergencies. This would prevent intense development in
the watershed. It has been shown, as urban development has grown in other places,
that once water and sewer lines are placed into watersheds that other development
interests are soon asking for extension of the water and sewer lines. This usually
means heavier density per acre and can lead to more pollutants in the water supply.
At several of the hearings last fall citisens expressed concern about these pollutants,
such as lead and metals and chemicals in the storawater runoff. Land development means
buildings, parking lots and roads. Impervious surface controls should be limited to
since studies have found that the first one-half inch of stormwater run-off has
been f to co fain as much as of the total 7.lli tart load f develo
b
Chapel Hill/Carrboro citizens have worked for years to obtain a new water supply and
to buy land for building a new reservoir at Cane Creek. This reservoir will be con-
nected to University Lake and the best Watershed Management practices possible should
apply to both. Watershed protection is the citizens' insurance that he will have
good quality water - even down to the next generatn. It is governments's responsi-
bility to provide that insurance.
We commend the three governments for this compromise agreement which is a sophisti-
cated program of trade-offs and a ems coo native planning. This juris-
dictional county land swap in etchange for University Lake watershed land should only
be based on capacity or density equivalency. In negotiation, there has to be trade-offs,
and the commissioners are faced with a difficult decision. Long-range public interest in
preserving water quality of our reservoirs must take precedence over private and public
interests. Decisions should be made in the best interest for the most citisens in-
volved. 4/eJ)
r /
/11'
ORANGE MATER AND SEWER AOTRCEITY
STATEMENT CONCERNING PROPOSED LION OF URBAN TRANSITION AREk
By Everett Billingsley, Executive Director
February 23, 1987 Public Hearing
As the agency responsible for providing public water and sewer services to the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro community and outlying areas, Orange Water and Sewer
Authority (OWASA) has followed with much interest the proposals under
consideration tonight. The OWASA Board of Directors has reviewed the proposal
for extending the Urban Transition Area and asked that I inform you of the
Board's position on this issue.
Public water service and gravity sewer service can be provided throughout the
Bolin Creek drainage basin, including the area in the upper Bolin Creek basin
presently designated as Rural Buffer. It is desirable to direct urban and
suburban development into areas which can be served by orderly extensions of the
gravity sewer system, rather than by more expensive and complicated
alternatives. Therefore, from the standpoint of orderly and economical
development of the public wastewater collection system, it would be appropriate
to designate the entire Bolin Creek drainage basin as Urban Transition Area.
OWASA also supports the establishment of this area as Urban Transition Area
because it might also indirectly reduce development pressures in the University
Lake watershed area.
The availability and extension of public water and sewer services should be
required as a condition of approval for future subdivision and land development
proposals in the Urban Transition Area.
The issue of whether or not public water and sewer extensions into the Rural
Buffer are appropriate is apparently unresolved. If public services are not
extended into this area, then there may be a conglomeration of private water
supply and wastewater disposal systems throughout the area. There are numerous
references in the literature of problems with these type systems. Septic tanks
typically have a design life of about 15 years. If these installed systems fail
in the future, the extension of public utilities may be necessary in order to
alleviate potential health and welfare problems. The per lot cost of future
extensions to serve sparse development in the Rural Buffer Area could be very
substantial, particularly if the original platting and siting of development had
not been in contemplation of public water and sewer service extension.
It is recommended that Orange County require a second nitrification drainfield
for all structures utilizing septic tank systems in the Rural Buffer Area. If
community water systems are permitted to be used, then it is recommended that
the distribution systems be required to be built to OWASA standards or other
similar standards. For all subdivisions occurring in the Rural Buffer Area, it
is recommended that dedicated sewer easements be obtained for orderly extension
of public water and sewer services through the property to assure that in the
event such extensions are needed in the future, extensions can be undertaken in
an economical and orderly manner. In the Joint Planning Area public facilities
should be required or, if community facilities are allowed, there should be a
commitment to tie into the public system when public facilities are available.
x x x x x
/) *
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
STATEMENT CONCERNING PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING
AND ZONING JURISDICTION BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND TOWN OF CARRHDRD
By Everett Billingsley, Executive Director
At Orange County Public Haering on February 23, 1987
Or and Sewer thority , . ' ) is the le e for ovidi
ng er '''suppl�y►Yfor present -.� fiture re. ' of Cha ,
11 f56ro outlyi • areas. Board of Director takes
i ' very deriouslp on
to a rtclat . The Board of
Direr rs.has asked that I inform you of their position on the proposed exchange
of extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction as it pertains to the
University Lake watershed.
(WASA recognizes the concerns of individual landowners regarding the proposed
exchange of jurisdiction between Orange County and the Town of Carrboro.
Concern for the quality of our community's drinking water supplies is also
extremely important and the OWASA Board supports reasonable measures which will
promote better protection of lake water quality.
Watershed protection programs of both the Town of Carrboro and Orange County
include positive and progressive development controls; however, these
requirements are not consistent. Furthermore, the County and Town have made
substantially different findings and policy statements regarding the watershed.
These differences need to be resolved.
The proposal for the Town of Carrboro to exchange its extraterritorial planning
and zoning jurisdiction over the watershed with Orange County for additional
jurisdiction to the north of Carrboro will help to resolve some of the remaining
watershed protection issues. It would permit the implementation of a
comprehensive, consistent set of development standards and policies applicable
throughout the University Lake watershed. For these reasons, MASA strongly
supports the proposed exchange of extraterritorial planning and zoning
jurisdiction between Carrboro and Orange County.
If this proposal were implemented, most of the area that would be placed under
Carrboro's jurisdiction is already designated as urban Transition Area. The
current designation recognizes that the area will develop and become part of the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area in the future. Recent development approvals in
this area indicate this will occur. The proposed jurisdictional exchange would
not be inconsistent with the present trend. Orange County could be provided
courtesy review in Carrboro's future planning and zoning decisions affecting the
area north of the Town. Based on OWASA's observation, the Town has also
actively solicited the input of all affected parties in the development of its
plans and policies applicable to areas within its jurisdiction.
The 55,000 existing residents of southern Orange County who now rely on drinking
water from University Lake as well as thousands of future customers will all
benefit from measures which will reduce development activities within the
University Lake watershed. Consolidation of watershed zoning jurisdiction in
one governmental unit will allow the development of a comprehensive, consistent
and uniform watershed protection program under the jurisdiction of Orange
County.
x x x x x
7130 County Court House Hillsborough Feb. 23, 1987
Z am Kathy Harris, a member of the Conservation Committee of the
Research TriangleGroup of the Sierra Club. We are in favor of
protecting the University Lake watershed from the pollution that
would be caused by development, in that watershed. Therefore, the
Sierra Club is in favor of the proposed swan in land use planning
authority between Chapel Hill and Carborro, as well as the proposed
limitations on development in the University Lake watershed.
,..4 i \,_.,:._
cN
r I
Lz
i I
t 4 , , t
, , ..-. ,
?..„
B„... c„,,„,,,,,. , tl--- 1'�11 ® , , , V � , ,,,,, ks I
r
fin \ n . °' ' (■) v IN
4 1.- C-1), - - N ,) ..,„k
1 ,.
,,t N. NI ' 1 U ck t
J NmMunoraV •a
s juaucpuauxJ aoueu]p10 uo-cpuanaxa abeuiea pool3 '9 6L0
squauiaiTnbau lajjng put, buideospueq 8-g-AI uoiWas 'e ILO
s;uauipuauij suoTieinElag tro sr re-rpgns '5
(T-D'I off. T-21) pooMxoeig Acing puy • I M L8-T-Z 'e [so
a
s4uau[puaWV seT'K 6utuol • 1
-ON HOVd
1oTaCsTa xaea auzoH atTgow
quauzdolanaa pauueld dHW-ad OZ' L aIDTlWW 'q [£o
s .oq 6uTuzao;uoouoN L'II aI0T4JV 'e cZo
squaupuauzw aoueuTpiO 6u00Z 'E
Ax sunog u014oTpsTanr buTuo2 oaogxaej-A unop a6uea0 •Z 610
za;jng Tean1 pue ea.xv uoTvTsueay .
ao; suoT;eu6tsaa Aaepunog - ueId asn pueZ' Kd1' •q
uOT4eDT4TsseIa asn pue'i
TeT4uepTsad uegangng jo uotsuedxg - ueid asn pueZ Vdf 'e
sr4uufpu4uzf uetd asu prIT •I S00
naravHH OI'IS[ld *a '0NI a v
. . - HE NORM HiIQfL' CIOSUadliaa'iV -
)nvHDSa00 aIAvu ' Tvw1IOtInOO - S)I IVWag A?TOyonao2ithl 'D.
•panaasgo st a6aeg0 otlgnd. sTgl 04
quam4Tmm00 autnua6 a leq aurt4 Lions ITlun 6uTgaauz age. ssaoaa
IItm ategp aq4 apaaogsaa aq 04 TTe; umaooap pTnogs •Toaluoo
Ieuosaad sute6aa IenpTATpuT 4eql pun 6uTgaauz aq4 aneBi
04 aaquzau 6uTpua3jo aq4 xse TTTM ategp age. ,a6aeg0 otjgnd
szqq anaasgo oq ITe uazT4To Aue JO paeog aq4 jo aaquzaui
Aue pinogs auzT4 Aue qv •suazt4To MoTTaj g4TM pue paeog
aql q;tt ggoq aaauueuz snoaqanoo ain;goadsaa e uT santasuza44
ITonpuoo 01 suazT4t0 SIT s)[se 'paeog aqy •gaadsaa sqT Aqunop
a611e30 Jo suazT4T0 aq4 04 sa6paTd saauoTsSTututoO Jo paeog aqy
IS2IVH5 Or hurt
pua6V paluTaa aq uo 4ou, s1a4leW •Z
•paajootaano 40u aae noA 4e144
os amTl. Jo •peage ped aqq 6uTu6Ts noA agetoaadde pIn0M am)
. epua6I paquTad aqq uo saaqgeW •I
. . _ ... UMIUWW00 HpMai nYd °g
SSNHWWOD c[ VOd 'K
VMI'IOUVO HL Qt1 'HDf102IOSSTIIH
SSnoHL IfOD AImnoo MHM
wooaa inoo uomans .
'W'd OE: L
. L86T '£Z Auvflllgsd 'AVaMOW
DMI2IVSH 3I`Tgfla mac
VQNsOV
(MVOS Drumm/Id aLIK S2iHMOISSIWWOD ao (MVOS
AImnoo SONY1O
b
d
oq,3 /q Atey
/4 /q87
/ems c
- -144&,e
ieZa-6■1 " f AIL6'
-, o
,/;?neez-z44,-ze,eZ /7-et-4- #e44
66 .a- ,ems, .
4)41aE f
A)"x"-Ip
- WET 7-,lie uNOE/2-06 A-J 0 , ,2 si h 6'.JT5 o, Tf A"4:36E2S' .4o .a f//24 ;4
,. S i 0NGL y. Opposz .7-� ..moo os
l�.vo)/2 47-It Not 77E ac _7?/ 7� N acuw�H,ey ,
Gve�lc� u�ouL,o
_ /"LA Gel aux. cevrrAil uN 7 i.-' 7-777 - gj � 7i f7a2/�G I li/'UfAr•c
- ft,-4 o..I!: . c , /3o 2 o. ./:
--N,4 e
�-- /1,0.0/1 cs.r 24�a•v
, , rLo 1Ec//7 a o,s- 7 Gc-y/...moo T u_ C //c
0 _,( i` Aeoi4.1-eu-e--7 /05---- it.(7,-)77,r),, C7— 9(0s2-95//6
0 (aii.-17.isik.tit _ K,. 04,4 . _ I P ,-/- 1, ,J-u.,0---,0_,vicoulk.__ e_A---, c ?1,--a -Y-5-6Y-
0 i A// r e.Cd
loa . G4- lac - 03
r / . . 23 .T' _
_ _ ZD Z_.. / ho %r. (723 • 1030
p 6.'44, -A . . ,c+.7
z_,I. , ..,k).< atta /e4-, /Liz oc 6o . eeApagi /--(4'-e-e„ AJ,(7- 9 9-996 e--
'-4cr-r)_-k,u je, 1 el-iv,/ _ e, P -/( /g6r)e 61 IY 0 1-4-fia: /C4417 e - q 6 X 7 9/
„ ' // Q / fit � � �
f
C4.4 l-�(cc_, N,C-
�ves� �Jetca, k -. f! Jg o)( y91
,6'°'-" 4 (X / M/i C _ 2- --2c29
71-0 OC)IeFC. J-
g /7-4- .41c._4_,___ ___----. - /�_ jam ;' ' / 7--)r....„ic
.. 0 c g,1/ 7-a.C! 6,.d Tic '9F-716S-7
cr.- a. �1 al/ Tit/1?a 7" 1/,Cdia e-/ A//
0 W, ; _ .. 9?pt 7apit ,`t t /O c 9.7gVCI
. . 0 � ` F► ._.. 03.o9 , /e 9a9 4( ?
ll vis , ham
e gil Q3.3 G g/3
_ w' Ca _ . .(;(1_ aa/ 1 f ' 7 ll 933 51,02 ,
- _ - 1t05 I/o,,, ,,,) cr.- , H 76$ 7Y/ s'
. C-#• 9�.q-17 79
. 4
pr) 44,----7----_-7, - _/0 C . ON cU 5/7_57 cjC 7.- 5'7
C C . c . /1 , gG7-mss/
je , . - - lob 92-9-5-5-1-(.0
,r +►„ �.ff . . .al' 6 .7-.41., - 3o
c r.� 4? _ / rail b `raCi C Q.Q. ?,33 ��.
o - ,4 ' �,, ,, 210 ma: o v P IL Q N L 4 ttk, gn--2�1 . _
_. CS
1. �' �, - _ 2i2 T,4-c.4Yi#a -'eA-/c. C,� , 9�2- 9S3G .
�.�� • a X0 3 Tom. e 96F- /3.-%
T�
_ 4e. - ,,' f _ . --- zo z -rba Ac c q-2,1 - 4o o
14, t .1
:1 -1 14 , 411 -11 )- ; r1
,L z3. 1
i4
, 11 -44
j 14
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO,NC
February 23, 1987
I am Virginia Cunningham, President of the League of Women Voters of Chapel
Hill/Carrboro.
We have watched with interest as Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Orange County
have worked toward an agreement on joint planning for areas outside the
planning jurisdiction of the two towns. We commend the Joint Planning/
Watershed Work Group for their perspicacity in proposing an Outling of
Agreement in Principle.
We have concluded that joint planning is the best method of assuring
equitable decisions for the residents of the transition areas in the
tricky questions of land use, zoning and development.
We strongly support the recommendation that a study of watershed protection
for University Lake and Cane Creek be made. Such a study should result in
the presentation of a factual basis for determining the future use of
those watersheds.
Your deliberations have been difficult, but, given objectivity and good
faith on the part of those involved, a successful outcome can be expected.
Intergovernmental cooperation among the three jurisdictions calls for
statesmanlike thought by members of the governing bodies.Working together
in the spirit of compromise is necessary for achieving acceptable decisions
in the public interest.
s 573
x4 /qg 7
/Of 8
, 72?6
h_42z‘-?-,,
,e44 lezZer‘e6- —
pr/-
ferx, dAda � - �
a/A- -- - - 4
, - f 4.r
fent,e..4.9-
,4„.d "vet,_ ,e,„,copd,
NAME -4-47V ITEM NUMBER
Iiiir - . Tim:, / ./9 / /- f
2- / &la J eie S v" ( 1 1401/4;)
3. -TG net 7/owierk ! C' 4-4 I. ®/
4. )t b / 'llaje0e d V.
!,.1.4_AL 1 U - . -�...1/4_, V 51 t i) % a _.6 2 $ u_Ji'v4
7' E S-ra J A -1 ,
8' irk cl y e X�r 7ef V
9' . . 4- / '/&- r i
1°- -J-w AN V
- 11 .'9th � p/Leej/ -LPdvl'td 14(Ad S-��Ptp
12. fl ecd A vi ,. !.l
131 t/ L I`�' f
x14. ./,T, _411
ire...A/ A...crier- y-- z,. ......./ ›--
17. A N C E E-L-So Z k I • IV; _ _ //
18- 4. o-o-04, ' V G ' -A--
19. t' cry c G-.L �-oAu V �. q�
20. roq t3 u •N DQ
21 . ,,Je7u Z .,.- d z..._. /-3 Z_ /moo rr A.7 / [pia/�/ G
22. --ve�'e/7/ /3,///► S ✓ 61 C'/�/'/4vr4, / Z may" �
23- � aw� w�p/ h�H /�'ar�r���Cxf
Grre/7 L . rr
25. T8 S w
26. x) __
�7' IVTa dial 1 , _ V
• _ r r J + `
28. E
��� • •fit _ , �
29. 'A i r -•' _40r/f.1_.,:„:411.r. /
30. /
31 .
----)
32.
33.
34.
35.
36-
37.
38.
NAME ITEM NUMBER
1 - 2/a- /We per.. --_ Zt
2.
3- ..— D lL fv 2.
4. Xl ZA/V 6
5- t\rAs'e-- CC c
6.
7. 5,IA
9• %,, V
10. pope
13. 1'
15. fir
16_
17
JR
_7n
21 .
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27. _
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33-
34.
35-
36.
37•
38.
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, met in regular session at the Commissioners' Meeting
. Room, at 106 Margaret .Lane in Hillsborough, North Carolina, the
regular place of meeting, at 7:-30 P.M. , on March 2, 1987.
Present: Vice Chair Moses Carey, Jr. presiding, and
``' "" Commissioners Hartwell , Halkiotis and Wi lhoit
Absent: Commissioner Marshall
*
Commissioner Carey introduced the following
resolution which was read:
RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO-
HAVE BEEN HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1987 CONCERNING
THE ISSUANCE OF $200,000 SANITARY SEWER BONDS
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH CAROLINA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners for the County
of Orange:
Section 1. That the public hearing to have been held in the •
District Courtroom of the Old Chapel Hill Post Office in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina at 7:30 P.M. on February 17, 1987, •
concerning the questions of the validity. of the bond order
• introduced before the Board of Commissioners authorizing $200, 000
Water Bonds and the advisability of issuing such bonds, was not
held due to increment weather.
Section 2. That such public hearing is hereby rescheduled
to 7: 30 P.M. , March 24, 1987 in the District Courtroom of the Old
Chapel Hill Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Section 3. This resolution will take effect upon its
passage.
Thereupon Commissioner Ha l k i of i s
IDDVed the
� 11
i.a•
Ayes: Commissioners Carey, Hartwell , Ha l k i of i s and Wi l ho i t
Noes: * None
Thereupon the Board of Commissioners directed the Clerk to
the Board of Commissioners to republish the order authorizing
$200, 000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds of the County, together with the
appended statement calling the rescheduled public hearing on such
order as required by The Local Government Bond Act, as amended,
once in The Durham Morning Herald and The News Of Orange not
later than the sixth day before March 24, 1987.
* * *
I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for
the. County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a regular meeting held on March 2, 1987 as relates in
any way to the passage of a resolution rescheduling the public
hearing upon an order authorizing bonds of said County and that
said proceedings are recorded in -Minute Book No. 21 of the
minutes of said Board, beginning at page and ending at. page
I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY that the attached schedule of
regular meetings of said Board has been on file in my office
pursuant to G.S. §142-318.12 as of a date not less than seven
days before said meeting.
WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of said County, this
25th day of March 1987.
APPROVED MAY 4, 1987
rmipmw
•
1
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY JOINT MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 1987
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with the Orange
County Planning Board for a Quarterly Joint Public Hearing on February 23 ,
1987, 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall, Commissioners
Moses Carey, Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members
Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz, Betty Margison, Prince Taylor,
Dan Eddleman, Chris Best, Tim Hubbard, and Mike Lewis.
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager, Kenneth R. Thompson, Clerk to the
Board, Beverly Blythe, Administrative Secretary, Joanna Bradshaw, Planning
Director, Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Greg Szymik, Brad Torgan,
Emily Crudup and Don Powell.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
None
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Those people in the audience who signed up to speak will be recognized
at the time their specific item is heard.
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
2 . Matters not on the Printed Agenda
None
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Shirley Marshall read the public charge as printed below:
The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County
its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a
respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens.
At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe
this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the
meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail
to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a
genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
C. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS - COUNCILMAN DAVID GODSCHALK
ALDERPERSON JUDITH WEGNER
Chair Marshall opened the public hearing and indicated that Councilman
David Godschalk of Chapel Hill and Alderperson Judith Wegner of Carrboro
would make introductory comments. Their presentations would be followed by
r _
ML
2
comments by Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director. At the close
of his presentation citizen comments would be heard.
Presentation by David Godschalk, Councilman, Town of Chapel Hill
"I am very pleased to be able to speak to you on behalf of the group
that attempted to negotiate solutions to a number of conflicts that have
come up. I am also very pleased that we have such a large crowd in
attendance tonight because I believe this is one of the more important
issues that governments of our three jurisdictions will work on. I believe
that it is important not only because of the substance of what we are going
to be talking about here tonight but also because of the process that we
went though to try to come to this agreement.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that the three governments
have engaged in such a long negotiating process in which we attempted to
recognize the interests of each community as well as our joint interests
and put them together into a unified set of agreements. During the past
four months, an eight member task force of elected officials from Carrboro,
Chapel Hill and Orange County met six times and a three person subcommittee
held another dozen meetings to work out an agreement dealing with a number
of related issues concerning further watershed protection and joint
planning. The group prepared a 13 point agreement in principal designed to
deal with these issues in a coordinated manner. The agreement has been
adopted by each of the three governments and will be discussed tonight at
this public hearing. I think that it should be stressed that this was put
forward by representatives of each of the three jurisdictions, but it is by
no means an accomplishment of any one person.
In order to put this public hearing in context for you, I would like
to speak briefly about the major issues that we worked on in that
negotiation process. Only two of those issues are going to be discussed in
detail here tonight, but they are related to the other issues. I think it is
important to understand the whole package in order to understand the two
matters that are being heard tonight.
The first issue is that not enough is known about the capacity of our
water supply watersheds to tolerate development without harming the water
supply. Growth is occurring in the watershed. The proposal made by the
group was to commission a study of the carrying capacity of University Lake
and Cane Creek watersheds. The alternative to that proposal would be to
continue to rely on existing local government development standards, that is
the standards of Orange County and Carrboro in these watersheds.
The second issue is that Carrboro desires additional space for growth,
but the residents of Calvander and other rural areas want to maintain the
status quo. This has brought a conflict. The proposal that the committee
came forward with is to redirect Carrboro' s growth away from the University
Lake watershed where it historically has held extraterritorial jurisdiction
to the Bolin Creek drainage basin to the north where public gravity sewer
can be provided and where future developers will not endanger the water
supply watershed.
The Committee suggests three possible ways to do this. One of them is
to exchange the extraterritorial jurisdiction from the University Lake
watershed on either a per acre or dwelling unit equivalency basis, i.e. , to
3
exchange it from University Lake watershed to the Bolin Creek drainage
basin. A second possible proposal is to extend Carrboro's transition area
to a transition area under the joint planning agreement further north into
the Bolin Creek drainage basin. The third proposal is to defer further
requests from Carrboro for annexation and water and sewer extensions into
the watersheds until the capacity study is complete. The alternative to
this would be to maintain Carrboro's present extraterritorial jurisdiction
and transition areas which the committee feels would leave a great deal of
pressure on the University Lake watershed.
The third issue is maintenance of the rural buffer which could be
threatened by the extension of urban densities into it either by annexation
by Carrboro or Chapel Hill or by extension of public water and sewer lines.
However, this area continues to be attractive to growth. The proposal is
that both communities agree to protect the rural buffer and not to annex
into it voluntarily or involuntarily, and carry out a rural buffer study to
look at the standards for maintenance such as a water and sewer extension 1
policy and the acquisition of conservation easements. The alternative to
that is to use present county zoning and planning standards to guide future
use of the rural buffer and to allow urban annexations to occur. Before we
can be concerned where the line should be drawn between Carrboro and Chapel
Hill regarding review of future development, the proposal is that joint
courtesy review be established in the northern rural buffer area west of
Interstate 40 in a strip about 4000 feet wide to the line used on the joint
agreement map. Carrboro and Chapel Hill would share this area in terms of
joint courtesy review to the County. The alternative would be that Chapel
Hill alone would review and comment to the County who holds final
authority.
Issue number five is: should the individual local governments or
should the Orange Water and Sewer Authority decide future growth patterns or
should this be done in the joint fashion. The proposal is to use a joint
planning committee to work out future plans and review the role of OWASA in
the process. The alternative would be continued use of individual
approaches.
Issue number six is: should the proposed cluster development called
Amberly be approved and annexed by Carrboro even though it lies within the
University Lake watershed. We did not come to an agreement on this. We
agreed to disagree perhaps and felt that Carrboro should continue to review
the project which is already in the application process. Orange County and
Chapel Hill may not necessarily support this construction. The alternative
to that would be that Carrboro and Orange County could defer action on
Amberly and all other development proposals in the water supply watersheds
until the capacity study is complete.
Everyone has had the opportunity to pick up this one sheet flyer as
well as an agenda for the meeting. The one sheet flyer has the 13 points of
our agreement on the back. Item number seven includes the public hearing
items which are printed in all capital letters and a map of the area of 1
concern is printed on the back side. We realize that these are complicated
issues. It is hard even for experts to keep track of all of these things.
We have tried to bring them together on this one sheet so that you would
have a copy of something you could refer to during the hearing.
If you will look at the map on this sheet, you will see that west of
4
Carrboro next to University Lake is the extraterritorial jurisdiction of
Carrboro which extends out part way into the watershed. Orange County
maintains the rest of that jurisdiction of the watershed. You will see
north of Carrboro an area that is in diagonal stripes which are slanted from
the upper right to the lower left. This is the transition area proposed now
under the joint planning agreement and then a dotted line further north up
toward Duke Forest which is where that is supposed to be extended further
into the Bolin Creek basin in order to give Carrboro extra growth. There
are also two straight dashed lines across that area. The lower one is just
under Homestead Road and would be the extraterritorial jurisdiction line for
Carrboro on an equivalency basis, i.e. , the same number of dwelling units
that could be built under the present capacity of the University Lake
watershed would be built in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The next ,
dotted line north would be the extension on an acre per acre basis. Those
are the alternatives. I think we will get further into them tonight. I
realize that this is a fairly complicated matter, but we have tried to work �
out a number of our problems through this one negotiating process. "
Presentation by Judith Wegner, Alderperson, Town of Carrboro
"I am going to explain to you briefly what the focus of tonight's
discussion is. As you see on the flyer that Mr. Godschalk referred to, item
number seven is in capital letters and that principally is what we are going
to be talking about tonight. I want to try to clear up some fairly abstract
concepts here so you all have basic information, and you will know what the
terminology means that we are using.
The first issue that we're talking about tonight has to do with the
boundary line between the transition area and the rural buffer area as
indicated on the map on the other side of the flyer. You should first
understand that the transition area is a concept being used in the joint
planning process by the various jurisdictions. It means a designated land
that is in the process of changing from its rural character to land that may
also be served by utilities and be developed at a somewhat higher density
during the planning period in question (approximately a twenty year
period) . You should know that the plans for the area designated the
transition area would be that these be used for residential purposes only
and that they would be developed at a density of no more than five units per
acre. A lower level of density would be possible, depending on the carrying
capacity and character of the land. That would be determined at a later
point when we finally get down to the specific development of the zoning
ordinance.
You should also know that the process for resolving the regulations
and the application of regulations within areas designated as transition
areas. It specifies in the joint planning agreement that the County would
adopt the Town development regulations in a transition area. The Town would
then handle the permit applications that might come in for land in that area
and would be responsible for enforcing regulations within that area. The
County, however, would have what is called courtesy review which is a time,
period in which they could comment on and respond to any permit applications
in that area. The transition area may be compared to what is called a rural
buffer area. The rural buffer is adjacent to the transition area and is
rural in character and is to be maintained in that character at a very low
density. In this area, the process used for decision making would be that
of the County, including the approval of applications in that area. Permit
V
5
application and enforcement would be handled by the County but the Town
would have an opportunity to comment on any permits that are sought in that
area.
One question for discussion tonight is where the line should be drawn
between the transition area and the rural buffer area. The recommendation
from the committee that has been working on this is to see that two basic
principles should be observed. First, there should be sufficient area
specified for transition areas to ensure that there is no undue pressure on
the University Lake watershed and no undue pressure to the developments
within the rural buffer area. Secondly, we hope that there could be a
permanent line drawn between the transition area and the rural buffer area
so that as time goes on we don't see a roll back of erosion of the rural
buffer area. We hope that rural buffer could be established with permanent
rural development protected for a long time. The committee has therefore
recommended that the line be returned to where it had been earlier before
the latest change by the County, back to the Bolin Creek watershed line.
The reason for this in part is that where you have the Bolin Creek watershed
line, there would be no extensions of water and sewer lines across the
drainage divide, and OWASA would not provide water and sewer service to the
rural buffer area beyond that line. We feel that could be a permanent line
observed in the future.
There are specific areas which may draw comment from you. One is the
Duke Forest area just north of Eubanks Road. There has been some concern
that there be adequate buffering around that area. I don't think that the
committee has specifically addressed that but I don't see that there would
be any objection to a lower density area around that Duke Forest area
indicated on the map. I think there may be some questions as Duke has
engaged in lumbering on that area now and what approach should be taken.
That could be studied within the context of the decision we are talking
about tonight.
In addition, there has been some question raised about the area
between Rogers Road and Eubanks Road and it is not marked in any dark color
on your map. Within that area there is a subdivision called Fox Meadows
with lots currently at a one unit per acre density. When the county
considered going to a two acre minimum lot size within the rural buffer, a
great deal of concern was expressed by the residents. It may be appropriate
to comment on whether that area, which is developed at one unit per acre,
should be included in the transition area. That is the first issue for
discussion tonight.
The second question is one that has caused more comment from the
community. It is the concept of where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of
the Town of Carrboro should lie. You should know that extraterritorial
jurisdiction is a concept established by State statute. For all towns in
the State, there can be an area, depending on population size, between one
and three miles out from their corporate limits which is the area in which
urban services might ultimately be provided. There are also statutes
specifying certain conditions for such areas to be designated
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
In an extraterritorial area the Town would have more autonomy in
establishing regulations because the Town may ultimately serve that area and
it would be important that the Town be assured that the roads and services
6
conform to Town standards. A thought here would be more autonomy for the
Town in establishing land use regulations in that area, that would also be
the case under the transition area concept. In return, the Town would be
obliged to provide an opportunity for residents in its extraterritorial
jurisdiction to be represented on its planning board. There has also been
some discussion whether the County could be heard during the review or
permit applications within this area. That is something that seems to be
warranted.
You should also understand that the designation of extraterritorial
jurisdiction now in effect within the watershed area is not something that
was done in recent years. I don't have sufficient information on how this
came about but at some time it was thought that this was an appropriate way
to designate an area outside the Carrboro Town boundary for possible control
in regard to land use regulations. Chapel Hill has an area designated for
extraterritorial jurisdiction so again I would like for you to understand
that this is not a new concept.
The question tonight for your consideration and discussion is whether
the County should trade extraterritorial jurisdiction in an area outside the
watershed in order to control what is now Carrboro's extraterritorial
jurisdiction. Carrboro feels that it is acting responsibly and is prepared
to continue to do so within the area previously designated as its
extraterritorial jurisdiction. As some of you may know, there was a
watershed task force that looked into this at length in 1982 and 1983, and
there were ordinance provisions setting densities in the neighborhood of two
acres per unit for 75% for the watershed, and one acre per unit for the area
furthest from University Lake.
The subcommittee and the committee representatives of all the
jurisdictions thought that there could be something gained by having the
extraterritorial exchange take place. First, there would be a simplified
scheme in which only the County would have regulatory authority in the
watershed area. I would like to clarify for anyone who is in doubt that
simply because this area is in the University Lake watershed and designated
as extraterritorial jurisdiction, that does not mean that there is a desire
for expansive development and growth. This matter was discussed in
principal as you see on the thirteen points on the back of the map. It was
agreed to have the planning staff establish some possibilities for us.
Carrboro has indicated that it would willing to undertake an acreage swap as
indicated by the bolder line to the north. There was also some
consideration whether there should be a density swap. Carrboro had felt that
since the density is already at a low level because of efforts to restrict
development within the watershed, that is not something it wants to pursue
at this point.
The last thing I want to do is clarify some things that are not at
issue. First, it is clear that designation as transition or designation as
extraterritorial jurisdiction does not set densities for development and
that is something that would be done in the context of establishing land use
regulations. Second, you should know that extraterritorial jurisdiction and
the designation as transition area do not have the force of creating some
sort of an annexation to occur in the future. Annexation in North Carolina
is controlled by state statute and if there were to be involuntary
annexation this is something that is specifically controlled by statute and
require certain use characteristics and/or density of population and
7 '
subdivision within the area to be annexed. "
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Land Use Plan Amendments
a. JPA Land Use Plan - Expansion of Suburban Residential
Land Use Classification
b. JPA Land Use Plan - Boundary Designations for
Transition Area and Rural Buffer
2 . Orange County-Carrboro Zoning Jurisdiction Boundary
Presentation by Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director 1
Collins stated that Item la has to do with the expansion of the
transition area. He pointed out on a map the first Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan taken to public hearing in August of 1986 and on another map the
joint planning area plan that was adopted by Chapel Hill and Orange County
in October of last year. The proposal for the expansion of the transition
area would extend the line for the transition area to include approximately
1500 additional acres. The area would extend north from NC 86 and
Buckhorn Branch to Duke Forest with some existing properties left between
Duke Forest and the northern boundaries of the transition line. The map
shows in orange the transition area that is being proposed which essentially
is that which was presented at public hearing back in August of last year,
excluding certain high density areas and also a major industrial center.
By comparing the two maps the proposed expansion of the transition areas is
evident.
Collins continued that Item lb has to do with an actual designation of
the transition area and rural buffer boundaries. Since the plan was
adopted, there has been continued reference to the transition area versus
the rural buffer. The orange area on the map, including interspersed green
areas or resource conservation districts would constitute the transition
area. The outer boundary of the orange area would be the transition area
boundary line. Everything within it, as was pointed out by Alderperson
Wegner, would be subject to the Town of Carrboro's jurisdiction if the
County adopts their land development ordinances and zoning map. The rural
buffer would be everything beyond that line and would encompass all the area
shown in a cream color as well as the interspersed green areas which are
Duke Forest and the Resource Conservation District. The grey areas on the
map show the existing corporate limits as well as the existing
extraterritorial areas. North of Carrboro the cross hatched areas
represent two possible alternatives for jurisdictional exchange which
Alderperson Wegner has already discussed. Collins then pointed to the maps
that showed the same areas on the Carrboro zoning maps that were prepared by
the Town of Carrboro for discussion purposes only and to show the range of
possibilities.
He pointed out the elongated orange colored area at the top oriented
in a northwest-southeast direction as the existing Univeristy Lake watershed
of approximately 1800 acres under Carrboro's jurisdiction. The lighter area
just north of Carrboro's jurisdiction represented one end of the continuum
and is based on an exchange using a density capacity of five units per acre.
If that approach were used, 228 acres would be needed to accommodate the
8
number of dwelling units that can be built in the Town of Carrboro's zoning
jurisdiction under the present zoning ordinances in the University Lake
watershed. An acre- for-acre swap, the light area to the northwest of
Carrboro as well as the dark area together would encompass 1800 acres, and
would extend almost up to Eubanks Road. That would accommodate again on an
acre-for-acre basis the same number of units permitted in University Lake
watershed plus a great more if the transition area is extended.
Collins stated that the Planning Staff of Orange County takes no
position on either proposal at this time. The matters are for discussion on
behalf of the citizens.
Barry Jacobs, Chair of the Orange County Planning Board , explained
the process of land use planning in Orange County, noting no decisions are
to be made at the hearing. The only purpose of the hearing is to present
information and to allow the citizens an opportunity to digest it and to
express their thoughts. After the hearing, the matter is referred back to
the Planning Board which also confers with the Township Advisory Council, in
this case from Chapel Hill Township. The Planning Board will then make a
decision or recommendation and present it to the Commissioners.
Steve Yuhasz, Orange County Planning Board member , asked what the
effective difference in the transition area between having extra territorial
jurisdiction and just being a party to the Joint Planning Agreement would
mean to Carrboro.
Collins responded that Alderperson Wegner alluded to this issue in
her presentation. One difference would be that Carrboro would have legal
authority and thus more autonomy based on State Statutes if extraterritorial
jurisdiction were granted.
Councilman David Godschalk indicated he would like to make just a
brief statement in support of these matters on behalf of the Chapel Hill
Town Council. "The Chapel Hill Town Council strongly supports watershed
protection and joint planning which are the two main reasons for this
hearing. Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill now have the opportunity
to: (1) Cooperate to protect our watersheds and thereby the communities
drinking water and public health and; (2) cooperate in the planning and
managing future growth and thereby the quality of life and public welfare.
The representatives of the county and towns put before us share a need for
watershed protection. Stewardship of University Lake and Cane Creek
watersheds is a matter which transends jurisdictional lines. These
representatives have discussed possible solutions in pursuit of good
stewardship principles. We will best protect the water supplies if we
minimize the amount of asphalt roads, the potential for erosion and
sedimentation, and the amount of impervious surfaces such as buildings and
pavement. It is very important to control carefully the location and site
design of land disturbing activity. Retaining areas with natural
vegetation and ground covers provide for naturally clean stormwater before
it reaches streams feeding the reservoir.
Two key aspects of the thirteen point statement of principles are
before us for hearing. One is change of Carrboro's extraterritorial
jurisdiction; and two is the extension of Carrboro's transition area
further north into the Bolin Creek drainage basin. We believe that the
exchange of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the extension of the
9
transition area are in the best interest of the whole community, since they
provide sufficient solutions for future utility service, an environmentally '
sound area for future growth, and they take development pressure off the
University Lake watershed. Together with the study of the carrying
capacity of the watersheds and the identification of appropriate land use
controls and standards, these approaches can maximize watershed protection
and wise growth as we plan together. To summarize, we believe this plan to
be in the entire community's interest, although the geographic area of
extraterritorial jurisdiction and transition area is a small portion of
southern Orange County. Many people who now and in the future use our
public water system will benefit from this comprehensive watershed
protection strategy. "
Commissioner John Hartwell indicated that he thought a clear
difference between extraterritorial jurisdiction and the transition area
under joint planning was that in the extraterritorial jurisdiction it would
be possible for the municipality to decide to change the land use plan and
make high density residential or commercial in the future if they saw fit.
The whole purpose of joint planning, as he understood it, was that the
municipalities would be charged with the administration of specific
permits, but they would not be allowed to change the land use plan without
a joint approval process such as was being conducted at this moment and
indeed the final adoption of zoning would be by County ordinance. He asked
if he were correct in that distinction.
Collins responded yes.
Hartwell continued, inquiring about the cross hatched area on the map
in the agenda packet.
Collins responded that the cross hatched area is the amount of land
that would be subtracted out of the northernmost extension to account for
land owned by the University of North Carolina.
Chair Marshall placed into the record a letter from Sally Nussbaum who
couldn't attend the meeting. A copy of the letter is included as an
attachment to these minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS
Virginia Cunningham , President of the League of Women Voters, read a
prepared statement. A copy of the statement is included as an attachment
to these minutes.
Ms. Linda Roberts read a letter submitted by J.V. and Opal C.
Brockwell, Calvander residents. A copy of the letter is included as an
attachment to these minutes.
Ms. Roberts then introduced herself and commented as follows:
"I am a 26 year resident of Calvander and a member of the Calvander
Community Association. I am one of those so-called selfish Calvander
residents. My roots go back in Calvander many years to my dad's 60-year
residence and my mom's 47-year residence as well as my grandparents who
lived in Calvander from 1925 until they passed away. During that 60-year
period they purchased the Calvander homeplace, the Calvander School site
10
and other surrounding property totaling approximately 70 acres. Carrboro
is now trying to take control of us and destroy that. My husband and I
have raised our three children here and they appear to love it just as much
as we do. We have some very good neighbors and are very thankful for it.
We all enjoy being rural residents.
As a land owner and tax paying citizen of Orange County, I would like
everyone here tonight to know that I am bitterly opposed to Carrboro having
any control of Calvander whatsoever, much less total control. We have
absolutely no representatives from Calvander in Carrboro. As it is now, we
have you as County Commissioners, who are elected by us, county residents,
to represent us. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
giving us this chance to speak.
All residents whom I have talked with feel as I do about the swap.
The very idea of Carrboro trying to swap the watershed area for total
control of 1805 acres of land is ludicrous. They have the watershed now
and if they can't handle that, let them give it back to the County. It is
grossly unfair to try to use us as their bargaining chip. I think one of
the most important questions we need to ask here tonight is has Carrboro
really been a good steward. i think most would have to agree that the
answer is no. If they had, they would not be trying to go into the
watershed with their development.
They planned to put a road across Morgan Creek which is less than a
mile from University Lake just so they could connect Hwy. 54 with Airport
Road. It took several meetings and speeches from environmental experts to
make them understand how that would severely damage the drinking water of
by polluting it with lead from the road runoff.
If Carrboro gained total control, I wonder if the people of Calvander
can expect our community to look as bad in a few years as Carrboro does now
with buildings and apartments piled on top of each other in every direction
you look, streets that are so crowded and torn up they are always
impassable. Well, we all know what a mess it is for approximately two
square miles which they now control and we don't want that to happen to our
community. These are only a few examples of why it is so important to us
to remain in the County's jurisdiction.
This is not a slap against the general population of Carrboro. It is
placed toward government which the people there are stuck with. The
Carrboro officials have enough to keep them busy for the next 25 years if 1
they want to clean up their own back yard and stay out of ours. If we
wanted to live in their kind of environment, we would all move to
Carrboro. Maybe that would make Carrboro officials happy, for they would
not have to take control of Calvander to enjoy the pleasure of our
company. It would really be a shame for Carrboro to get control of us and
destroy our countryside and farm land, or planning new land uses in order
to annex it like they did Barrington Hills. That is exactly what they would
do in order to increase their tax base and double our taxes. What would
we get in return? Nothing, except the privilege of living inside the
Carrboro city limits. I can remember when the Tripp property to Barrington
Hills was rural residential but in Carrboro's planning and zoning
jurisdiction. i don't blame people like Mrs. Tripp for selling her
property, because the Carrboro government was worrying the poor lady half
to death trying to take it from her for a park. Barrington Hills residents
tried every way to keep Carrboro from involuntarily annexing them, bu11
t
Carrboro took them anyway. Now they are working their way out to our I
Calvander.
My parents and I have no fond memories of our dealings with Carrboro
officials in years past. About 10 years ago Carrboro had planned, unknown
to us, to condemn the service station building and surrounding land and
take it for a place to build a proposed future fire station. A friend who
happened to be in Carrboro or involved in one of the night meetings found
out about it and told my parents who hired a lawyer to check it out. Once
they found out that we were on to them, they tried to deny everything and
dropped the whole idea. Last year, a neighbor found out, through the
grapevine of course, that Carrboro had an industrial park planned for the
middle of Calvander, plus all surrounding properties to be rezoned for high
density housing which could be 12 to 15 units per acre. We started
attending their meetings and finally asked the County Commissioners to call
for a public hearing, and we got rid of the industrial park and the
rezoning was cut down to five units per acre. So we've been keeping pretty
close tabs on Carrboro ever since.
I have heard the area referred to as North Carrboro by some Carrboro
officials. I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Mayor Porto
said a few weeks ago he was trying to look out for the best interests of
Carrboro. Well, we are looking out for the best interests of Calvander and
the needs of all Orange County residents. So be a good sport, Carrboro
and give up the watershed to the County but don't try to bargain with
something you don't have and that is the Calvander community. We are going
to fight for what is ours and for many of us our heritage until all the
cows come home. Calvander residents are not selfish people as they were
referred to on the radio today. To our elected County officials we
strongly urge you to vote against the swapping of the watershed for our
right to be represented by our elected County officials. Please save us
from the clutches of land hungry Carrboro. "
Janet Tulowiecki , a resident of the Fox Meadows Subdivision made the
following comments:
"I am here to register the strong opposition of my community to the
proposed land swap which could place our community in the extraterritorial
planning jurisdiction of Carrboro. I would like to submit to the Orange
County Commissioners the names of 48 opponents to this plan. These people
have expressed their shock, anger, disbelief, and fear about the proposed
swap and area splitting. it all boils down to one statement - we do not
want to become a part of Carrboro today or tomorrow. We will oppose any
plans or proposals that might lead to this outcome. Why do we feel this
way? We find it irrational to allow a non-representative government plan
for us. Because of their past performance, we are skeptical and uneasy
about the quality and intent of Carrboro 's planning effort. We take issue
with being asked to accept this proposal and all that goes with it on good
faith or blind faith alone. We are confused about a proposed designation
as Carrboro's extraterritorial jurisdiction when we reside 3 . 3 miles from
Carrboro city limits and only 0. 7 miles from Chapel Hill. We are concerned
about a proposal that could physically split our community and our
subdivision so that one could literally cross the street into another
planning area. We must say in closing, that we do appreciate the
opportunity afforded to us by the County Commissioners to speak on this
12
issue. This is the first time that we, the hostages in this swap, have
been asked how we feel about it. We implore the County Commissioners, our
elected representatives, to vote against the proposed swap and preserve the
current quality of life in our community and in the County as a whole. "
Ms. Ruby Blackwood presented a statement, a copy of which is attached
to these minutes.
Mr. Randy Danziger presented a petition containing more than 100
names of citizens opposed to the land swap. He noted those names were all
residents of the Calvander community. He continued that the Calvander
residents do endorse a new water supply watershed study and certainly do
endorse a rural buffer study. The residents also endorse a uniform zoning
and sewer/water policy in the watershed. In particular, they wished to
endorse the policy of no water and sewer going into the watershed if the
zoning is to be kept at one dwelling unit per 40, 000 square feet. He felt
that a practical application would be one unit per five acres noting this
would be a conservative and safe solution during the two years it will take
for a water quality study to be completed.
Mr. Danziger indicated he supports the joint planning process but
felt it could only work if all participants were committed. He expressed
concern with considering extraterritorial jurisdiction for a body whose
concerns were in opposition to all others regarding the watershed. He
expressed the thought that the only way to deal with the watershed was for
everyone to deal with it responsibly. He felt it was unfair to take a
public health issue and turn it into a political football. He continued
that he felt Carrboro was not willing to take the conservative water
protection measures that the County and Chapel Hill are willing to take.
Mr. Danziger indicated that he did not see the plan as being wrong in
its general ideas but was concerned with the comments he had heard that if
all the points were not agreed to as Carrboro wished, that the entire plan
would become "unraveled". If this be so, he felt it was a very unreasonable
position.
Mr. Dave Rutter , a Calvander resident, expressed concerns that a
growth directed city is being threatened by and is threatening its own
borders. He continued, noting that Carrboro's growth is being directed to
the west and north. He stated that the revised Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan densities were much more acceptable to the Calvander Homestead
Road residents. He indicated he felt the prospect of gradual growth to
the north and west was such a disappointment to the Carrboro administration
that it could hold the water supply for much of southern Orange County
hostage until their territorial demands are met. He stated that the
Association For A Better Calvander supports joint planning in the
transitional areas. They do not support Carrboro's unilateral jurisdiction
over the extensive Calvander neighborhood. He continued that Calvander
residents do support and recognize planning for natural growth in the
community for the future. They do not support Carrboro's efforts to extort
from Chapel Hill and the County so-called acre- for-acre or density swaps
because the challenge of this whole process is reaching terms for a joint
future land use plan. The compromise leaves the Calvander residents
completely out of the process. He expressed concern that the swap woul13
d
simply meet Carrboro's fiscal needs and none of those of the Calvander
residents. He indicated he felt that the more economical solution would be
for the County to pick up the planning tab for Carrboro's future growth and
let zoning in the transitional area remain subject to the County board.
Ms. Dee Stewart expressed her family's love for the Calvander area
in which they live and noted concerns with the effects of development on
those who wish to live in rural areas as well as its effect on property
taxes. She indicated the desire to continue with representation to whom
she could present her concerns and felt this would not be the case if
annexation by Carrboro should take p place. She continued, expressing
concern with current vacancies on the Carrboro Planning Board and the lack
of citizen input into these questions. She also noted concerns with the
overcrowding in schools and the lack of funding availability for a new
elementary school. She indicated strong opposition to the 13 point plan
presented.
Mr. Jody Roberts stated his family had been Calvander residents for
four generations. He expressed concern that his community was becoming a
trade-off for politicians noting that the Calvander community had no desire
to become a part of Carrboro.
Ms. Ellen Kepley presented remarks to the Board. A copy of her
presentation is attached as a part of these minutes.
Mr. Jan Pinney expressed concern with the number of apartment
buildings, the quality of construction and the quality of inspections in
Carrboro's jurisdiction. He indicated he felt Carrboro is intent on growth
by whatever direction it must take. He noted that Calvander and Eubanks
Road have the landfill, and he felt this was indeed enough without having
more Carrboro planning for the area. He indicated surprise that Chapel
Hill is in support of such a plan. He asked that it be practiced in
Calvander what Chapel Hill preaches and not what is politically expedient.
Mr. Pinney noted that much of the Calvander area is in large tracts
and those property owners are not interested in development or selling for
development. This being the case, he felt that Carrboro would very soon
again need room in which to expand.
Ms. Debra Keena-Levin stated she is a homeowner in the Fox Meadow
Subdivision and is opposed to the land swap between Orange County and
Carrboro. She expressed the feeling that every citizen in Orange County is
morally responsible for the watershed and that it is unacceptable to use it
for land bargaining purposes. As a resident of Fox Meadow she expressed
opposition to the change of land use classification from rural residential
to suburban residential. She felt that neither classification reflects the
character of the neighborhood which is one unit per acre and the intent is
to see that this is preserved.
Mr. Neal Kaplan stated he is a homewoner in the Fox Meadow
Subdivision and is opposed to the land swap with Carrboro. 14
He noted opposition to Carrboro having jurisdiction over his
neighborhood which would mean having no representation or input into what
is decided about the future use of the land. He continued that he felt
annexation would be sure to follow such a land swap. He indicated
agreement with protection of the watershed and joint planning but not at
the expense of putting development pressure on the Homestead Road area. He
could see no benefits to his community from a land swap with Carrboro and
wished to go on record as utterly opposed to the swap.
Ms. Suzanne Allen expressed opposition to the land swap with
Carrboro but is supportive of watershed protection and joint planning. She
noted that with Fox Meadow not having representation in Carrboro, she is
uncomfortable with Carrboro having planning jurisdiction over the area.
She indicated that she felt Carrboro desires the swap only because it
cannot develop the land in the watershed. She continued that she felt this
swap is the first step toward annexation by Carrboro and she does not wish
to be annexed by Carrboro because of its pro-grwth, high tax rate and its
reputation of poor service. In summary, she desired to go on record as
being opposed to the land swap and wished to remain under the current
planning jurisdiction of Orange County.
Jef began by pointing out what he considered to be errors in the map
as related to the boundaries between rural buffer and transition areas. He
spoke in general opposition to the extra- territorial jurisdiction swap.
He indicated he was not anti growth but felt protection of the watershed
was of foremost importance. He suggested deferring action until results of
the proposed study of University Lake Watershed were available - a period
currently estimated to be two years. He felt the ultimate answer was a
greater spirit of compromise among the various governing bodies in Orange
County. Finally, he indicated that he didn't think the best interests of
Calvander residents were being considered by Carrboro.
Mr. Arlin Scott indicated he moved into the Rogers Road/Homestead
Road area from Ohio within the last year. He felt that if annexation were
to take place it should be by Chapel Hill and not Carrboro since he lives
nearer to Chapel Hill than Carrboro. He expressed the feeling that
services from Chapel Hill would be better than those that would come from
Carrboro.
He asked to go on record as having no desire to be annexed by
Carrboro.
Mr. John Hartley a resident of Calvander, expressed concern with
protection of the watershed noting that "we all live downstream". He
indicated Carrboro had not been planning properly and sporadic planning for
high density over the entire area seems to be the case. He felt that
annexation is the ultimate goal and wished to go on record as being opposed
to being annexed by or being a part of Carrboro.
Mr. Vance Elderkin stated he is a resident of Fox Meadow
Subdivision. He expressed concern that officials whom he could not vote for
planning 15
would have
P g jurisdiction for the future of his community if the
land swap takes place.
Mr. George Woodgates stated he is a resident of Barrington Hills.
He indicated that he was very suspicious of a move where Carrboro is going
to take over the responsibility for an area such as the Calvander area. He
indicated he felt this was just another move on Carrboro's part to take
over and annex an area with or without its consent. He stated he felt
watershed protection was priority, and no expansion should be considered
until such time as the study is completed. He presented a petition which
stated the residents of Barrington Hills were strongly opposed to any plan
to include Calvander as a part of Carrboro.
Mr. Richard Ellington expressed opposition to the land swap. He
had several questions concerning the proposed 13 point agreement. His
first question regarded the study of resolution of positions. There was no
time period specified for completion of that study. With no time period
specified, residents of the transition area would be left "in limbo". His
second question was whether the County or Chapel Hill opposed
extraterritorial jurisdiction for Carrboro in the University Lake Watershed
when it was established.
Shirley Marshall, Chair of the Board of Commissioners , responded in
answer to the first question that at the end of the public hearing the
topics discussed would be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for
their recommendation. The Orange County Board of Commissioners would
receive that recommendation at the April 6 meeting. In response to the
second question, she indicated that the extraterritorial jurisdiction for
Chapel Hill and Carrboro was a remnant of times when the County did not
have enabling legislation. At that time, only cities could plan, zone, and
enforce building codes. Cities were granted extraterritorial jurisdiction '
for first up to one mile and then up to three miles from their city limits
for these functions. After the County was given enabling legislation for
comprehensive planning, subdivision regulation and building code
enforcement, the County did not have to give extraterritorial
jurisdiction. Some ten years ago, additional extraterritorial jurisdiction
was requested and the citizens of the County said no. This was the time
when joint planning was initiated.
Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney , added that the rectangular
boundary around Chapel Hill and Carrboro except as distorted by annexation
is the result of an act of the General Assembly. It was established before
the County was in the business of planning.
Don Willhoit, Commissioner , said that it was initially designated in
the 1950 's and was set aside as Chapel Hill area. It was subsequently
split into Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The issue of watershed protection
initially arose in 1971.
Mr. Ellington continued by expressing his concern not only for the
proposed Amberly Subdivision but also Laurel Springs and development of the
watershed in general. While in some areas restrictions on development at
one unit per five acres are in effect, Carrboro's plans would allow for
densities much higher than that. Allowing higher densities in the
16
transition area north of Carrboro can only increase development pressure on
the watershed. He urged the County not to approve extension of the extra
territorial jurisdiction north of Carrboro.
Mrs. Margaret Holton presented a statement, a copy of which is
attached to these minutes.
Mr. Jay Zaragoza expressed concern that the 13 point plan was not a
land use plan but wasteful thinking. He urged the County to devise a plan
for sewer lines. He stated he felt if the governing bodies could get a
grip on where the sewer and water lines will go, you will have a grip on
land use planning over the County.
Mr. Everette Billingsley, Executive Director of OWASA presented a
statement, a copy of which is attached to these minutes.
Mr. Warren L. Ganong presented a statement, a copy of which is
attached to these minutes.
Ms. Kathy Harris presented a statement, a copy of which is
attached to these minutes.
Mr. Pearson Stewart noted that he had conflicting ideas in his mind
concerning the future of the Calvander/Homestead Road area east of the
University Lake Watershed. He stated that he is very supportive of the
residents goal to keep the Calvander/Homestead Road area as rural and very
low density. Consequently, he strongly supports the concept of joint
planning for the area south of Duke Forest. He noted that there was a big
difference between the Bolin Creek Watershed and the University Lake
Watershed. The University Lake Watershed is very inappropriate for
development and the Bolin Creek Watershed is very appropriate for
development. He expressed support for the extension of the
extraterritorial jurisdiction and the placing of University Lake Watershed
under County jurisdiction. He did note that these were two conflicting
concepts concerning the future of the Calvander/Homestead Road but each is
realistic and realizable.
Mr. Michael Hartley , a Bingham Township resident, indicated there
are two watersheds in Bingham Township-Cane Creek and Collins Creek. The
treatment of these two watersheds is very different. The water supply from
Bingham which goes to Chapel Hill is substantially protected. The Collins
Creek drainage which lies between Cane Creek and University Lake watersheds
is used by Chapel Hill and receives a substantial amount of sewage from the
treatment plants of Chapel Hill in the form of treated sludges which are
applied to the lands in the Collins Creek basin. He indicated he felt any
statement of what was acceptable in one drainage basin but not another is
premature. He felt that the Collins Creek basin should also be included in
any study of watersheds. He strongly opposed the concept of trading off an
unprotected watershed for the protection of another. We indicated the need
17
to look beyond reservoirs to groundwater and to that body of the public
who do not consume water which is piped in but draws it untreated through
private wells.
Ms. Jean Earnhardt , a resident of Calvander, stated that her family
owns 400 acres of land north of Calvander on Union Grove Church Road. She
agreed with Mr. Pinney that there is not a trend for selling and developing
land in the Calvander community. She noted that about 100 of these acres
would be in the acre-for-acre swap, while another 200 acres would be in the
proposed transition area. She continued, noting that her family is very
interested in protecting the watershed. She indicated two purposes would
be served if the swap takes place-the watershed would be protected and
Carrboro would be given the license to grow but there is no sense of equity
for those residents of the Calvander area. She urged the Commissioners not
to diminish the way of life of the Calvander residents forever.
Mr. Henry Whitfield indicated he did not own property in the area
being considered for the swap. He expressed a concern over public
confusion and lack of knowledge in the general public about planning. He
expressed concerns that County planners were not aware of the impact of
their planning efforts on the property owners/taxpayers of the County. He
indicated he felt there would be a two-acre checkerboard over the entire
county. He noted concerns that he felt planning was being done without the
property owners having benefit of input. He indicated he felt pressure
would not be so great on planners if there were only one planning office
for the whole of Orange County.
Chair Marshall asked Mr. Whitfield to please speak only to the
issues on the public hearing agenda.
Mr. Whitfield indicated he felt he was speaking to the transition
area on the agenda. He expressed concern that he was not able to present
his problem, indicating he felt the meetings were not properly set so all
property owners could participate before decisions were made. He suggested
that the entire County be under one planning jurisdiction and the problem
of jurisdiction would be solved.
Mr. David Moreau spoke in favor of the concept of the 13 point plan
in so far as it offers development in the Bolin Creek Watershed as a
alternative to development in the University Lake Watershed. He noted that
growth is occurring at a very rapid rate and the consequence of this is the
transition of lands from lower to higher densities. He indicated the
proposal represents a logical step to accommodate growth while minimizing
the adverse effects of growth and minimize the cost of providing sewer
service. He indicated that wherever growth occurs, the problem of what to
do about areas that are undergoing transition from lower to higher
densities is an ongoing question. He indicated he felt that in addressing
those issues it is appropriate that one consider the welfare of the larger
community in the County and minimize the impacts of growth on everyone.
Mr. Jay Bryan stated he is a resident of Carrboro and noted he could
18
sympathize with the current government's need to try to reach out for some
more property. He did not feel it is appropriate to use the method of swap
to do this. He felt that if the Amberly project is approved, it will set a
precedent that the County will not be able to overcome. It will allow
development to come in and affect adjoining property values and cause land
value to be reduced as density is increased. He felt any project proposed
for the watershed should be kept under a moratorium until the watershed
study is completed. He expressed the desire that OWASA take a more
protective stance in terms of being the real advocate for water and not a
land swap.
Mr. Dan Okun encouraged water management. He noted that develop-
ment will be taking place but asked that it not be allowed to take place in
the watershed. University Lake Watershed is not only supplying water for
Chapel Hill but will be a water supply for the entire southeastern region
of Orange County. The only way to protect the watershed is to prevent
development in the watershed. He urged that a good example be set as a
portion of Chatham County is also in the University Lake watershed.
Mr. David Lange stated he is a Calvander resident and opposes the
land swap. He noted that everyone who spoke has been in favor of
protection of the watershed. He indicated also that he could understand
that Carrboro has a legitimate interest in expanding. He expressed the
feeling that there is a lack of a principal argument in favor of the swap
itself. He noted that the linkage between these two propositions does not
depend on any principled argument advanced thus far by anyone. He noted
that the linkage seemed to be grounded in political expediency, and he
submitted that this is insufficient to justify the swap which is proposed.
He asked for a reasonable affirmative base for the swap rather than
political expediency.
Ms. Helene Ivey encouraged watershed protection and suggested a
County-wide bond issue to buy property for development.
Mr. Larry Reed expressed concern with the location of this public
hearing in view of the fact that the majority of the citizens affected
would be nearer Chapel Hill High School as a meeting place. He spoke in
favor of joint planning but strongly opposed the proposed land swap. He
inquired why the County could not maintain extraterritorial jurisdiction
over the area and give Carrboro the right of courtesy review. He noted
that the swap would create "taxation without representation" . He indicated
he felt the swap goes against the Joint Planning Agreement.
Mr. Skip Mendler stated that the watershed needed to preserved at
all costs. He expressed the concern that Carrboro has no direction in
which to grow. He felt that Calvander, Carrboro and all the surrounding
areas have interdependent relationships that must be preserved. Future
focus-the need to plan far ahead-is a fact. Perhaps it is not true that
large urban development will continue to occur. He encouraged communi
cation and cooperation for joint planning affects everyone, not just
Calvander and Carrboro.
rm
19
Mayor James Porto of Carrboro , reminded those present that Carrboro
residents are citizens of Orange County and that between Carrboro and
Chapel Hill, they make up two-thirds of the citizens of Orange County which
is near 45,000 people. This fact needs to be remembered when one speaks of
representation. He stated that his Board endorses the 13 point plan
presented.
Mayor Porto continued, stating that Carrboro's growth strategy over
the years has not been one of unbridled growth. He noted that Carrboro
recognizes they cannot develop very intensely in the watershed, but they
can develop there at a price. He noted that Carrboro was the first
jurisdiction in the State to have a watershed ordinance of such magnitude.
He noted that Carrboro had downzoned the watershed area to about what the
County is trying to achieve for the rural buffer area. He indicated
Carrboro's watershed ordinance is a model ordinance for many other
jurisdictions. He stated that if Carrboro is to remain a viable community
in the future (40 to 50 years from now) it must have a direction in which
it can grow logically, orderly and not rapidly or rampantly; the only
available area is to the north. He indicated that the only way to assure
that one's land is not sold or developed in later years by dependents is
public dedication. He felt this is a fact.
In referring to the land swap and statements from the public
regarding annexation, Mayor Porto stated that Carrboro could not annex for
six years unless it is a voluntary annexation. He noted also that there
are certain density requirements which must be met for annexation that
cannot be met by Calvander. Thus, it does not mean annexation will take
place anytime in the near future. What it does mean is that when the
dependents of Calvander residents sell the land and petition the Board for
rezoning, then Carrboro's Board would hear the case instead of the County
Commissioners.
Another concern is that there is no place in southern Orange County
for businessmen who wish to expand or offer more services to the County.
Mayor Porto noted that statistics now show that Orange County residents are
going to Durham County to shop and buy services since there are no places
for expansion in Orange County. This means a lot of Orange County money is
leaving the county.
Mayor Porto stated that he and Carrboro have tried very hard to
balance out the individual rights of property owners with the interests of
the whole community. He noted that a balance had to be found seven years
ago when the area was downzoned to accommodate the watershed. A balance
must be found which most meets the needs of all County residents.
Mr. Bob Peck expressed sympathy with the residents of Calvander. He
also indicated he could understand and appreciate the position of Carrboro
where they are practically landlocked unless some provision is made for
them to grow. He noted that OWASA has two responsibilities--that of
providing water and sewer to answer the needs for growth of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro and Orange County, and the responsibility of protecting the
watershed. He spoke in favor of the swap because it would take the
pressure off development in the watershed and put that same pressure into
the Bolin Creek Watershed which can better handle development. It is goo20
d
planning for Orange County to encourage growth where it can best be
handled.
Mr. Herb Posner referred to an old story regarding the city coming
out to the country, noting that there are now newer methods for
moderating the effect of the communities. Perhaps some of these could be
taken into effect to moderate and ease the transitional phase for the
residents of Calvander. The pressure of growth is great and so is the need
for water. He concluded that he felt the negotiations could be spread a
little more and perhaps resolve the issues.
Mr. David Earhnardt stated he lives on Union Grove Church Road
approximately one-half mile from Calvander. He noted his family is four
generations strong in the area. He commented on the natural beauty of the
area and a desire to see it remain so. He noted that a certain amount of
growth is inevitable but there are many things which can be done to affect
growth. He asked that the Commissioners please remember that they
represent all the people of the County and take note of the opposition of
Calvander residents. He felt the wishes and desires of the residents are
not selfish ones but "represent the pursuit of our happiness" .
There being no further comments, Chair Marshall closed the hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Hartwell to refer items one and two to the Orange County Planning Board for
a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on April 6, 1987.
VOTE: Unanimous
3 . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
' rY a. Article 11.7 Nonconforming Lots (RURAL BUFFER)
The Presentation was made by Marvin Collins.
Article 11.7 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that
nonconforming lots of record, in the same ownership and with continuous
frontage, be combined to create conforming lots.
On January 5, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the
Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district designation and its application to
38, 000 acres of land surrounding the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. Data
from the Orange County Land Records Office indicates that 244 lots (5.7%
of all lots) would have to be combined to meet the two-acre minimum lot
size requirement. Of these lots, 142 (3 . 3% of all lots) are developed.
A moratorium on enforcement of Article 11. 7 was approved by
the Commissioners, pending a public hearing to consider revisions to the
requirements. Any amendment would be applicable in all zoned townships.
Approval of the amendment would allow the construction of
single-family detached dwellings and customary accessory structures on
nonconforming lots of record. As applied to the Rural Buffer district,
the amendment would affect 102 lots (2 .4% of all lots) .
Collins stated that the ordinance amendment, if a 21
delete the requirement to combine non conforming lots inrothe�Rural
Buffer or any other portion of the County. It would allow any
individual who owns a non- conforming lot of record to build on that lot
provided building setback requirements are met for the district in which
it is located.
Steve Quint spoke representing twelve members of the
Homeowners Association in the Falls of New Hope Subdivision. He
expressed concern that the present law is a very obscure one which only
devalues property. It takes away the individual 's right to develop his
property as he desires. He commended the objectives of the regulation
but noted that individuals had purchased adjoining lots in the hopes of
maintaining the rural character of the area.
Chair Marshall clarified Mr.
favor of the amendment which deletes the urequirement lto combine alots in
order to make them conforming. Mr. Quint agreed with the clarification.
Chris Best asked about building on non-conforming lots that
are not contiguous and consist of only one acre. Collins responded
construction would be permitted, providing the ownership is not the same
as adjoining property. Best inquired if there would be other non
conforming lots at a later date. Collins responded there would be no
more non-conforming created unless the Zoning Ordinance were amended. 1
In answer to a question from John Hartwell, Collins stated
that acquisition by a public agency, such as for road right-of-way,
could create a non conforming situation. This would create a hardship
which could be addressed by the Board of Adjustment through approval of
a variance.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
b. Article 7.20 PD-MHP Planned Development Mobile Home Park
District
The presentation was made by Marvin Collins.
New mobile home parks must be approved as planned developments
and require the issuance of a special use permit prior to construction.
Article 7.20 of the Zoning Ordinance contains design standards
applicable to such parks. The standards were adopted March 18, 1986.
Since November 3, 1986, the Planning Board Ordinance Review
Committee has been working with mobile home park owner/operators in
reviewing the design standards. The proposed revisions represent
changes to Article 7.20 as applicable to new mobile home parks.
Approval of the amendment would allow more flexibility in the
design of mobile home parks while addressing public health and safety
concerns.
The proposed standards provide for: smaller mobile home
spaces; foundation enclosures of uniform design; unit access per State
Building Code standards; flexible setback standards; street design
standards; unit/street numbering as well as traffic control signs
properly maintained grounds; recreation areas; and landscaping limited
to buffer standards and dumpster screening.
One owner/operator had expressed concern with the sign size
advertising mobile home parks - 16 sq. ft. vs. 32 sq. ft. Another
concern was the size of the mobile home park. The standards approved
last year set a minimum of ten acres and a maximum of twenty-five
acres. The North Carolina Manufactured Housing Board has indicated they
would not like to see a maximum size set for mobile home parks. The
Ordinance Review Committee would like for the Low and Moderate Income
Task Force to set the maximum size. Collins indicated the Task Force
has not yet addressed this issue.
Jacobs made reference to the skirting requirement noting that
it was the recommendation of the Ordinance Review Committee that a time
limit of 90 days be set for installation and that the skirting be of a
solid nature.
Commissioner Hartwell inquired whether the reduction of lot
size would have any effect on the recreation space that must be
provided. Collins responded that the controlling factor was the
underlying zoning which set the density.
Commissioner Carey questioned the statement that each time a
mobile home is replaced, patios and decks would have to be shifted.
Collins explained that this regulation would allow the latitude for the
shifting of entranceways to accommodate the varying sizes of mobile
homes.
Sharlene Pilkey inquired about the reason for decreasing the
lot size for a mobile home from 10, 000 sq. ft. to 5, 000 sq. ft. Collins
responded that the existing ordinance set a ceiling of four units
acre in a mobile home park. Rather than use the individual lot sizepto
control the density, the decision was to made to allow the zoning
district to control. This would encourage clustering.
Vernon Davis expressed concern that the mobile home park owner
with less density would be required to have as much open space as one
with higher density. He noted that recreation is determined by people
rather than land. Collins responded that this was a concern expressed
by mobile home park owners as well. He noted that the recreation
facilities must be geared to the needs of the mobile home park
residents.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
4 . ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
Z-1-87 W. E. and Ruby Blackwood (R-1 to LC-1)
The presentation was made by Marvin Collins.
W. E. and Ruby S. Blackwood are requesting rezoning of a 2 . 0
acre parcel located on the north side of NC 54 opposite its intersection
with White Cross Road (SR 1952) . The 23
( ) . property is known as Lot 9 of Tax
Map 30B for Bingham Township.
The property is located within an area designated Agricultural
Residential and Rural Community Activity Node in the Orange County Land
Use Plan. The present zoning classification of the property is
Agricultural Residential (AR) . The applicant is requesting the lot to
be rezoned to Local Commercial 1 (LC-1) .
Approval of the request would allow development of the full
range of commercial uses for the LC-1 district at this location.
Properties to the south and west are currently zoned NC-2 Neighborhood
Commercial, comprising a total of 4. 35 acres of land. Rezoning of the
property would allow for the expansion of commercial areas near the
intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road.
Planning Staff recommends denial due to the fact that the
applicant fails to meet traffic generation criteria for the LC-1 Local
Commercial zoning district; specifically, uses that are permitted in the
LC-1 district have to have traffic generation of less than 200 vehicles
per day from the site. The site was reviewed, and it was estimated there
were 350 to 450 trips per day based on the building size indicated in
the application. Collins indicated a positive recommendation could be
considered, but the Planning Staff would limit the building area so that
no more than 200 trips per day would result from the site.
The only other zoning district that could be applied for would
be NC-2 or Neighborhood Commercial district. The district permits 200
to 800 trips per day. The Zoning Ordinance has a limitation of five
acres in any rural activity node, and there are already 4. 35 acres zoned
for NC-2 purposes leaving only about two-thirds of an acre which could
be used for that purpose.
Collins continued, noting that if the rezoning request was
approved, Planning Staff would be required, through the Zoning Ordinance
provisions limit the building size based on the amount of traffic
generation proposed.
Steve Yuhasz inquired how many of the uses listed for NC- 2
would generate less than 200 trips per day. Collins explained that it
would depend on the size of the business.
Vernon Davis indicated his desire to speak in favor of the
rezoning request because of a need for a hardware store in the area but
expressed a need for a turning lane at the intersection of NC 54 and
White Cross Road. Randy Danzinger expressed support for the need of
such a neighborhood business.
County Attorney, Geof Gledhill cautioned the Planning Board
and Commissioners not to consider the specific use in a rezoning request
unless it is a Special Use Permit application. There is no power in a
general rezoning to require on-site improvements.
Commissioner Carey inquired about the reduction in building
size needed to accommodate the trip generation allowed in the zoning
district. Collins responded that the Health Department comments
24
received were based on a building size of 9600 square feet. A reduction
of building size by half would be needed.
5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS
a. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping and Buffer Requirements
The prresentation was made by Marvin Collins.
On December 6, 1986, the Board of Commissioners suspended
enforcement of Section IV-B-8-c-1 of the Subdivision Regulations,
pending further study of standards requiring installation of plant
materials in building setback areas and on parcels designated for
recreation/open space use. Concern had been expressed by land owners
and developers about the high cost of complying with the standards.
Clarification of application was also required.
The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee has been working
with a developer, forester and landscape architect in reviewing the
design standards. The proposed revisions represent changes to Section
IV-B-8 as applicable to new subdivisions.
Approval of the amendment would allow more flexibility in the
installation of required plant materials. Street frontages are required
to have a canopy comprised of at least one (1) large tree per lot, with
additional landscaping comprised of large and/or small trees.
Side/rear yards as well as recreation/open space areas are
still required to have one (1) tree per 1, 000 sq. ft. area, but trees
may be grouped and large and small trees may be installed. Coupled with
reductions in required plant sizes, the new standards result in lower
installation costs.
Emphasis is given to installation of healthy plants and proper
maintenance rather than plants reaching designated heights within
specified time periods. Furthermore, areas in which buffers are
required or utility/drainage easements provided are excluded from
compliance.
In answer to a question from Mike Lewis, Collins
responded it was never the intent of the ordinance to control
landscaping or removal of vegetation beyond the point that ownership of
the property was transferred from developer to owner.
Collins continued that the original emphasis was to protect
existing vegetation.
Steve Yuhasz noted that this would encourage developers to
develop wooded land rather than open land.
WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to refer to the Planning Board items 3a, 3b, 4
and 5 for a recommendation to be received at the regular Board meeting
on April 6, 1987.
IMOMM
25
VOTE: Unanimous.
6. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
(Complete narrative is an attachment to these minutes)
The presentation was made by Greg Szymick.
On August 25, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) published final rules revising National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) criteria. The criteria became effective October 1, 1986 and
require, as a continued validity, that communities revise their
floodplain management regulations to make them consistent with NFIP
criteria within six months of the effective date.
Orange County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance must be
revised to bring it into compliance no later than April 1, 1987.
The proposed revisions provide for: changes in the
definitions of "mobile homes" (now "manufactured homes") and "start of
construction" ; flood proofing of mechanical and utility equipment; the
use of openings in enclosures below a structure's lowest floor; the use
of available flood data; and certification of floor elevations.
WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commis-
sioner Carey to refer the proposed amendments to the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance to the Planning Board for their recommendation to
the Board of Commissioners on March 24, 1987.
VOTE: Unanimous.
With no further business to come before the Boards, the meeting was
adjourned at 12 : 30 a.m. The next regular meeting of the Board of
Commissioners will be held on March 2, 1987, 7: 30 p.m. in the courtroom
of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Shirley E. Marshall, Chair
Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary