HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-94 - VIII-H 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 5, 1994
Action Agenda
Item # laff"H
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
Section IV-B-3-c-10 Lot Boundaries (in relation to public
right-of-way)
Section IV-B-3-d Private Roads
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Willis
Proposed amendment Extension 2583
8/22/94 Public Hearing Minutes
9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes (draft) TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Subdivision
Regulations which would require that property lines for
individual lots extend only to the edge of a public road
right-of-way and that the area within private road
easements be included within lot boundaries.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment makes explicit the practice of
Orange County to require that property lines go to the
edge of public road rights-of-way and that the area within
private road easements be included within lot boundaries.
In the case of public roads, the property is dedicated for
use by the public and there are no individual rights or
responsibilities associated with the right-of-way, even if
it is included in the deed description for an adjoining
parcel.
In the case of private roads, the property is used to
provide access only to parcels which have been granted
rights of access. Unlike public road rights-of-way, there
are individual rights and responsibilities associated with
the use of a private easement, and it is thus appropriate
for that area to be included in the deed description for
an adjoining parcel.
The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on
August 22, 1994. A letter (attached) was submitted
expressing opposition to requiring that property lines
extend only to the edge of an existing public road right-
of-way. No other comments were received.
2
The proposed amendment was presented to the Planning Board
on September 19, 1994 . The Planning Board recommended
approval of the proposed amendment, with the revision that
property lines be required to extend to the edge of the
right-of-way only for new public roads. The vote was
unanimous.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendment per the Planning Board recommendation, including
the revision that property lines be required to extend to
the edge of the right-of-way only for new public roads.
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Section IV-B-3-c-10 Lot Boundaries (in relation to
public right-of-way)
Section IV-B-3-d Private Roads
REFERENCE:
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
_x_ Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High x Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To require that property lines for individual lots
extend only to the edge of a public road right-of-
way and that the area within private road
easements be included within lot boundaries.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: It has been the practice of Orange County to require that
property lines extend to the edge of the right-of-way of
public roads, and to the center of private road easements.
In the case of public roads, the property is dedicated for
use by the public, which also bears the responsibility of
maintenance. There are no individual rights or
responsibilities associated with a public right-of-way,
even if the area in the right-of-way is included in the
deed description for an adjoining parcel.
In the case of private roads, the property is used to
provide access only to parcels which have been granted
rights of access. The owners of parcels served by the
easement bear the responsibility of maintenance. Unlike
public road rights-of-way, there are individual rights and
responsibilities associated with the use of a private
easement, and it is thus appropriate for that area to be
included in the deed description for an adjoining parcel.
The proposed ordinance makes explicit the practice of
Orange County to require that property lines go to the
edge of public road rights-of-way and that the area within
private road easements be included within lot boundaries.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
IV-B-3-c Public dedicated streets must meet the minimum
construction standards as adopted by the N.C. Department
of Transportation for acceptance of streets as additions
to the State Highway System, but shall be no less than the
4
following:
IV-B-3-c-1 Widths
IV-B-3-c-2 Partial Widths
IV-B-3-c-3 Grades
IV-B-3-c-4 Intersections
IV-B-3-c-5 Deleted
IV-B-3-c-6 Curves
IV-B-3-c-7 Culs-de-sac
IV-B-3-c-8 Access Restrictions
IV-B-3-c-9 Reverse Frontage
IV-B-3-c-10 Deleted Lot Boundaries
The parcel boundary for lots adjacent to eifl-stlel--e-
proposed public road rights-of-way shall extend to the
edge of the right-of-way.
IV-B-3-c-11 Street Names
IV-B-3-c-12 Street Name Signs
IV-B-3-d Private Roads
IV-B-3-d-3 The land within a private road easement shall be included
within the lot boundaries of the lot or lots which border
the easement. The road maintenance agreement shall
include a provision that if the road is dedicated for
public use at a later date, then the lot boundaries will
be revised to extend only to the edge of the right-of-way,
as required by Section IV-B-3-c-10 of this Ordinance.
**********************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCO1rMITTEE: July 11, 1994
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
Sep. 9 '94 12:03 ENT LAND SURVEYS, INC. FAX 919-644-1177 P. 1
5
Memo
To: Moses Carey
Alice Gordon
Steve Halkiotis
Verla Insko
Don Wilhoit
From: Steve F. Yuhasz
Date: August 22, 1994
Subject: August 22, 1994 Public Hearing
Item C.I.a I am in favor of the proposed changes.
Item C.1.b I am in favor of the proposed changes.
Item C.1.c,d The proposal to create Economic Development Districts was founded in the
universally acknowledged perception (as identified in the discussions leading to the
adopted Strategic Plan, and incorporated therein)that the lengthy approval process for
non-residential developments discouraged the location of appropriate
commercial/industrial projects within Orange County. The Target Advisory Group was
created and charged with identifying specific areas in the county,and uses within those
areas,which would be suitable for an expedited review process, The TAG did identify
appropriate areas,and also determined that selecting specific uses was impractical. The
TAG chose as an alternative to support performance standards as the best method to
insure the type of development Orange County desires. The Planning Department,
assisted by the Economic Development Commission,then formulated performance
standards which answered the concerns citizens of the county might have as to the adverse
impacts of any specific development proposal. Only by meeting the performance
standards would an expedited approval be offered.
The proposed ordinance changes attack the concept of Economic Development Districts
in the most fundamental way-they eliminate expedited review. It seems premature to
revise and retrench before we have had the opportunity to determine if the adopted
standards will operate as designed. A Special Use Permit approval process or a public
Site Plan approval process would make the EDD performance standards an added layer of
regulation. (Clearly not what was intended)
The adoption of the Economic Development Districts has been seen as a promise that
Orange County is interested in helping new businesses locate here. Any action by the
Commissioners to change the basic standards under which the EDD is to operate will
make that promise a lie.
Sep. 9 '94 12:05 ENT LAND SURVEYS, INC. FAX 919-644-1177 P. 2
August 22,1994 Public Hearing 08/22/94 6
'f Item C.4.a Where NCDOT will accept and maintain publicly dedicated rights-of-way
within new subdivisions, and where the right-of-way is clearly marked and platted,this
proposed amendment creates no problems. In the case of existing state secondary roads,
however,the situation is much different. NCDOT often does not have well-defined rights-
of-way along secondary roads(e.g. ditch-to-ditch)and even when there has been some
specific right-of-way defined(e. g. 60'),that right-of-way is defined with respect to the
centerline of the roadway,which can change as the road is regraded or repaved. In the
case where an existing gravel road is paved,NCDOT invariably obtains new right-of-way
agreements with the adjoining property owners,often ignoring(but never releasing)
previously platted rights-of-way. If the adjoining lot is platted to the right-of-way rather
than the centerline,there is the possibility that the owner might lose access the next time
the road is paved. I suggest that until NCDOT revises their procedures to insure
continued access,this amendment only apply to new subdivision roads.
A provision requiring replatting of lot lines to the right-of-way where previously private
roads are publicly dedicated would require approval and release of the underlying property
by any lien-holder having an interest in the property. Since a lien-holder can not be forced
to release his interest(short of condemnation),a requirement for replatting is likely to be
unenforceable,and therefore ill-advised.
Item C.4.b,c I am in favor of the proposed changes
•
SEP-09-1994 09:46 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.06/07
7
1 Commissioner Willhoit requested that staff consider this request in terms of
2 the principals for sustainable communities. Construction rubble being buried,
3 rather than reused, is worrisome. EPA prarotes the reuse of construction
4 materials.
5
6 Clint Burklin requested information contrasting Orange County's and the
7 Federal Government's erosion control programs. Ms. Willis indicated that she was
8 not familiar with the-differences, but the staff person in charge of Orange
9 County's erosion control program could came to a Planning Board meeting and report
10 an this program.
11
12 Commissioner Gordon asked how the reclamation could be enforced if this was
13 a use by right?
14
15 Ms. Willis indicated that if the borrow pit was not reclaimed, it would no
16 longer be a use by right and would require a Special Use Permit.
17
18 John Link stated that the. County has no authority where D.Q.T. pursues the
19 borrow pit process through their own right of way. This proposal would allow
20 D.O.T. to save the tax dollars necessary to purchase the right-of-way if they
21 agree to reclaim the land. If they do not follow through with the reclamation,
22 the county could delete this provision. D.O.T. would then be required to purchase
23 the property.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
26 Halkiotis, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
27 returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994.
28 VO'L'E: t7NANII4WS
29
30 4. Other Subdivision Orddnance Text AmendMents
31 a. Lot BoU daries (Public Rights-of-Way)
32 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of
33 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations
34 which would require that property lines for individual lots extend only to the
35 edge of a public road right-of-way and that the area within private road easesments
36 be included within lot boundaries.
37 b. Lot Layout (Land Hooks)
38 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of
39 receiving citizen comment an a proposed amendment which would allow, in same
40 circumstances, a new lot to contain land area on both sides of a private road
41 easement.
42 c. Private Road Standards Curve Radius
43 This item was presented by Mary Willis for the purpose of
44 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations
45 to allow for modification of the 125-foot curve radius for subdivisions served by
46 existing private roads which have a lesser radius.
47
48 QOESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONS AND PLANNING BOARD
49
50 Ms. Willis indicated that the proposed amendment to allow a new lot to
51 contain land area on both sides of a private road east is necessary to deal
52 with the occasional unusually shaped property. Currently adjustments to the
53 location of the road or property line are required in order to meet the technical
54 requirements. The technical requires do not always appear appropriate or correct
JCf—tJ7-1X74 eJ +i rtcul"I UKHI`I1 c. I U t-1.riNN I NL t'.E'J'f''U
8
1 for the land.
2
3 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
4 None.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Carnissioner Insko,
7 to refer these its to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to
8 the Board of Cunnissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994.
9
10 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next
Il regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on September 6, 1994 at
12 7:30 p.m. in the Northern Human Services Center, Cedar Grove, North'Carolina.
13
14 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
15
16 Kathy Baker, Deputy:Clerk
•
•
TOTAL P.07
9
could be deleted from the ordinance if NCDOT did
not follow through with reclamation. Likewise,
the provision could be deleted if the County was
dissatisfied with the performance of NCDOT for
any other reason, including the failure to
reasonably recycle construction debris. The
alternative would be for NCDOT to purchase the
property, exempting the project from local land
use regulations.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendment.
Barrows asked who would make the complaint
regarding reclamation on private property.
Willis responded that the property owner or an
adjacent property owner would probably be the
ones who would make the complaint. She also
noted inspectors in the field could make the
report.
Burklin asked about the constraints that the
County would be enforcing. Willis responded that
if the criteria listed was met, the use would be
permitted by right and not require a Special Use
Permit.
MOTION: Barrows moved approval of the Planning Staff 's
recommendation. Seconded by Burklin.
VOTE: Unanimous.
d. Other Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments
( 1) Lot Boundaries (Public Rights-of-Way)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to
the Subdivision Regulations which would require
that property lines go to the edge of public road
rights-of-way and that the area within private
road easements be included within lot boundaries.
The proposed amendment makes explicit the
practice of Orange County to require that
property lines go to the edge of public road
rights-of-way and that the area within private
road easements be included within lot boundaries.
In the case of public roads, the property is
dedicated for use by the public and there are no
individual rights or responsibilities associated
with the right-of-way, even if it is included in
the deed description for an adjoining parcel.
10
In the case of private roads, the property is
used to provide access only to parcels which have
been granted rights of access. Unlike public
road rights-of-way, there are individual rights
and responsibilities associated with the use of a
private easement, and it is thus appropriate for
that area to be included in the deed description
for an adjoining parcel.
The proposed amendment was presented for public
hearing on August 22, 1994 . A letter was
submitted expressing opposition to requiring that
property lines extend only to the edge of an
existing public road right-of-way. (A copy of
the letter is an attachment to these minutes on
page . ) No other comments were received.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed amendment, with the revision that
property lines be required to extend to the edge
of the right-of-way of new roads only.
Barrows asked about property that abutts a public
gravel road that is then paved by the State, does
the property owner lose some of her property when
the right-of-way is extended further due to the
paving. Willis responded yes.
Jobsis noted that had occurred when Bushy Cook
Road was paved, but, she thought there were
easements rather than loss of property. Willis
responded that if it was not part of the
subdivision, then, the individual property owners
would be negotiating with the State in terms of
acquiring the right-of-way. Willis continued
that even if the property owner maintained
ownership, they could not use the area of the
easement.
MOTION: Burklin moved approval of the Planning Staff's
recommendation. Seconded by Jobsis.
VOTE: Unainmous.
(2 ) Lot Layout (Land Hooks)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment
which would allow, in some circumstances, a new
lot to contain land area on both sides of a
private road easement.
The Subdivision Regulations require that all land