HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-18-94 - VIII-E 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 18, 1994
Action Agenda
Item # VIII - E
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT
Section IV-B-5-e Lot Layout (land hooks)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Willis Extension 2583
Proposed amendment
8/22/94 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes (draft) Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: 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.
BACKGROUND The Subdivision Regulations require that all land area
within new lots be contiguous, and not separated by a road
right-of-way or by another lot. The application of this
restriction to public roads avoids the creation by Land
Records of parcels with separate Parcel Identification
Numbers (PINS) when the subdivision is recorded. A parcel
split by a public road cannot be included in a contiguous
metes and bounds description because the ownership extends
only to the edge of the right-of-way. This situation
causes confusion in issuing and tracking permit approvals.
The restriction applies to private roads as well as public
roads. Although it is preferable to have all of the lot
area on one side of a road to maximize its usability, lots
split by private roads do not result in the creation of
two separate PIN numbers because, unlike a dedicated
public road, a private road easement is under the same
ownership as the remainder of the lot.
Occasionally, applying this requirement to private roads
result's in an awkward easement configuration and road
location, particularly where the use of an existing
driveway or road is proposed. (Examples attached. )
Planning Staff recollects three instances in the past year
when this issue was raised. One of those cases involved
an inquiry prior to submittal of a subdivision
2
application.
The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on
August 22, 1994. A letter in support of the proposal was
submitted (attached) . There were some comments from the
Board of Commissioners questioning the necessity of the
proposed amendment.
The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on
September 19, 1994 and recommended approval by a vote of
eight to one. One Planning Board member voted against the
proposed amendment on the basis that having all of the lot
on the same side of the road provided a preferable lot
configuration.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendment, per the Planning Board recommendation.
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: Section IV-B-5-e Lot Layout (land hooks)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle _X Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1994
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow, in some circumstances, a new lot to
contain land area on both sides of a private road
easement.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations were amended on October 3,
1988 to require that all land area within a newly-created
lot be contiguous, and not separated by a road right-of-
way or by another lot.
The application of this restriction to public roads
prevents the creation of parcels with separate Parcel
Identification Numbers (PIN) by Land Records when the
subdivision is recorded. Separate PINs are necessary
because property lines go to the edge of the right of-way
for public roads, with the right-of-way itself being
dedicated to the public. If a parcel is split by a public
road, then the entire parcel cannot be included in a
contiguous metes and bounds description, and must be
described as two separate pieces, each with an individual
PIN. The two pieces would be considered as one zoning or
subdivision lot, joined by a "land hook" across the road.
This situation is undesirable in that it can cause
confusion when developing the parcel and issuing permits.
An amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to prohibit
splitting a lot by a road was approved on October 3, 1988
to avoid the creation of additional land hooks.
The 1988 amendment prohibited the creation of additional
land hooks across private roads as well as public roads.
Although it is preferable to have all of the lot area on
one side of a road to maximize its usability, lots split
by private roads do not result in the creation of two
separate PIN numbers because, unlike a dedicated public
road, a private road easement is under the same ownership
as the remainder of the lot.
Occasionally, applying this requirement to private roads
results in an awkward easement configuration and road
location, particularly where the use of an existing
4
driveway or road is proposed. (Examples attached. )
Planning Staff recollects three instances in the past year
when this issue was raised. One of those cases involved
an inquiry prior to submittal of a subdivision
application. The amendment is being proposed at this time
in conjunction with two other amendments which relate to
private roads. The other amendments pertain to the
location of lot lines in zelation to public and private
road rights-of-way, and the curve radius for private
roads. Situations encountered in reviewing subdivisions
can involve issues addressed in one, two, or all three of
the amendments.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
IV-B-5 Lot Layout
IV-B-5-E All lots created after the effective date of this
provision (10/3/88) shall be composed of contiguous land
area, and that area shall not be separated by a public
street right-of-way or other lots. A private road
easement may split a new lot only if all of the following
criteria are met:
1) the land underlying the easement in the same ownership
as the remainder of the lot; and
21 the proposed easement contains an existing road or
driveway which is to be used for access to new lots;
OR the proposed easement is located along a property
line which has an irregular shape; and
21 the minimum lot area requirement can be met on one
side of the road easement but not both sides.
Those lots with compripcd of ccparatcd land area separated
by a public road right-of-way prior to the effective date
of this provision shall not be further subdivided in a
manner which creates any additional lots with separated
area.
**********************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE:
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
5
L oT 2 LoT
(
/• [y: )
• I ''J:r I .
Lo-r I /, •
• :•••
Extzrixiq DIVE
PtIVATe
Fr —1 h. 1 eAsE EMT
.;;';,
sol-4
i4-so'-olorsd-•1
Sep. 9 '94 12:03 ENT LAND SURVEYS, INC. FAX 919 G44-1177
P. 1
6
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 mdustrial 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 919-644-11?? P. 2
August 22, 1994 Public Hearing 08/22/94 • Page 2
7
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. 601,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.
X. Item C.4.13,c I am in favor of the proposed changes
SEP-09-1SS41 09:4ti FROM ORHNVE CT( COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.06/07
8 .
1 CcuTnissioner WilIhoit 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 promotes 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 fa,}dliar with the differences, but the staff person in charge of Orange
9 County's erosion control program could come to a Planning Board meeting and report
10 on this program.
1].
12 Commissioner Gordon asked how the reclarration 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.O.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 m otion was made by Conmdssioner 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 VOTE: t]NANIIYJC7S
29
30 4. ether Subdivision Ordinance Text Amts
31 a. Lot Bouada_ries (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 public road right-of-way and that the area within private road easements
36 be incl 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 some
40 circumstances, a new lot to contain land area an 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 amemiment 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 QQEsrIONs AND/OR 021MENTS FRCS! BOARD OF 03,4tISSIONS 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 easement 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
9
1 for the land.
2
3 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS PROM CITIZENS
4 None.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Nalkiotis, seconded by COmmissioner Insko,
7 to refer these it to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to
8 the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1994.
9
10 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next
11 regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on September 6, 1994 at
12 7:30 p.m. in the Northern Rumen Services Center, Cedar Grove, North Carolina.
13
14 Hoses Carey, Jr. , Chair
15
16 Kathy Baker, Deputy:Clerk
•
•
•
TOTAL P.07
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.
0 (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
11
area within new lots be contiguous, and not
separated by a road right-of-way or by another
lot. The application of this restriction to
public roads avoids the creation by Land Records
of parcels with separate Parcel Identification
Numbers (PINs) when the subdivision is recorded.
A parcel split by a public road cannot be
included in a contiguous metes and bounds
description because the ownership extends only to
the edge of the right-of-way. This situation
causes confusion in issuing and tracking permit
approvals.
The restriction applies to private roads as well
as public roads. Although it is preferable to
have all of the lot area on one side of a road to
maximize suitability, lots split by private roads
do not result in the creation of two separate PIN
numbers because, unlike a dedicated public road,
a private road easement is under the same
ownership as the remainder of the lot.
Occasionally, applying this requirement to
private roads results in an awkward easement
configuration and road location, particularly
where the use of an existing driveway or road is
proposed. Planning Staff recollects three
instances in the past year when this issue was
raised. One of those cases involved an inquiry
prior to submittal of a subdivision application.
The amendment is being proposed at this time in
conjunction with two other amendments which
relate to private roads. The other amendments
pertain to the location of lot lines in relation
to public and private road rights-of-way, and the
curve radius for private roads. Situations
encountered in reviewing subdivisions can involve
issues addressed in one, two, or all three of the
amendments.
The proposed amendment was presented for public
hearing on August 22 , 1994 . A letter in support
of the proposal was submitted (an attachment to
these minutes on pages ) . There were some
comments from the Board of Commissioners
questioning the necessity for the proposed
amendment.
The Planning Department recommends approval of
the proposed amendment.
MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of Planning Staff's
recommendation. Seconded by Walters.
12
VOTE: 8 in favor.
1 opposed (Rosemond - does not like the
concept of splitting property on either side of
the road) .
(3) Private Road Standards (Curve Radius)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to
the Subdivision Regulations to allow for
modification of the 125-foot curve radius for
subdivisions served by existing private roads
which have a lesser radius.
The Orange County Private Road Standards include
requirements pertaining to construction
materials, and design standards pertaining to
road and right-of-way width, grade, curve radius,
vertical clearance, drainage, signage, turn-
arounds, vegetation and maintenance. Application
of these standards assures that the road will
provide safe access, in terms of traffic
circulation and emergency access, appropriate for
the number of lots it serves.
There is flexibility in some of the dimensional
standards to address various site-specific
circumstances and constraints. For example, the
Board of Commissioners may approve a partial-
width right-of-way if the full right-of-way width
cannot be attained, and the Erosion Control
Officer may approve a grade steeper than the 12%
generally required if "exceptional circumstances"
are involved. There is also some variability
allowed in the pitch of the travelway and
construction standards for ditches.
There is currently no flexibility in the
requirement for a 125-foot curve radius. New
roads which are created when property is
subdivided are located and designed in such a way
that this requirement can be met. Problems
occasionally arise, however, in the subdivision
of lots which are accessed by an existing road
which does not meet the curve radius. In some
cases, the road and/or right-of-way can be
reconfigured so that the curve radius can be met.
In other cases, the road cannot be redesigned to
comply with the radius standards due to the
inability to change the location of the right-of-
way, the extent of earthwork that may be required
if there are significant slopes or embankments,
and/or the location of the right-of-way in