HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-04-1993 - III-H 1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date August 4 , 1993
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
(ARTICLE 14 . 3 - SITE PLAN REVIEW)
(ARTICLE 21 . 4 - ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT REQUIRED)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron
Proposed Ordinance Amendments Extension 2580
5/25/93 Public Hearing
Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
6/21/93 Planning Board Hillsborough - 732-8181
Minutes Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment
that would add language to Article 14 and Article 21
of the Zoning Ordinance to clearly explain that a site
plan approval with or without a zoning compliance
permit does not establish a vested right to develop a
project in the absence of an approved Site Specific
Development Plan.
BACKGROUND: In 1991 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to include
provisions for vested rights. An applicant may request
approval of a Site Specific Development Plan which
would allow him or her to develop property according
to the plan for a period of two to five years. Once a
vested right is established, development of a project
would not be affected by zoning changes concerning the
type and intensity of the use.
If a site plan is approved without being vested, the
applicant is not entitled to develop the project
should zoning regulations change subsequent to plan
approval. Issuance of a zoning compliance permit does
not extend a vested right. If a site plan approval is
followed by a zoning permit and a building permit,
then the project is vested, provided the building
permit does not expire.
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would
eliminate any question as to the viability of a
project without approval of a Site Specific
2
Development Plan.
A public hearing was held on May 24 to receive citizen
comment on the proposed amendment. No comments were
received regarding the change to Articles 14 and 21.
The item was referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be presented to the County
Commissioners no sooner than August 4 , 1993 .
On June 21, the Planning Board recommended approval of
the proposed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
text amendment.
3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: Article 14 . 3 - Site Plan Review
Article 21. 4 - Zoning Compliance Permit Required
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other: County Attorney
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 24 , 1993
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To add language to the Zoning Ordinance to clearly explain that a site
plan approval, with or without a zoning compliance permit, does not
establish a vested right to develop a project in the absence of an
approved Site Specific Development Plan.
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
The Planning and Inspections Department has encountered situations when
a site plan has been approved and a zoning compliance issued, but
construction of the project never started. Occasionally, the applicant
returns years later to obtain a building permit and discovers that
zoning regulations have changed since the site plan was approved.
In 1991 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to include provisions for
vested rights. An applicant may request approval of a Site Specific
Development Plan which would allow him or her to develop property
according to the plan for a period of two to five years. Once a vested
right is established, development of a project would not be affected by
zoning changes concerning the type and intensity of the use.
Without obtaining a vested right to develop a project, the applicant
must comply with all land use regulations in effect at the time a
building permit is requested. Even if a zoning compliance permit is
issued with the site plan approval, the applicant is not entitled to
develop the property should the zoning designation change.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT:
14 .3 SITE PLAN REVIEW
14 . 3 . 2 .
4
If a plan is approved subject to conditions, no zoning permit
or subsequent building permit shall be issued until all
conditions of approval have been met to the satisfaction of
Orange County.
Site plan approval and the issuance of a zoning compliance
permit does not establish a vested right to develop the
property should zoning regulations change subsequent to plan
approval.
At the option of the Applicant, a Site Plan may be vested for a
k period of not less than two (2) nor more than five (5) years.
To become vested, a Site Plan must be approved by the Board of
County Commissioners as a Special Use Permit, pursuant to
Article 8 of this Ordinance. An approved Site Specific
Development Plan shall contain the following statement:
"Approval of this plan establishes a zoning vested right under
G. S. 153A-344 . 1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the
zoning right shall be valid until . "
21. 4 Zoning Compliance Permit Required
It shall be unlawful to begin the excavation for the
construction, the moving, alteration, or repair, except
ordinary repairs, of any building or other structure, including
an accessory structure costing more than $100 or exceeding one
hundred square feet in area, until the Zoning Officer has
issued for such work a Zoning Compliance Permit which includes
a determination that plans, specifications and the intended use
of such structure does in all respects, conform to the
provisions of this ordinance.
Also, it shall be unlawful to change the type of use or type of
occupancy of any building, or to extend any use of any lot on
which there is a non-conforming use, until the Zoning Officer
has issued for such intended use a Zoning Compliance Permit,
including a determination that the proposed use does, in all
respects, conform to the provisions of this ordinance. Issuance
of a Zoning Compliance Permit does not establish a vested right
to begin and complete construction or change the use/occupancy
of a lot or building should zoning regulations change
subsequent to issuance of said permit.
Ordinance Review Committee: 4/5/93
Planning Board: 60/21/93
BOCC:
5
12
hearing until 7 : 30 on August 4 , 1993 to receive the Planning Boar,'
2 recommendation.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5
6 c. Site Plan Approval/Zoning Compliance Permit
7 Planner Emily Cameron presented this item to receive public
3 comment. This proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment would add language to
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Zoning Ordinance to clearly explain that a
:0 site plan approval with or without a zoning compliance permit does not
=1 establish a vested right to develop a project in the absence of an approved
_2 Site Specific Development Plan.
13
14 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF
15 THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS
16
17 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
18 Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public
19 hearing until 7 : 30 on August 4 , 1993 to receive the Planning Board
20 recommendation.
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22 •
23 •
24 d. Impervious Surface Standards
25 Planning Director Marvin Collins presented this item to receive
26 public comment. The purpose of this amendment would add a provision tf-
27 Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance which would permit property owners ;
28 satisfy impervious surface ratios in protected watersheds through provision
29 of a perpetual conservation easement on adjoining property. This particular
30 amendment was generated by a request from the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire
31 Department and has implications for the County' s recycling center sites and
32 it may have implications for other rural fire departments or similar public
33 uses . It does allow conservation easements for meeting the requirements of
34 the impervious surface standards.
35
36 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF THE PLA2r'NING
37 BOARD
38 Commissioner Gordon questioned how this would work and Mr.
39 Collins referred to an example in the agenda abstract and explained how this
40 amendment would apply to a parcel of land.
41
42 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS
43 Mr. Edward S . Johnson, President of the Orange Grove Volunteer
44 Fire Company, stated that the zoning requirements have put the Fire Company
45 in a box for about eight years . They wanted to enlarge their building eight
46 years ago and asked for a variance which was denied. The fire station is
47 beyond site capacity at this time and they urgently need to expand . The only
48 other alternative is for them to purchase additional land. They plan to
49 purchase some additional land but do not want to buy two acres .
50 Charles Snipes explained that he is wiling to give up a small
51 parcel of land for the expansion of the fire station but does not want to give
52 up two acres .
6
( 1) Nursing Homes
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This item is to consider proposed amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance creating a land use category
and development standards for nursing homes.
Under the current Zoning Ordinance provisions, a
nursing home facility for more than fifteen
unrelated individuals must comply with standards
for a rehabilitative care facility. The land use
category for rehabilitative care includes
facilities for persons addicted to drugs or
alcohol, youthful offenders, and persons
adjusting to non-prison life. Such facilities
are permitted in the Local Commercial, Community
Commercial, and General Commercial zoning
districts.
The Planning Staff proposes a new land use
category and appropriate standards for nursing
homes to be included in Articles 4 , 8, 10, and
22 .
The proposed amendments were presented at the
public hearing on May 24 . No citizen comments
were received at that time. The item was
referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be presented to the County
Commissioners no sooner than August 4 , 1993.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed text amendments to Articles 4 , 8, 10,
and 22 . (A copy is an attachment to these
minutes on pages . )
Burklin asked the definition of a group care
facility. Cameron responded that it is similar
to a nursing home or rehabilitative care facility
but accommodates less than 15 individuals.
MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2 ) Site Plan Approval/Zoning Compliance Permit
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
This item is to consider a proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment that would add language
to Article 14 and Article 21 to clearly explain
that a site plan approval with or without a
7
zoning compliance permit does not establish a
vested right to develop a project in the absence
of an approved Site Specific Development Plan.
In 1991 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to
include provisions for vested rights . An
applicant may request approval of a Site Specific
Development Plan which would allow him or her to
develop property according to the plan for a
period of two to five years. Once a vested right
is established, development of a project would
not be affected by zoning changes concerning the
type and intensity of the use.
If a site plan is approved without being vested,
the applicant is not entitled to develop the
project should zoning regulations change
subsequent to plan approval. Issuance of a
zoning compliance permit does not extend a vested
right. If a site plan approval is followed by a
zoning permit and a building permit, then the
project is vested, provided the building permit
does not expire.
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
would eliminate any question as to the viability
of a project without approval of a Site Specific
Development Plan.
No one spoke for or against the proposal at the
May 24 , 1993 public hearing. The item was
referred to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be presented to the County
Commissioners no sooner than August 4, 1993 .
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed text amendment. (A copy is an
attachment to these minutes on pages . )
MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(3 ) Impervious Surface Standards
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
The abstract information and proposed amendments
are attachments to these minutes on pages .
This amendment is to allow a landowner to satisfy
the impervious surface standards by obtaining an
easement on an adjoining piece of land and the
recording of a conservation agreement. The