The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 08-29-2002 - 4 w` ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF C WORK SESSION AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 29, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. I+ SUBJECT; 'ort on Growth Controls in La .e Residential Proects DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. June 18, 2002 BOCC Report and Action Craig Benedict, ext. 2592 2. Planning Board Letter of May 6, 2002. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: S: Hillsborough 7324181 3. Staff Report— Growth Control Issues Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)-227-2031 PURPOSE: To provide a report on various elements associated with the implementation of grovAh controls in large residential projects. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002, the Orange County Planning Board (forwarded a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the need for growth controls in large residential developments. This topic was also broached at a joint Board of Commissioners f Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2002 On June 18, the .o rd of County Commissioners passed a resolution (see aftached) regarding what actions and issues need to be researched prior to further deliberation. The Planning Board discussed these issues within their purview on August 7, 2002. The attached report outlines the preliminary findings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the information presented and provide direction to staff on a course of action. REPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JUNE 18, 2002, IN RESPONSE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 'GROWTH CONTROL' LETTER OF MAY 6, 2002 PURPOSE: To direct administration to research the elements to consider while evaluating interim growth controls on larger scale residential developments within orange County's planning jurisdiction. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002 the Orange County Planning Board forwarded a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding options to invoke [growth] controls in large residential developments. The Board of County Commissioners and Orange County Planning Boa •i have discussed in joint meeting on June 6, 2002, the need to examine the impact of large development on the county while many comprehensive planning and regulatory initiatives are in progress. Important initiatives including, but not limited to, the comprehensive plan update, Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, water resource limitations, and transportation planning are in deliberate progress. ACTION: The County Manager, County Attorney, County Planning Director and Planning Board are directed to: • identify the many facets of such a proposal such as defining the size and scale of a 'large' residential project • determine an' define what'pipeline' proposals would be affected • formulate the steps necessary (including public hearings) to pursue as an option a limited moratorium or other growth controls, • explore legal consideration • research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases • research through Institute of Government and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short term goals • Planning Board and staff to research special use process for large projects and other strategies and options 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AIC*, Director tootr at Administration 306F Revere Road (919) 245-2575 EiRcw,-,1 ,PrF7C, P 0 Box 8181 (919) 6444002 (FAX) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us rtb eats North Carolina, 27278 - - - , r-rr - May 6,2002 To the Board of Orange County Commissioners(Distribution): Re: Orange County Planning Board Recommendations for Conti°s in LI e Reside tial eveio•ment Dear Sir or Madam: At the May I,2002 meeting for the Planning Board of Orange County,the Board put forth the following statement to be placed before you for consideration: In light of a forthcoming revision of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan,and additional concerns including: U Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance adoption • Water resources O Transportation issues O High density development in the rural area The Planning Board recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take appropriate steps(which might include a moratorium in large residential development)to address these concerns in a timeframe that the Board deems appropriate, Very truly yours, Nicole Gooding-Ray,Chair 4 Pe 11 May 6,2002 Distribution: Moses Carey,Jr. County o ssioner 901 Lystra Lane Chapel fill,NC 2751+ Margaret W.Brow County Commissioner 1509 Smith Level Road Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Dr.Alice Gordon County Commissioner 282 Edgewood Drive Chapel Hill,NC 27517 Stephen Halkiotis County Commissioner 2930 Franklin Road Hillsborough,NC 2727,E Barry Jacobs County Commissioner 2201 Moore fields Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 ccs: John Link,County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill,County Attorney Planning Board.File(May 1,2002) Planning Staff Report for August 29 2002 Board of County Commissioners Work Session Growth Control Issues ISSUE 1: Identify the details of a proposed moratoria including: size and scale of a large residential project. RESPONSE: August 7th, 2002,the Planning Board agreed to define large development as any subdivision with 20 or more lots. ISSUE 2: Determine what"pipeline"proposals would be affected. RESPONSE: The Planning Bo ' discussed three"pipeline"options at which to stop an existing project: 1.)A subdivision that has been submitted to staff, 2.)The project's concept plan has been approved by the Planning Board, 3.)A project that has been issued a formal preliminary approval by the BOCC. ISS 1' 3: List the steps necessary to produce/implement a limited growth moratorium or other growth control. RESPONSE: 1. Report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of June 18,2002, in response to the Orange County Planning Board"Growth Control Letter of May 6,2002. A moratorium could be enacted in the following time frame. The len!. of the moratorium would be coordinated with the completion of a unified development ordinance which would create a special use process for major subdivisions. The Planning Board has asked for additional time to process subdivision applications. The comprehensive plan land use element, adequate public facilities ordinance, and ordinance revisions regarding water resource issues would be concurrently researched and implemented to some degree. The shortest regular timeframe for the enactment of a moratorium would be as follows: R uest for Legal Ad November 6,2002 Quarterly Public Hearing November 25,2002 Planning Board Action December 4,2002 BOCC Action December 10,2002 A shorter timeframe if requested could be accomplished by creating a special public hearing at a regular BOCC date. RESPONSE: 2. Unified Development Ordinance Definition A Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) is a combined land development code that integrates the present planning regulatory system of"free standing"co I es of subdivision, zoning, environmental impacts, erosion control,flood management and economic development. The Unified Development Ordinance creates a comprehensive and cross-referenced document, combines various land use controls in a different procedural context. For example, the legislative review of special use zoning can be integrated with the typical administrative context of subdivision review. Special conditions, therefore, can be put forth on subdivisions of relatively high impact. General and specific parameters of interest such as traffic,property values, affordable housing,phasing, open space, dedications, etc. can be addressed through the Unified Development Ordinance development approval process. The creation of a Unified Development Ordinance is time consuming and complex because all existing freestanding code must be collapsed and reorganized into one document. Some existing code areas will be deleted in their present form and replaced with a non- conflicted, non-repetitive and all-inclusive system of review. A consultant is suggested for this type of work,with a close overview by the Planning Director and eventual legal pmcedural review by the County Attorney. The document would also be reformatted to the prototypical indexing used by the municipal code corporation,which can then be codified and av:lable on the internet. The time frame for Unified Development I áinance development is about 8—9 months, and public hearing processing including final recommendations and adoption depending on the extent of outreach,can be an additional 3—6 months. Staff could first proceed with a request for qualifications (RFQ), and then proceed with a request for services. The cost of this type of Unified Development Ordinance develo ment for a County is in the investigation stage. The Town of Chapel Hill is presently in tie Unified Development Ordinance process and information regarding their experience can be given at the work-session. ISSUE,4: Explore legal consideration. RESPONSE: Legal report to be provided by County Attorney. ISSUE 5: Research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases. RESPONSE: In 1995 Huntersville,NC placed a 12-month moratorium on all development in order to study'traditional town.planning methods and rewrite their existing zoning ordinance. Warwick,New York implemented a development moratorium while updating their comprehensive land use plan. ISSUE 6: Research through Institute of Government and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short-term goals. RESPONSE: Ongoing