HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-26-1990 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE, COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1990
7:30 P.M.
SUPERIOR COURTROOM - ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW)
106 EAST MARGARET LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Page
A. BOARD COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. Matters on the printed acrenda
( If anyone wishes to speak to matters on the agenda, we
would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that
you are not overlooked. )
2 . Matters not on the printed agenda
C. 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.
D. PUBLIC HEARING
5 1. Assignment of House Numbers
a. Rural Route 2 - Durham
b. Rural Route 5 - Hillsborough
2. zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
13 a. Article 2 .3 . 3 .2 Board of Adjustment Administration
19 b. Article 7 . 14 .4 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
Page
3. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
33 a. Section III--D-1-b Planning Department Review Procedures
_ 37 b. Section IV-B-8-e Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers
Waiver of Land Use Buffer Requirements
E. ADJOURNMENT
Note: The Planning Board will make a recommendation no sooner
than its meeting of March 19, 1990. The Board of
Commissioners will consider the items for decision no
sooner than April 2, 1990.
Approved: 4-17-90
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1990
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County
Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on February 26, 1990 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioner Stephen
Halkiotis, John Hartwelll , Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Virginia Boland, Carol Cantrell , Betty Eidenier, Chair,
Barry Jacobs, Vice Chair, Steve Yuhasz, Dan Eddleman, Bill Waddell , Chris Best, Larry
Reid, and Mike Lewis.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Abrams, and Jean Hamilton.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Planning Director Marvin Collins,
Planners Emily Crudup and Mary Scearbo, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, and Deputy
Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker.
NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the
Clerk's office.
A. OPENING REMARKS
Chairman Moses Carey welcomed everyone and made introductory remarks.
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1 . Matters on the printed agenda
Those who wish to speak will be recognized at the appropriate time.
C. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Carey read the Public Charge.
D. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1 . ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS
a. Rural Route 2 - Durham
b. Rural Route 5 - Hillsborough
These presentations were made by Marvin Collins. In summary these items
were presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be
assigned to Orange County Rural Route 5 served by the Hillsborough Post Office and Rural
Route 2 as it extends into Orange County (Zip Code 27705) served by the North Durham Post
Office. Route 5 Hillsborough includes an area beginning at Old NC 86 (Churton Street) ,
2
east along Old US 70 E. , south on NC 86, then along Old NC 10 east to the Southern Railway
crossing; then north on Lawrence Road, east along Old US 70 E. , to Seven Springs Road,
returning westward along US 70 E. , south on Lawrence Road and west on Old US 70 E. to Old
NC 86 (Churton Street). Included in Route 5 are Joppa Oaks, Byrdsville, Strayhorn Hills,
Colonial Hills Mobile Home Park, Colonial Hills Subdivision and Piney Grove and Valley
Forge Roads. Route 2 Durham encompasses an area beginning at the Durham County line on
Ebenezer Church Road, south along Pleasant Green Road to US 70, and includes the following
subdivisions: Country Lane Estates, Pleasant Green Estates, Meadow Estates, Brigadoon,
and Meadows of Eno. The following roads are also included: Knight Drive, Deerwood Lane,
Cole Mill Road, Jones Homestead Road, Cabe Ford Road, Willett Road, Laurel Ridge Road,
Linden Road, and US 70 from Linden Road east to the Durham County Line.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD, OR
CITIZENS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
approve the house and building numbers for Rural Route 2, Durham and Rural Route 5,
Hillsborough, followed by notifications of the Hillsborough Postmaster, the Durham
Postmaster and the N.C. Department of Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A- 240.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
a. Article 2.3.3.2 Board of Adjustment Administration
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was
presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
show that the Board of Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law. The
proposed amendment provides a reference to the portion of the General Statutes pertaining
to Open Meeting Laws (H.S. 143-318.9 et seq). This portion of the General Statues
includes the purposes for which a public body may hold an executive session and exclude
the public.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE PLANNING BOARD
OR CITIZENS.
b. Article 7. 14.4 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was
presented to receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide incentives for the
development of housing affordable to low and moderate income families. The Report of the
Low-Moderate Income Housing Task Force, completed September, 1987, included a
recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase incentives for new construction
of low and moderate-income housing. The proposed amendment provides such an incentive
by offering a density increase when affordable housing opportunities are created by a
developer. The density bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments located
outside of a protected watershed, and could be applied in one of several ways:
1 ) A density increase of up to 25% if a percentage of the units or lots are sold or rented
to low or moderate income households.
2) A density increase of up to 25% if off-site land area is donated to Orange County for
future development of an equivalent number of affordable units.
3) A 50% density increase if all of the lots/units are reserved for qualifying households.
Occupancy would be restricted by a contractual agreement with the Orange County Department
3
of Housing and Community Development, and should be binding for at least 15 years. She
noted that the Planning Board was against excluding the affordable housing provisions from
the watershed restrictions.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD.
Commissioner Hartwell suggested that the wording for median income be the same
throughout the document rather than being "regional median income" and "median area
income". He also asked about the opportunities and restrictions for land donated to
the county. In particular, he asked if the county could donate that land to Habitat for
Humanity.
Scearbo indicated that the intent of that section was to enable the county to transfer
donated land to Habitat for Humanity or similar groups.
Gledhill indicated that the conveying instrument would assure that the donated land
would be used as intended. He indicated that the Ordinance was not an effective way to
assure the use of the land because the Ordinance could be changed by a future Board.
In response to a question from Commissioner Carey, Scearbo indicated that the intent
was not to discourage an increase in income of potential renters. Once someone moves into
one of the units they would be allowed to stay there for as long as they chose regardless
of future income. She also indicated that limiting the evaluation of the home to a
specific amount so that the units remain affordable was a goal . However, the mechanism
to assure this has not yet been finalized. In order to reach this goal there are several
different options. Among those options are using the contract and/or the ordinance.
Gledhill pointed out that appreciation of value is not at issue here. The issue is
maintaining the resale price of the home. The resale price will be kept to the same
affordability standards that are established in the program in the beginning.
Commissioner Hartwell stated that Item 2. 14.4.2.2 needs to be reworded so that it
states the same criteria for resale as is found in Item 7. 14.4. 1 .
In response to a questions from Mike Lewis, Scearbo indicated that the 15 year limit
for this program had been chosen because the Low-income Tax Credit had, until recently,
used a 15 year term as had similar types of programs.
Bill Waddell asked about the affordability index which is referred to as a "rule of
thumb" of 2 1/2 times annual income as the affordable purchase price. Scearbo indicated
that HUD used that as a guideline. HUD has studied this region extensively and they have
a model that they use to determine what is affordable to a particular income group, such
as 80% of regional median income. In early January they ran the model for Orange County
to determine those income figures so that they could be used as a guide to determine the
affordable price. The 2 1/2 times is not a fixed amount. Many other factors are taken
into account.
In response to a concern voiced by Commissioner Hartwell , Link indicated that
7. 14.4.2.2 states that "all sales and rental transactions shall be approved by HCD to
assure compliance with eligibility criteria. " Gledhill indicated that homes stay on the
market unless they are sold in compliance with these criteria.
4
Commissioner Marshall indicated that a "clearinghouse" needs to exist to keep track
of those who want to buy the house as well as those who are under density bonus. It
cannot be left entirely to the builder to market these homes for sale to low-income
households. The county also needs to address that issue.
In response to a question from Larry Reid, Scearbo indicated that improvements could
be made to the home, however, if the home were sold during the 15 year period it would
need to be sold to a qualifying household regardless of improvements/additions which
might have been made to the home by the owner.
Waddell asked for clarification of the definition of income. The consensus was that
HUD guidelines would be used to determine eligibility. This point will be clarified in
the amendment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
refer these items to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned to the Board
of Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
a. Section III-0-1-b Planning Department Review Procedures
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was
presented to receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide adequate time for staff
review of major subdivision Concept Plans. Current Subdivision Regulation time limits
do not always allow sufficient time for staff review of major subdivision concept plans.
The proposed amendment would assure a minimum time period of 30 days between project
submittal and its presentation to the Planning Board.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD.
Commissioner Marshall stated that when time is added onto the process at one point,
consideration needs to be given to taking an equal amount of time off at a later point
in the process.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
Larry Blalock, a resident of Cedar Grove, indicated that he opposed adding time to this
process. He pointed out that adding time also adds to the cost of housing.
Cathy Carroll also requested that time not be added to this process.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
refer this to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Section IV-B-8-e Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was
presented to receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Section IV-B-8 of the
Subdivision Regulations, Landscaping and Buffer Requirements. Two amendments are proposed
for Section IV-B--8 of the Subdivision Regulations. The first involves interpretation of
5
the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers as it applies to subdivisions in the unzoned
townships. The second amendment to Section IV-B-8 will clarify the purpose of the buffer
waiver provisions and extend the scope of IV-B-8-g to include waivers for other landscape
requirements contained in the Subdivision Regulations.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR
CITIZENS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to
refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board
of Commissioners no sooner than April 2nd.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items for Board consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the
meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on March 5, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. , in the Old
Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
a
APPROVED 4/17/90
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CONTINUED MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1990
FEBRUARY 26, 1990
The Board of Commissioners met on February 26, 1990 at
6:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Library, Hillsborough, North
Carolina for the purpose of continuing the regular meeting of
February 20, 1990.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and
Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley
Marshall and Don Willhoit.
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr and
Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Hartwell to go into Executive Session to discuss
a personnel matter.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to go back into regular session.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADJOURNMENT
With no further items for consideration, Chairman Moses
Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting
of the Board will be held on March 5 at 7:30 p.m. in the
courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO
RURAL POSTAL SERVICE ROUTES
AND ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of
North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Articles 6, 18, 240, 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 26, 1990,
at 7 : 30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested
citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following
items:
ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS
The postal service routes proposed for a change from
existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently
assigned house numbers are as follows:
1. Rural Route 2 - Durham
Route 2 Durham encompasses an area beginning at the
Durham County line on Ebenezer Church Road, thence south
along Pleasant Green Road to US Highway 70, thence east to
the Durham County line. The area includes the following
subdivisions: Country Lane Estates, Pleasant Green Estates,
Meadow Estates, Brigadoon, and Meadows of Eno. The following
roads are also included: Knight Drive, Deerwood Lane, Cole
Mill Road, Jones Homestead Road, Cabe Ford Road, Willett
Road, Laurel Ridge Road, Linden Road, and US Highway 70.
2. Rural Route 5 - Hillsborough
Route 5 Hillsborough includes an area beginning at Old
NC Highway 86 (Churton Street) , east along Old US Highway 70
East, south on NC Highway 86, then along Old NC Highway 10
east to the Southern Railway crossing, then north on Lawrence
Road, east along Old US Highway 70 East to Seven Springs
Road, returning westward along US Highway 70 East, south on
Lawrence Road, and west on Old US Highway 70 East to Old NC
2
Highway 86 (Churton Street) . Included in Route 5 are Joppa
Oaks, Byrdsville, Strayhorn Hills, Colonial Hills Mobile Home
Park, Colonial Hills Subdivision, and Piney Grove and Valley
Forge Roads.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance are as follows:
1 . Amend ARTICLE 2 . 3 . 3.2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION
to include a specific reference that Board of Adjustment
meetings are subject to the North Carolina Open Meetings
Law.
2 . Add ARTICLE 7 . 14.4 DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
to provide incentives for the development of housing for
low and moderate-income households. The proposed
amendment would allow a density increase of up to 25% if
a percentage of the units or lots were purchased by or
rented to qualifying households or if off-site land were
dedicated to the County for the purpose of developing
affordable units or lots. A 50% density increase could
be approved if all of the lots or units were reserved
for qualifying households . The proposed amendment would,
however, restrict density bonuses to projects located
outside of a Water Supply Watershed as shown on the
Comprehensive Plan. The only exception would be projects
located in Transition Areas in a watershed.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations are as follows :
1 . Amend SECTION III-D-1-b PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
PROCEDURES to clarify the procedure for approving
concept plans for major subdivisions . Following
acceptance of an application, the Planning Staff would
have 30 days to review a concept plan. A staff
recommendation must then be submitted to the Planning
Board at its first regular meeting following the 30-day
review period.
2 . Amend SECTION IV-B-8-e-3 SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED LAND USE
BUFFERS to clarify how buffer requirements will be
interpreted in unzoned townships; i.e. , unzoned land
requiring a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet will
be considered Agricultural Residential (AR) or
Residential-1 (R-1) for the purpose of determining
buffer requirements in a subdivision. In addition,
SECTION IV-B-8-e-g WAIVER OF LAND USE BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS is proposed for amendment to clarify the
0
3
r ,
_ purpose of the buffer waiver provisions and expand the
number of situations in which a waiver may be requested;
i.e. , existing structures with established lawn areas
and areas in which utilities are located.
All interested citizens are invited to attend this
hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during
the public hearing. Following the close of the public
hearing, only evidence presented at the public hearing will
be examined by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners
for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which
reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the
Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning &
Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North
Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ,
Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough) , 688-7331 (Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-
Carrboro) . Please ask for Extension 350 or 359 . You will be
directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: February 14, 1990
February 21, 1990
4
. 5
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 26, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # 1,-1-4.
D- i -b
SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X,Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell
G.S. 153A-240
Location Map
Notification Letter TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Legal Notice Hillsborough - 732-8181
Information Brochure Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building
numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Route 5
served by the Hillsborough Post Office and Rural Route 2
as it extends into Orange County (Zip Code 27705) , served
by the North Durham Post Office.
BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US
Postal Service, all rural box numbers are being converted
to street addresses within the County. The conversion is a
continuation of the project begun in 1987 to change all
County addresses to permanently assigned house numbers .
To date eighteen routes have been changed (Chapel Hill
routes 1, 2,4,5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 15; Hillsborough routes
1,2,4 and 8; Rougemont routes 2 and 3; and Hurdle Mills
route 1) .
Route 5 Hillsborough includes an area beginning at Old NC
86 (Churton Street) , east along Old US 70 E. , south on NC
86, then along Old NC 10 east to the Southern Railway
crossing; then north on Lawrence Road, east along Old US
70 E. to Seven Springs Road, returning westward along US
70 E. , south on Lawrence Road and west on Old US 70 E. to
Old NC 86 (Churton Street) . Included in Route 5 are Joppa
Oaks, Byrdsville, Strayhorn Hills, Colonial Hills Mobile
Home Park, Colonial Hills Subdivision and Piney Grove and
Valley Forge Roads .
6
Route 2 Durham encompasses an area beginning at the Durham
County line on Ebenezer Church Road, south along Pleasant
Green Road to US 70, and includes the following
subdivisions: Country Lane Estates, Pleasant Green
Estates, Meadow Estates, Brigadoon, and Meadows of Eno.
The following roads are also included: Knight Drive,
Deerwood Lane, Cole Mill Road, Jones Homestead Road, Cabe
Ford Road, Willett Road, Laurel Ridge Road, Linden Road,
and US 70 from Linden Road east to the Durham County Line.
General Statute 153A-240 requires that a Public Hearing be
held on the proposed house and building numbers to be
assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents
and posted in the Courthouse and two other public places
within each proposed area.
A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the,
proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners
may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion
of the hearing.
RECOMMENDA-
TION: Approval of the proposed house and building numbers,
followed by notification of the Hillsborough Postmaster,
the Durham Postmaster and the N.C. Department of
Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A-240 .
a . ...... ift. IC.• r.4 (7- 1 - .
4..i/ r......"?*NL A.••• . fR t t 1..�\\\• ' -P* Jgerriont
1 ._ .,•:(:.1'1‘,,,, i0c,..= \ .1_.\4.... pplta, ..e"' •-Fir\‘\ .3 - er Teg-zw q--\\---'\, N r N.
r -:,..:.......... ••• ,
., ,T._ . _ . . ,c \A 00 II*.0k,v\ �V ..1),.. .
...c/ ...0„....i .......
--,, ,... _
' I. • es, \ .$ 04,,,,,Ns, ii, ill 4111.• • • „TIV Zoi, \ ,, .
1 ... - K - ���
\ . ,„.'"I e\i, \lir , ....0.61,16-
\h"yr - E�DOro �\ \\
1 t..-- -- '-' - - - 1,-N, ." N . \"\\\N \\\1\e‘\,' Air,",, .
....■.. V..' A\ \ C)\ .a.V.7' '\' .\'. 2
- 1 .1 t- AXIS *r.,‘.
>� \ it 15borou _iii:: :;M:,,li
7* -,...-&-4; i,.. -rtzi., .7.;.:- r. R ,. . ....
,.. ..-, • % . ...„- ..:::::::::::::::::. . .• • \\ •::::: :-.3.... - :
•
r /(r
..... + �' ;�� -Iva r: :i4:-
.' - ' 77 7 ....--11.- I.'
• •'-• ] .pi\ ••
...",. .... 2)A. ___.. ., =. .k,.....,_.t
. . _ .1),.. , . ....--,......
,‘•)\‘ :.... • .6, ,,,.... ._..., .
. _, _ , .....,..._ .
, z . .
. ..., • ••
•
�r�
.....471.4..7. ) . . ..
'? ' k - T ' dry Dvr�m ' 4-
•
ate. •. \\ �„
'%:::) N . $Rit"..kill4 . 8 . mu Auk
.XW/A-.11taiVIN AL VW Vir'tir '•■•+.k\ \k\ - +�.r �4 , -.
. ::::Arlatiiiii.... .- % \ VN\ \ ‘,N‘ ‘ '‘ • \\' \
�,�;-, .\,. Vi 04,... ..\\, w-
.�. �; Completed[ laov� rlill`_ \\\ .ape ,• % �\:,\\ - - -
\\. \ � . . , \\,' F :P RR 5, Hiliboug. RR 2, Durham
F ....
�.� !
, _. •
C p ! ■ . !
• T `"�
-I C 6 V .+ T I 1 -.
153A-236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A-240
cil, set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention-
8
inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspection
- unless he is qualified to do so unaer G.S. 153A-351. (1965, c. 626; 1969, c. 1064.
s. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.)
§§ 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes.
ARTICLE 12.
Roads and Bridges.
§ 153A-239. Public road defined.
In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway,
thoroughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to
the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without
regard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.)
Local modification. — Brunswick: 1979,
2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568,
amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319.
§ 153A-240. Naming roads and assigning street numbers in
unincorporated areas.
A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the
county and not within a city,and may assign or reassign street numbers for u
on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not
(1) Change the name, if any, given to the road by the Board of Transporta-
tion, unless the Board of Transportation agrees;
(2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transports•
tion, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or
(3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any
other public road in the vicinity.
A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street
numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least
10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commissioners shall cau
notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently
posted at the county courthouse, in at least two public places in the township
or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such
hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the
county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning
street numbers on a public road; a county shall cause notice of its action to be
given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of
Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road.
This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of
1953, which pertains to naming streets in Kannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973,c.
507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) •
Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979, been substituted for"State Highway Comri.
2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, sion" and for "Commission" in this section
amending 1979, 2nd Sess.. c. 1319; Forsyth: enacted by Session Laws 1973. c. 822.
1981, c. 558; Guilford: 1979, c. 283. Effect of Amendments. — The first 19::
Editor's Note.--Pursuant to Session Laws amendment substituted"at the County Cour,.
1973,c.507,s.5,"Board of Transportation"has house, in at least two public places in tt.,
78
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD 9
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
1
Dear Resident:
In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering
Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange
County addresses. To date eighteen postal routes have been converted to street addresses.
Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have
been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are
computer-maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter
registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal
service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses
and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past.
Hillsborough Rural Route 5 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On
Monday, February 26, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of
Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and
buildings on Rural Route 5 served by the Hillsborough Post Office. The hearing will be
held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough.
If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers.
This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to
addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with
numerals at least one (1) inch high.
The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location of your residence at tax map
reference is as follows:
OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS.
If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask,
however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house
number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process
of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning
Department staff members below.
Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning
Department
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 .
Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331
Sincerely,
Marvin E. Collins
Planning Director
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT i
306F REVERE ROAD 10
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
(id
Dear Resident: e..."
In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering
Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange
County addresses. To date eighteen postal routes have been converted to street addresses.
Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have
been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are
computer-maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter
registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal
service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses
and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past.
Durham Rural Route 2 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday,
February 26, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of
Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and
buildings on Rural Route 2 served by, the Durham Post Office. The hearing will be held at
7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough.
If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers.
This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to
addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with
numerals at least one (1) inch high.
The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location, of your residence at tax map
reference is as follows:
OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS.
If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask,
however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house
number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process
of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning
Department staff members below.
Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning
Department
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331
Sincerely,
Marvin E. Collins
Planning Director
� � F r =
1,,c=o0 i .til---::1 , P.- J. 1
, • 1 ton ..„,_(.0
4134 c.c.
(onL ! I ,
= = i . 1.-
�•
I .., J
CD , Ia.
Ln N
!'H '
t;.1 _
;1i L:=c_..,=..-
-_ - II .
•
•
t4 ra 0 nCelr-1
-- 'V nCS N r'C
C y --1 1 1 1 1
0 00Nn -�
N 14 • 0 c7 r"1 N
' -= `
C ON p n N (::..r., L«�Z I-, p a 4 H = •• tr. C
.
W en.< L . W Q W a L - ..:5S Imrn
�U 0J ZN � .��O W 0 c. E = G F--�
Zti Z Z. 47 Oo• NI «a ,) - .e
4-4 < w 0 U t 1 o1 W ,-1 :r .y f Q H Q a ' W -I -•
V
S p - 7 ~
w
0 0: O b «. IJ W
fJ ti 4.1 "IN E'' 0 -i a re = • •
Q ••I 4 1. --t .0 ..r
,� w - - D O
t) a = X.
•
•
N• 0 Is 0 0 1J 3 .••1 01 0 0 t h a) -41 0 .••1 1.1 LI =r'U •0 14 3
0 0 +J 0 0 > . &J 0 0 •-I N. U -I 0 0 r0 --1 •-1 0 0
CA 1.1 0 0 •• >+•-t 0 0 0 JJ Id C,+1 43 J.) 401. 4 .: W 3 0 0 "0 0
Z o 0 = JJ pr "CI b 0 C E ••y w .0 Rl LI
O -1 14 C4' 0 >9 U -4 C • 1.1 • ••I w w -4 0 L1
H 0 • O •4 0 > •- 0 0 4 a) �, 0 ^3 •-I 0 0 0 4) In 3 0 1a 0
H "0 --1 ..•1 4r en 11 0 .0 •0 •-1 U a .61 0 0 0 In 0 0 r O
W 3 b As 0 0 -1i f+0. 0 tr+ E A. ry0 w .a
>. as 1.1 ~a o �,
4
O 3 3 0 in •-1 0 In 0. 0 -1 0 01 C) JJ. "0 0
Ot O a) 0 0 0 0 -d In 0 In JJ L+ 0 > -1 •0 -• a
14 A .-1 0 •0 A -1 .0 U) 7•r 0 14 yJ •.1 3 4 • O .-► e,- C. >. A •
0 - .. -4 E •i X. C C U 0 Zs H 1r 4 0 0 .n 0 -4 14 1.3 •••1 E 0 .•-I E
W `., JJ --1 JJ -1 • 4 JJ J,J 0 '0 0 b 0 0 3 r3 3 a) t~ 0
tic C 3 Min m 4 0 -0 0 r0 a "C 'CI 0 0 .;
In a) . a) In c N •0 0 0 0 = 0 0 Q. 0 C 7i ] 0 0 J7J
4C •-+ b U) w A 0 0 4) Ed.) • b = n 0 Q. 0 •••1 r0 0 •C U
^-1 _.. 0 J•) 0 1J - L1 0 J.+ A rC --�1 In 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 --1 0
4 3y 44E -10 � Uba •1 0 C "0 -C10 � O war30J1 1-, U0 4X0
H 0 0 E •• JJ 4 3. r •44 In J.) E I) O '• ? .0 JJ .••1 '0 In 0) 0 In
x 3 1■ 11 J.) 4 14 J-) to in yJ J6.1 4 0 E C) 0 .-1 4 0 - N • m In N
W 0 0.1 0 01.1 E JJ O U 4 0 1+ w 0, .41 Al - 4 0 0 Q U 0 0 .5G -V 0
O = '-1 Ls. 7 b 0 0 0 0 0 r3 •-1 r- 3: 3 H Li •.4 .-1 1.1 Z U o LI
Ot 01. 0 Q4 J•+ 3c 0 w 0 Cr 04 rn x 0 1J 4 -I 0 "0 0 0 •Z
W • 0 • 00 ?•1laa) 0ow .Ca) a) • rho • 0 • •-- • 04 .04.1 • ...7.:• -C - 0
w' a-0 4 UrraAV 0 U .0 0a6J 1w Ca o1 �0 -0 <>. d3 4 CriEJ, 4 pte ro 4 U U 4
U.
•i N rn •••
12
O 0 •O0 • b 4.3 -1 '0m rl0 «7cnErl30 -CI 0 -4-4 00 • ?, O1I-, a•
+) 00,E1000100 (0 • ; f--1 :0 4H0 (0 O .00 .0 wO .1) > w ,i0 ) U
O t~ ••1 G) N 0 O O 0 •.1 U C7 la U 0 x 4) Sa -'-1 •.1 co Ia•-•I •0 Z
O 014.) 0 0 E •-I ••1 I-1 c J 3 H CO •91 ,W CO 4) 0 .0 1d .0 0 W
N 4-1 = >i� (0 .0 •.I 10'$a •-a U 0 O
c •m cco E W � Wb o '� r` 00. • w ?, a 04-I r-1 -d O �► 1%
0 0 •'•1 010 0 0 N cO Pe, N 84 w, 9--1 a V .--1 0 O) -d U I w •
to (0 004 ,, CO IA La �, (0 - •--1 4) -, 0 .0 •r1 )4 (0 •� w CD Z
O N a) 0 b-I S 9 H O 0 m O W .-1
o O ...I ) ❑ 10 a) 0 (0 O O .= g "'1 3 b 04 y O $a --I •--1 .-1
-`" 43 N I ).4 t GL 11c7 0 0 a) 0 U 0 '0 c.) 1T
3 nj to fl m 0 w • `- W E4 I--1 a) CO � E --I 4 , m
0 0 0 r., C c- •
,, co Cn co - cn a) y,., U 0 4) - g
O• 4 to CO ch O CO CO 4 O t0 U H d co • 0 co 0 A c0 0 A ?,W
..1 a„) C'c� C4 c.) > 0 ua�1 R r�7 g 4) .= .g 0 0 r, w 0 to .Oi U 0 c0 •
�' .. 0 /400 14•,-1 Z 0 0 to 0 ,, 4•
•-1 w1 A O �
'1,7 p � 'O b � .0 tia 'W 0 ~ . A O H E co c) 0 •-•I W y 1 � � G)U �
•�1
'0 •,� rt7 rb +� ''''m 0 M -� O m E o ••.� .,� w •.a ••�••■ O ro 3 0 N
0 to •.4 ••1 W e C=) ,�- O U r-1 .p " ,� 43 3 ,� c0 0 U
N 0 0 > Cn 3 Ia 0 -- - --- 0 0 •r, ••1 r~, 0 0 43 E H
q) I--1 0 la •w1 0 0 CO O Cn E a-) 0 . A a.) 0 a) O $. a) ra
01 b•� •� � ..0 •- 0 0O U 0 0 O 040 (0 0 a.
C 0 Ia 0 A 1.1 > c0 a ca . 3 U O fs. --1 Ci, O c •CT'V1 cA O •rl G a) in
1--, 0 03 m CO 1:/ 44 0.4 CO . Z .aUrMi •0 3 U C..) 4-1 CD [7 '0 41a0) E• 0410 •
.i 0 CO 4a 0 O !.a co 0 0 4,3 N -O - + E N 1.1
C M O O O C S.I O •.1 ,0 .0 0 0 0 U4.) O a) 0
=•■1 O 0 0 a) 4-) .0 10 44 10 0 0 1-■ O .0
hi i-4 4I CO N 1"1 (0 w �m 4-1 •
it CD 0 � � � 0 � .04.) O � 7y o � A
1 W CO •0 a) 4 0 0.3L ill 0 3 m •=
1 W a"' O c0 Q+ la 4' m 0 tow 0 ro +)
1 a.� 3 .0 4i0 p +) 0O) . ), A
.__) 0 0•~I co E 0 •0 0 0 ‘n I•
so 1 t0 3 w to •= .,, •.1 a)
.:;::• p • 0 is ..) 0 W•� N U 41 0 �3 4) U .0
\A� .�T = to U 0 5 S-1 0. A 0 6) •0 >~...I 4-t U Z 1~
0 � � 0 CO 0
/ 1a 0 0 0 0 v •'� •,1 to 0 0 .
. , • co 0. •.-1coaE ••••1O0 ( NI4 ••1OO
1. 7_ \ y.1 •• -0•••I a) co a-) •0 0) to S-1 a) a) + •- A
+ a 0 to a O 1-4 a) 0 (-1•.1 4.4 O 'C 0 .0 A u)
r.. 4 ••400•.-Ic) ›• •1•.1mmm0JJEE0
0U0
a
.0 O .0 314 N = O O O m •.-1 (0 c0 0 0 0 .0.0 Z .0
E N H ... O •••S E 04.0 0 •0 .0 •-I 4.4 0 0 +) +)
VI _ >9 g 0d-) to •n .0r1 O 0r1 \
Cato 0 0 0 +
_ _ _
C 1.+ .0 0A4n43 c0 .0 0 -••1 0 U ••.I A•-1 0 "1
•.4OE 4.3 4) 0 +) $ al --I E ( �V ,,,
0 4 E0 ,-I0 A0 3 a) 0
� a 000 U � > � � laa p tilWi
C)) p.w W o 0 = 4) 0 U .-1
1.1 x to .0 0)4.1 a..•1 aUi •U U .-1 m 'AI
10.., = . 0-1�-1 00 •1"I 0 0 0 4a '-, a)
co .,
) 61
io O ...1 a = 4) 0 co '"1 a.) 0• L
1~ O , ca 0 0mc � � b Ili
� 0V � •i ) OO O 0 a) .a a) 0 -
$4 � 43Cfl . co a �I 4) O0Aa) 0 • •
0 CO'24-, n 0tO•a 1r . 0103 Eoo 0 A• 0 0 0 m > 0 0 -•� j_ Iil,
.
Z O ro 01 0 ca +) •••1 U --I 0 .,.1 0 "-•1 ?, }., >a .4
a Sa 0 E 0 A to 0 CO W a)4•) Il 1.1 'd 0 0
p +d .0 6. U co t0 1.4 co co 10 0 1:j 10 J-
0 •--1 014 0 41.••I 0 0 0 •.4 > to 4.4„-I N"...0
== $c -iacim Oac:tlQ 0 =0 0 (04) 0) 3 '00 0 1D4. 1
ORANGE COUNTY 1
PLANNING BOARD 13
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 26, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # 2a-
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
(SECTION 2.3.3.2 - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 348
County Attorney Letter
Proposed Amendment
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to reference that the Board of
Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings
Law.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment provides a reference to the
portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open
Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318.9 et seq) . This portion of
the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a
public body may hold an executive session and exclude
the public.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendment.
A
14
COLEMAN, 15
BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & H_ ARGRAVE RECEIVED NOV 6 1989
ATTORNEYS AT LAW '2
P.O. DRAwER_1529
129 E. TRYON ST.
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
919-732-2196 November 2
919-929-8000 , 1989
FAX 919-732-7997
CHAPEL HILL OFFICE
SUITE 300,THE CENTER Mr. Marvin Collins
1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET
CHAPEL HILL,NC 27514 Director
919-929.7151 Oran ge County Plannin g Department 919-929.3892
306F Revere Road
STE ENA BERNHOLZ
JR. Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
ROGER B. BERNHOLZ
GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL Re: Board of Adjustment Procedures
DOUGLAS HARGRAVE
G. NICHOLAS HERMAN
N K. E Dear Marvin:
E.
NATHANIEL E.CLEMENT
MARILYN E.TOMEI
JOE L. WEBSTER • While reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and Board
TERRY G. HARN
JANET B. DUTTON of Adjustment procedures I noticed references in both
REX T.SAVERY,JR. to the meetings of the Board of Adjustment being open
Or Counsel to the public. A more accurate statement should be
BON`ERR D.ISSA YER that the meetings are subject to the Open Meetings Law
with a citation to the Open Meetings Law. There is at
least one other typographical error in Section 2.3.3.2
of the Zoning Ordinance.
I recommend that Section 2.3.3.2 be rewritten as
follows with a corresponding change to the Board of
Adjustment Procedures:
2.3.3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be
conducted in compliance with the North
Carolina Open Meetings Law, North
Carolina General Statutes §143--319.9
et seq. The Board shall give public
notice of its meetings also as
provided in the Open Meetings Law.
Notice shall be given to Board of
• Adjustment members as provided in the
Rules of Procedure adopted by the
Board.
This change will make it clear that the Board of
Adjustment can go into executive session for
appropriate purposes. Enclosed is a copy of the
pertinent provisions of the Open Meetings Law for your
• information. Note particularly the public notice
requirements which must be carefully followed.
Very ly yours,
t- . fre E Gledhill
GEG/lsg
Enclosure
is
3 .
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 2.3.3.2
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
x Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle !x Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 26, 1989
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To amend Section 2 .3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to
reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is
subject to the Open Meetings Law.
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
The proposed amendment provides a reference to the
portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open
Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318 .9 et seq) . This portion of
the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a
public body may hold an executive session and exclude
the public.
The proposed amendment reflects an existing state law,
and is not a substantive change to the Ordinance, It
will, however, provide for a specific reference to the
General Statutes in the event that the appropriateness
or legality of an executive session is questioned.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
2 .3.3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be open to the
public and the Board shall be given as required by
Chapter 143 Article 33-C of the North Carolina
Statutes G.S. 143 318. 11ET.SEQ. , as amended.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
2.3.3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in
compliance with the North Carolina Open Meetings
17
4
Law, North Carolina General Statutes G.S. 143. 318. §
et seq. The Board shall give public notice of its
meetings also as provided in the Open Meetings Law.
Notice shall be given to Board of Adjustment
members as provided in the Rules of Procedure
adopted by the Board.
******************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 12/20/89
The Ordinance Review Committee recommended approval and
commented that the amendment only makes provisions of State
statutes more clear, and does not inc
lude any substantive
change.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
it;,
• 18
1 1c
ORANGE COUNTY �+
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 26, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # 04b
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ARTICLE 7 . 14 .4 DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo
Proposed Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
8/28/89 Public Hearing Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181
10/16/89 Planning Board Minutes Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide
incentives for the development of housing affordable
to low and moderate income families.
BACKGROUND: The Report of the Low-Moderate Income Housing Task
Force, completed September, 1987, included a
recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
increase incentives for new construction of low and
moderate-income housing.
The proposed amendment provides such an incentive by
offering a density increase when affordable housing
opportunities are created by a developer. The density
bonus provisions apply only to Planned Developments
located outside of a protected watershed, and could be
applied in one of several ways:
1) A density increase of up to 25% if a percentage
of the units or lots are sold or rented to low or
moderate income households.
2) A density increase of up to 25% if off-site land
area is donated to Orange County for future
development of an equivalent number of affordable
units.
3) A 50% density increase may if all of the
lots/units are reserved for qualifying
households.
Occupancy would be restricted by a contractual
agreement with the Orange County Department of Housing
and Community Development, and should be binding for
20
. 2
at least 15 years.
The proposal was first presented for public
hearing August 28, 1989. The initial proposal was
revised based on comments received after the public
hearing,
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the
Planning Board recommendation.
3
• 21
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Orange County Zoning Ordinance
REFERENCE: Article 7 . 14 .4 Density Bonus for Affordable
Housing (NEW)
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 26, 1990
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
To add Article 7 . 14.4 to allow a density bonus for Planned
Developments which provide housing opportunities for low or
moderate income households.
ORIGIN AND HISTORY:
The Report of the Low-Moderate Income Housing Task Force,
completed September, 1987, included a recommendation to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to increase incentives for new
construction of low- and moderate-income housing. The
proposed density bonus represents one tool which may be used
to achieve that goal.
This amendment was first introduced at the public hearing on
August 28, 1989. A revision to exclude applicability in
Watersupply Watersheds was presented at the public hearing.
on November 27 . No portion of the amendment has been adopted
to date. The attached proposals includes the revisions
(underlined) to the original proposal presented at the August
hearing.
- Most of the changes resulted from further discussion with
the Orange County Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) . Changes were made to distinguish
between ownership and rental of units, and to include
general provisions to be included in the agreement that
guarantees occupancy by qualifying households.
- Added to the original proposal is a restriction on
applicability in Water Supply Watersheds. A density bonus
would not be approved if the project were located in a
water Supply Watershed (as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan) , unless that area were also designated as Transition
Area. This portion of the amendment was presented
separately for public hearing on November 27 .
22
4
CURRENT SITUATION OR PROBLEM:
Regional Median Income is used by HUD and other agencies in
determining eligibility for various programs. Figures are
published for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
throughout the country. Orange County is included in the
Raleigh-Durham MSA.
HCD defines Moderate Income as 50% to 100% of median income.
Low Income is defined as 30% to 50 % of median income.
Very-low income is defined as <30% of median income.
Median income is adjusted for family size. References to
median income assume a family of 4, unless otherwise stated.
As a rule of thumb (used by HUD) , a family can afford to
spend up to 25% of its gross income on housing, and can
afford to buy a home at a price of roughly 2 1/2 times its
annual income.
The attached letter from HUD shows the results of a 1/4/90
run of the Housing Affordability Model for Orange County.
Results indicate that only 22% of families in Orange County
can afford to buy a home at the average price of $143,577 . A
family earning 80% of median income could afford to pay only
$66,500 for a home. As income decreases, the availability of
homes in an affordable price range decreases.
For low-income households (30-50% regional median income) ,
affordable rent is amore realistic goal because home
ownership may not be feasible. According to U.S. Census
figures for 1980, 35% of the 16, 618 renter-occupied units in
Orange County were occupied by low-moderate income
households . Eighty-four percent of those households paid
more than 25% of their income for housing costs. For those
families, resources available for other basic needs such as
food, health care, child care, and clothing are limited.
Decent housing within an affordable price range is not
available for many of these families .
PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The supply of affordable housing may increase if an incentive
is offered to developers. One such incentive is a density
bonus which would allow the creation of additional dwelling
units if units were sold or rented to families earning low or
moderate incomes. The incentive for a developer to use the
provisions is greatest where land values are high, most .
typically in urbanized areas. In Orange County, the density
bonus is most likely to be used by non-profit organizations
already intending to develop affordable housing, or by
developers/landowners with suitable land of lesser value to
donate in exchange for a density increase.
2
5
To implement the density bonus provisions, a new Article
7. 14.4 is proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance.
7.14.4 Affordable Housing
7 . 14.4 1 -An increase in density may be permitted for Planned
Developments which provide on-site or off-site
housing opportunities for low or moderate income
households. A contract shall be approved by the
County Attorney and the Department of Housing and
Community Development as a condition of permit
approval guaranteeing that the reserved units will
be occupied purchased by or rented to qualifying
households, and shall be binding for a period of
not less than 15 years.
Applicability
1. A density bonus may not be approved for a
Planned Development project located on land
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a
Water Supply Watershed, except land that is
also designated as Transition Area._
2 . A 25% density bonus for duplex or multi-
family units may be approved if:
a. A minimum of 40% of the units are to be
rented occupied to families earning
less than 60% of the median area income
adjusted for family size,
OR
b. A minimum of 20% of the units are to be
rented occupied to families earning
less than 50% of the median area income
adjusted for family size.
3. A 25% density bonus for single-family
residential development may be approved if
the greater of two (2) units or all of the
bonus units are to be sold to families
earning less than 80% of regional median
income .
4. A 25% density bonus for single-family
residential development may be approved if
land with suitable soils or access to public
water and sewer is donated to Orange County
for the purpose of the development of
affordable housing. The donated land shall
24
6
contain at a minimum the land area needed to
develop of the greater of two (2) units or
the total number of the bonus units, in
accordance with the zoning requirements of
the district in which the donated land is
located, or with minimum lot size of 40,000
square feet in unzoned areas.
5. A 50% density bonus may be approved if at
least 20% of the units are to be occupied by
low income families (earning < 505 of median
area income) and the remaining 80% of units
are occupied by moderate income families
( <80% of median area income) . This bonus
shall not apply to lands which have been
donated to Orange County in exchange for a
density bonus pursuant to (3. ) above.
6. Median Income shall be consistent with that
used for Orange County by the U.S.
Die artment of Housing and Urban De elopment .
Findings
The following findings shall be made in support
of the density increase:
1 . The social benefit to be derived from the
increase in the amount of affordable housing
justifies the increase in permitted lots or
units.
2 . The location of the affordable units does
not represent an undue concentration of low-
income housing.
7.14.4.2 The contractual, agreement with Orange County shall
be administered by the Orange County Department of
Housing and Community Development. (HCD) and, shall
include the following provisions:
.L All sales and rental transactions shall be
approved by HCD to assure compliance with
eligibility criteria.
,, Appreciation of the property shall; be limited
to assure that the units remain affordable in
the event of sale during the 15- year term of
the contract.,
4. Home ownership counseling shall be provide by
HCD to all new homeowners.
2.`
7 . ,
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION:
1 . An application for a Planned Development is submitted on
a 10-acre tract in an R-3 residential district. The
developer intends to develop multi-family units.
Current zoning would allow a maximum of 29 units . The
developer wishes to obtain an increase in density, and
is willing to set aside units for low or moderate income
households. The number of units in the proposed
development could be increased from 29 to 36 if:
(figures based on income as of 1/4/90)
a) 14 units (40%) are rented to families earning less
than $22, 670 (60% of median area income) , or
b) 7 units (20%) are rented to families earning less
than $18,891 (505 of median area income) .
Prior to Final Approval of the Planned Development, the
developer would enter into an agreement with Orange
County through HCD. The agreement would assure that the
units were occupied by qualifying households for at
least 15 years. All changes in occupancy would be
approved by HCD to assure that eligibility criteria were
met. Families would not be required to move if income
increased above qualifying levels after tenancy began.
The developer may also qualify for the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit if the units are reserved for a
period of at least 30 years.
2. An application for a Planned Development is submitted in
an R-1 Rural Residential District. A single-family
residential development is proposed. zoning would allow
a maximum of 109 lots. The number of lots could be
increased to 136 if 27 of the lots are sold to families
earning no more than $32,240. Sale to qualifying
households would again be guaranteed through a
contractual agreement with Orange County through the
Department of Housing and Community Development. The
family could continue to own the home if its income
increased. If the home was sold prior to the 15-year
term of the contract, however, the buyer would
have to meet the eligibility criteria. This would in
effect place a limit on appreciation. The home could be
sold at market value 15 years after the original sale.
3. The developer of the 100 acres described in (2) above
does not wish to restrict the sale of any units to
qualifying households. He does, however, own 25 acres
in another part of the county. The soils are suitable
for septic disposal, there is accessibility to a public
road. and the property is found by the Orange County
2i
8 . •
Board of County Commissioners to be suitable for the
future development of affordable housing. The developer
donates the 25 acres to the county and receives approval
of 136 lots.
The County assumes ownership of the 25 acres which may
then be developed for affordable housing by either the
County itself or a non-profit housing corporation. The
value of the land will not be a factor in the ultimate
cost of the units.
COMMENTS
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review committee
reviewed the proposed amendment on December 20, 1989 .
Information on the various levels of income was requested
this information is incorporated in the foregoing report.
Eligibility criteria pertaining to length of residency or
employment in Orange County were also discussed, and staff
was asked to determine the criteria used by other agencies in
similar programs. ( It was found that most programs involving
housing receive some federal funding, and therefor can
include no residency criteria. )
PLANNING BOARD: On January 16, the Planning Board
recommended that the amendment be advertised for public
hearing. Questions pertaining to taxation, limits on housing
appreciation during the 15-year term of the contract, and
residency criteria were raised.
•
•
�__ ....--___-. Public Hearing TMfinutes -
1 d. Affordable Housing
2 (1) Article 7.14.4 - Density Bonus for Affordable Housing
In summary this item was presented to receive citizen commenttonitheand
3 proposal to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing Task Force,
4 moderate income families. The Report of the Low-Moderate Income Housing Ordinance Fore ,
6 completed September, 1987, included a recommendation to amend the Zoning The
6 increase incentives for new construction of low and moderate-income housing. It is
7 proposed amendment represents one tool which may be used to achieve that goal.
8 p to 50x be permitted if a percentage of the lots
9 proposed that a density increase of up
10 or
units are reserved for occupancy by, or sale to households which qualify as being in
the low or moderate income bracket. The proposed provisions are most likely to be
1. t non-profit organizations already intending tolde develop
poaffordablechhousing, or
2 by by
3 by developers/ landowners with suitable land of lesser d ran e
g
density increase. A more comprehensive and effective approach to the long-range
studied o r
4 wager udi sewer
5 affordability of housing involves other issues,hthenruralncharacter,e�n�
6 discussed at this time, including watershed
7 extensions, and environmental imp
8 e. Public Hearing Procedures
9 (1) Article 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof
'0 In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the
?1
� proposed amendment to the public hearin decision is madeebylthetBoard of County any
_2p
23 public hearing remain open until a final
Commissioners....; The testimony received at a PusliccHs ring Testimony received outside ormaio of
25 considered. by- the Hearing Body in rendering
1 26 the public Hearing may not be considered. ' The purpose of the proposed
Board of mendment is to
1 ?7 assure that all.-information Teceived prior to public hearing
28 Commissioners can be consideredn=" date the final decision.
29 as open, from the initial hearing
30 he 31 PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN JACOBS, indicated that the ad concerns a go t left openc
1 32 how Hearing procedures.- Specifically; the notion of
have
33 He stated that it seemed to him that the process ective becoming more recommendationsffic�he�and the
34. Planning Board- is making- less informed an
that n that the Planning
35 already entertained,:_in Public Hearing, altotrehashtevertthingrmation that the will 36 Board- is ,to_,consider-and they- do- not need _. .
I..37 They make a,_recommendation based on vlasthossiblemtoithethe
materialsathe Commissioners
Commissionersi -
i38 receive so that _it adheres,ii7closel, P
39 will see. The. changes that-.are_proposed will neeatin. lot- of thinefficiency nly of hear n�r: .-
� 40 process unless it is specified that the Public
41 information.°.---He:asked__that if- the- �blmissioners would determinerwhetherf theatian a
, i, 42 one of the stipulations: be that the Com Board.
43 information was significant= enough to refer it back to the Planning
44 was that �+ritten information 17-457-77-2- COMMISSIONER MARSHALL indicated that her understanding
46 could be accepted up until the time a decision is`made-but that-herbal COmmunicatione- 77
47 could only be received up to the last Planning Board meeting.
48 was in- agreement with that procedure. - Also, citizens sometimes felt that- they did
accept information_up until the
no
49 need to go through the process if the ommi _.-- -.....
50 last moment. _ __ 7 . .
that he agreed
EX indi: with Commissioner I. 52 CHAIRMAN CAR cated Marshall. He stated that
to either written information or
1 53 he felt it should be limited after the Public Hearing d ii either
written
enw formation and
54 limit it altogether or keep it open altogether. Keeping
i .
/7 ' � a 2b
1 making a judgment about what's significant enough to be referred back to the Planning
2 Board doesn't work. Obviously, it will be referred back on one occasion and not on
3 others and the citizens will have difficulty understanding why one thing was referred
4 and another was not.
5
6 COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, stated that a possible solution would be to
7 leave the Public Hearing open solely for the purpose of hearing the Planning Board's
3 recommendation. He indicated that the concern which caused him to write the letter was
9 that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that.
0 information was coining into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the Public
1 Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur before the
2 public hearing is closed because it is pertinent, valuable information. However,
3 deciding how to get it into the process is the problem. Leaving the Public Hearing open
4 until all that is left is a decision is one way of getting this information into the
5 process. Limiting the last round of the Public Hearing is a way of accomplishing that
6 by stating that nothing will be heard at that point except the Planning Board's
7 recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation could contain whatever information
3 had come to it outside of the Public Hearing.
9 •
0 LINK suggested that the statement be made that the "Public Hearing is held open
1 until the Commissioner's receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
2
3 CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that when it is held open for the Planning Board's
4 recommendation it must be advertised as a Public Hearing.
5 at if the was urned until no ne
GLEDHILL stated th me adjo '
6 - � - _ - etingYy - w information was
7 e x pected se.:. _ .
g . . _ _ __ necessary t readverti ;...:..:.- .. _ . .: . .. . ___
- cted than it is not n _ . -= -- hop
to
0 �
STEVE Y[IHASZ" lann�nngBoarddwouldebe written not verbal that any information -
, Planning -
coming before the P g rbal because the meetings
I are barely able to cover all pertinent information as it is. If more verbal comments
2 meetings evening. .
they would__ _ . ... . ... . ......,..- -..: _ �,n,s in one e�...,-..:. ..... ..... --- .... -__-....
ry complete the m
3 were included t - - -
u not. be able to
GLEDHILL stated that i
4 � t is the area of written comments, and in particular
re. .�-.,..._ . =
technical information that.,,really- is.... . , ._.- .. . . . ...� :-.._.:�.:.,. .. . . ._.
important
_ h
8 o, . l the Planning Bo .
7 J_?- • ; CHAIRMAN CAREY. indicated that what he as hearing was that the Commissioners wanted--._N - --��
to,close the_hearing.,and..entertsiri_th.. _, - �, ard's recommendation.. :. __ �-,;.._� ,__..__:_-
=..� pm _.t _a d,::.r_ ..l.,..-5..: .. ...� le for _=
9 -=: __ f: Non-Residential Development Standards (1) Article 5.1.2, -_ Schedule
0 . - ;- _- Non-Residential- Development...-- __ : . -
1 presented to receive citizen comment on the
In summary '
2
proposal floors item was
ary th - ..._..- - -
p sal to"pro�•ide area ratio- (F4R1-requirements for non-residential uses
.3-'permitted ,in residential .zoning_districts which are consistent with the actual floor
4 - areas of existing facilities.:._.-Controling the intensity of a land use or the degree to
5_:
which-a property is used is one of planning's goals. Residential land use regulations: _. -
alm . - - - a bulk .....___
6--almost-always-deal- with always deal Fith density. In non-residential districts, intensity--is most often__
through the use of standards thatt'regula
gcontrolled to the bulb of a building; Floor _
g _ area: ratios-- (FARs), in conjunction with height limitations; are the principal standards _
0.`..,
used in the Orange= County-. Zoning Ordinance to control building volume. Floor area ratio
is defined as the maximum floor area permitted for each square foot of land area. In - - -
I - recent-years, the Orange County School Board has submitted two requests for- a variance
2 of FAR to permit an existing school to, expand or a new school to be. built. The
3"
inability:of' the School Board to comply with the FAR requirements without purchasing `
' question'as to whether or not the'Jratios are too law,
5 sizable land tracts has raised the q re
� 1
29 -.
1 particularly in residential zoning districts which permit non-residential uses. The
2 proposed amendment to Article 5.1.2 would increase the FAR requirements in the RB,
3 AR, R-1, and R-2 zoning districts to 0.888 for individual lots and 1.000 for planned
4 developments. The FAR requirements are the same as currently required for the R-3
5 district and are more in keeping with the actual floor area of existing facilities
6 located in rural areas.
7
8 A motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer
9 these Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be
10 returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2nd.
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
4 a. Section IV-B-6 Reservation of Space for Utilities
5 In summary this item was presented to recaive citizen comment on the
6 proposed amendment to require dedication of water and sewer easements as a condition of
7 approval for subdivisions within 10 or 20-Year Transition Areas. The Orange County
8 Water and Sewer Policy allows extension of public water and sewer facilities to serve
9 subdivisions within 10-20 Year Transition Areas. However, use of public utilities is
0 not required. Subdivisions within Transition Areas which utilize individual wells and
1 septic tanks are not presently required to provide easements where public facilities
2 will not be utilized in the subdivision itself. This practice can create easement gaps
3 which could create difficulties for future water and sewer extensions. The proposed
4 amendment would allow for utility easements: as a requirement for subdivisions approved
6 with designated Transition Areas. -_ .
7 b. Section IV-B-10-b Cluster Development Application Criteria
. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the
9 proposed amendment to the application-criteria for cluster subdivisions to include a
0 minimum tract size within the Rural Buffer Zoning District, and to exclude private road
1 right-of-way in calculating the number of lots permitted. Article IV-B-10-b(a) requires
3 a minimum tract size of 400,000 square feet in the AR (Agricultural Residential)
district, and 200,000 square feet in the R-1 (Rural Residential) district. Cluster
4 developments in all other districts must contain a miminum of 80,000 square '
5 feet. The propsed amendment. wouldrequire-400,000 square feet for cluster developments
6
in the Rural Buffer, as is required in the_ AR (Agricultural Residential) district.
7 Article- IV-B-10-b(c) excludes public road right-of-way-from the acreage calculations
8- used r � lot mted in a cluster subdivision.-.:.. It is proposed _ .
9:- __ _ . . . r____ . . _ _.
-.that private road: right-of-hay b_ xluded aswell These changes are in keeping with
the intent of the' application criteria set forth in Article IV-B-10-b, and would provide
1
2- g cy..between-_the__Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. - �.
greater consisten _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ c. Section to receive
3 _
4 In summary presented t ve citizen comment on the ..
5, proposed amendment to the public hearing regulations to require that once opened, any
6_.. -
7 public�hearing remain apes-until-a final decisions isf made_ by,-the- Board- of:-County--7---
Commissioners._ . The testimony received at:a public hearing is on record as information
8 considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Testimony received outside of
9 --the public hearing may not be considered: - The purpose of the proposed amendment is to
0 assure that all information received prior to the decision of the Board-of County
I Commissioners can be considered.-- If approved, the amendment would deem a public hearing - '
3 as open, from the initial hearing date until the time of the final decision.
5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
10/3.6/99
Planning Board. Minutes 12
Another concern was the forty-five day deadline
for action which has been reduced to twenty-one
(21) days . Staff feels that they can work within
this time frame, provided agency comments are
received promptly.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
amendments as presented at public hearing with
the changes for requiring three copies and the
twenty-one day deadline for action on the site
plan once it is complete. The Town of Carrboro
requested that wastewater disposal fields also be
shown on the site plan.
Crudup noted that Article 8.8 is to refer to
Article 14 so that it is consistent with the
information required for site plans for special
uses.
MOTION: Best moved to accept the Planning Staff
recommendation for approval of Article 8 . 8 and
Article 14 with the changes as indicated.
Seconded by Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous. (Boland out of the room during this
vote. )
(3) Article 7 . 14 .4 - Density Bonus for
Affordable Housing
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
This proposal is to put into the Zoning
Ordinance a density bonus which could be applied
in one of the following ways:
a) A density increase of up to 25% if a
percentage of the units or lots are reserved
for occupancy by low or moderate income
households. The percentages are based on
eligibility criteria for the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit.
b) A density increase of up to 25% if off-site
land area is donated to Orange County for
future development of an equivalent number of
affordable units.
c) A 50% density increase would apply if all of
the lots/units are reserved for qualifying
households (20% low-income, 80% moderate-
income) .
Occupancy would be restricted by a contractural
313
agreement with the Orange County Department of
Housing and Community Development, and should be
binding for at least 15 years .
The proposed provisions are most likely to be
utilized by non-profit organizations already
intending to develop affordable housing, or by
developers/landowners with suitable land of
lesser value to donate in exchange for a density
increase.
A more comprehensive and effective approach to
the long-range affordability of housing involves
other growth management issues being studied or
discussed at this time, including watershed
issues, the rural character, water and sewer
extensions .
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed density bonus provisions including the
addition of a minimum period of 15 years for
contractural agreements . Also, as recommended by
the Town of Carrboro, application of a 50%
density increase when at "least" 20% of the units
are for low-income households and the remainder
for moderate income households.
There was considerable discussion regarding
density bonuses in watersheds and the possible
"trade-off" of watershed protection for
affordable housing. It seemed to be the feeling
that affordable housing and density bonuses
should apply county-wide.
MOTION: Jacobs moved approval of the provision for
density bonuses and recommend that the issue of
its applicability in watersheds and other areas
of restricted development potential be referred
to public hearing November 27, 1989 . Seconded by
Eidenier.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
1 opposed (Eddleman - stated that he felt there
are engineering and environmental reasons why
density in watersheds should not be beyond a
certain point and felt density bonuses in a
watershed was a defect in the proposal.
(4 ) Article 20 . 6 - Public Hearing/Notice
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
This item is to consider an amendment to the
•
32
•
•
•
•
•
33
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 26, 1990
Action Agenda
Item #
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION III-D-1-b PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo
Proposed Amendment
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposal to provide
adequate time for staff review of major subdivision
Concept Plans .
BACKGROUND: Time limits in the Subdivision Regulations do not
always allow sufficient time for staff review of major
subdivision concept plans. The proposed amendment
would assure for a minimum time period of 30 days
between project submittal and its presentation to the
Planning Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendment.
3d
35
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION III-D-1-b PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
PROCEDURES (MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 26, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide adequate time for staff
review of major subdivision Concept Plans.
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
The Subdivision Regulations require that Concept Plans for
major subdivisions be presented to the Planning Board within
45 days of acceptance of the application. . In order to comply
with this time limit, it is often necessary to present a
Concept Plan to the Planning Board less than two weeks after
it is submitted. About 2 weeks is needed to prepare, copy,
and distribute the agenda abstract. Time available for the
actual review of the proposal and development of a staff
recommendation is inadequate.
It is proposed that a 30-day period be allowed for staff
review, and that the Concept Plan be submitted to the
Planning Board at its first meeting after that period. This
would at a minimum allow 2 weeks for review of the project,
and two weeks for preparation and distribution of the agenda
abstract.
The maximum amount of time between acceptance of the
application and submittal to the Planning Board would be
about 60 days.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
III-D-1-b. Planning Department Review Procedures
Upon receipt of the Concept Plan, the Planning
Department shall review the proposal for general
compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance
and the Zoning Ordinance, if applicable. The
36
s
Planning Department shall also consider the general
suitability of the land for development to avoid
unnecessary expense in the redesign of acceptable
subdivision proposals. The Planning Department
shall review the proposal for compatibility with
- the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and, in
particular, determine if proposed sites for schools
and other public/private facilities are to be
reserved and/or provided.
The Planning Department shall review the proposed
Concept Plan during the 30-day period following
acceptance of the application. A written analysis
and recommendation shall be submitted to the
Planning Board at its first regular meeting
following the 30-day review period Within forty-
five (45) days of the date of acceptance of the
Concept Plan or within such further time consented
to in writing by the applicant. the Planning
Department shall submit to the Planning Board a
written analysis of the Concept Plan and its
recommendation. If the Planning Department fails
to prepare a report to the Planning Board within
the specified time period, or extension thereof,
the Concept Plan is recommended without conditions .
**********************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 12/20/89
The Ordinance Review Committee acknowledged the problem with
the existing time limits and recommended approval of the
amendment.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 26, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # 3b
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
(SECTION IV-B-8-e-3 SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED LAND USE BUFFERS
SECTION IV-B-8-g WAIVER OF LAND USE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup
Extension 574
Proposed Amendment
1/26/90 Letter from Town of
Chapel Hill TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to
Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations, Land-
scaping and Buffer Requirements.
BACKGROUND: Two amendments are proposed for Section IV-B-8 of the
Subdivision Regulations. The first involves interpre-
tation of the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers as
it applies to subdivisions in the unzoned townships .
The second amendment to Section IV-B-8 will clarify
the purpose of the buffer waiver provisions and extend
the scope of IV-B-8-g to include waivers for other
landscape requirements contained in the Subdivision
Regulations.
RECO) mNDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendments to Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
38
2 Q
39
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations
REFERENCE: Section IV-B-8-e-3 Schedule of Required
Land Use Buffers
Section IV-B--8-g Waiver of Land Use Buffer
Requirements
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High x Middle Low
Comment: Minor Amendments
Expected Public Hearing Date: February 26, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Section IV-B-8 of the
Subdivision Regulations to (1) clarify
the interpretation of the Schedule of
Land Use Buffers as it relates to
unzoned land, and (2) to extend the
waiver provisions to apply to all
landscape requirements.
IMPACTS/ISSUES: Section IV-B-8-e-3 contains the Schedule of
Required Land Use Buffers together with
instructions on how to interpret the table.
Buffers between subdivisions and adjacent
land are determined by the principal use
within the subdivision and the adjacent
zoning or land use. In the unzoned town-
ships, however, undeveloped land is current-
ly assumed to be residential for the purpose
of determining if a buffer is required.
Since the Subdivision Regulations require a
40,000 square foot minimum lot size for lots
served by on-site sewage disposal and water
systems, it is appropriate to consider
unzoned land AR or R-1 for the purpose of
determining buffers in proposed subdivi-
sions.
The second amendment to Section IV-B-8 will
clarify the purpose of the buffer waiver
provisions and extend the scope of IV-B-8-g
to include waivers for other landscape
requirements contained in the Subdivision
Regulations .
3
41
1) the topography of a site and/or the size of •
a proposed lot is sufficient to serve the
purpose of a buffer;
2) existing structures, utilities, gardens or
active farmland are located in the buffer or
setback areas; or
3) an existing residence or structure with
established lawn areas and/or_plant beds is
contained within a proposed subdivision lot.
When a, proposed lot includes one or more of the
conditions listed above, the Planning Director is
empowered to waive the requirements for screening
pr additional landscaping provided that the
request is submitted in writing stating the reason
for such request, and the spirit and intent of
this ordinance is adhered to.
Although the buffer planting. requirements, may be
waived in certain cases, the dimensional, aspect of
the Land Use Buffer remains in effect. The width
and location of a required Land Use Buffer shall
be indicated on the approved final plat and cannot
be reduced or altered without , approval from the
Planning Director in the case of minor subdivi-
sions, or the Board of County Commissioners in the
case of major subdivisions.
In all such cases the applicant for waiver must
submit a written application to the Planning
Director setting forth the facts relied upon to
support the application. The Planning Director, or
his designee, shall file in his office and deliver
to the applicant, a written decision on the
application which decision shall contain a
statement of the facts relied upon by the Planning
Director to either deny or approve the application
for waiver.
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: 12-20-89
Comments: The committee recommended that in the text of
the amendment, "AR" should be specified instead of "AR or
R-1. " The proposed amendment was revised to reflect the
Committee's suggestion.
PLANNING BOARD:
BOCC:
41
4
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
IV-B-8-e-3 SCHEDULE a REQUIRED LAND USE BUFFERS
The type of Land Use Buffer required between a
_ proposed subdivision and adjacent streets, land
uses and/or zoning designations shall be specified
in the following table. The type of buffer
required is determined by the existing and/or
proposed principal use(s) in the subdivision for
which approval is requested. To determine which
type of buffer is required adjacent to an existing
and/or proposed land use, identify the existing
and/or proposed principal use(s) in the
subdivision, then identify the adjacent existing
zoning district(s) and/or land uses. In the
unzoned townships, undeveloped land shall be
considered rccidcntial AR. At the intersection of
the two columns is a letter which indicates the
type of Land Use Buffer required.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
IV-B-8-g WAIVER OF LAND USE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
There may be cases where the topography of a site,
or the size of a parcel, or the presence of
existing structures, gardens or active farmland in
the buffer area would make the strict adherence to
this ordinance serve no useful purpose. In those
cases, the Planning Director is empowered to waive
the requirements for screening provided that the
request is submitted in writing stating the reason
for such request, and the spirit and intent of
this ordinance is adhered to.
In all such cases the applicant for waiver must
submit a written application to the Planning
Director setting forth the facts relied upon to
support the application. The Planning Director, or
his designee, shall file in his office and deliver
to the applicant a written decision on the
application which decision shall contain a
statement of the facts relied upon by the Planning
Director to either deny or approve the application
for waiver.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: (Substantive changes only are underlined. )
IV-B-8-g WAIVER OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
In some cases, the strict adherence to this
section of the ordinance would serve . no useful
purpose, such as when:
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL - 4
306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516
flW7!i Telephone(919)968-2700
January 26, 1990 1- 0- 90
Ms. Emily Crudup, ASLA
Orange County Planning Dept.
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Courtesy Review of Proposed Amendments to the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations
Dear Ms. Crudup:
Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Chapel Hill Planning
Department to review and comment on the two (2) proposed amendments
to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. I understand these
items are scheduled to be presented at the public hearing on
February 26, 1990. Because these proposed amendments do not appear
to have an impact on the Joint Planning Agreement, we have no
comments to offer at this time.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
az,e
Dan P. Moseley
Planner