HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-29-1990PACM
[OLL•7
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 29, 1990
7 :30 P.M.
SUPERIOR COURTROOM
ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW)
106 EAST MARGARET LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
IS AVAILABLE IN THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio
amplification equipment is available on request.
If you need this assistance, please call the
County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 966 -4501.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN
B. 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.
C. ITEMS FOR DECISION
1. Z -2 -90 Zoning Atlas Amendment (Elite Auto Body Shop)
D. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE & BUILDING NUMBERS
025 1. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough
025 2. Rural Routes 1 and .7 - Durham
033 E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
043 1. Environmental Impact Ordinance
061 2. Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Article 8.8 Special Uses
b. Article 14 Site Plan Approval
t' • a i
19,ft�
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE CONTINUED
052 3. Related Subdivision Regulatons Text Amendments
a. Section III -C Approval Procedures - Minor Subdivisions
b. Section III -D Approval Procedures - Major Subdivisions
c. Section IV -B -2 -e Resource Protection
d. Section IV -B -S -d Flag Lots
e. Section IV -B -8 Landscaping & Buffers
f. Section IV -B--10 Cluster Developments
g. Section V -D Final Plat Specifications
F. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
073 1. Z -3 -90 Bingham Township
079 2. PD -1 -90 Woods Edge Mobile Home Park (Modification)
0$9 3. PD -2 -90 The Woods Mobile Home Park
G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
.139 1. University Lake Watershed Protection
a. Article 6.25.7 Water Supply /Sewage Disposal Facilities
Required
b. Article 6.15.2 Interim Development Standards
2. Definitions
147 a. Article 22 Efficiency Apartment
139 b. Article 22 Septic Tank System /Alternative Septic System
H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
I. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The Planning Board will make a recommendation no sooner
than its meeting of June 18, 1990. The Board of
Commissioners will consider the items for decision no
sooner than August 6, 1990.
�I
1.
Definitions
151
a. Section II Subdivision
157
b. Section II Minor Subdivision
161
2.
Appeal Procedures
a. Section III -C -5 Minor Subdivision
b. Section III -D -1 Concept Plan /Major Subdivision
c. Section III -D -4 Final Plat /Major Subdivision
167
3.
Flag Lots
a. Section IV -B -S -d Road Access /Extension
173
4.
Street Access /Dedication
a. Section IV -B -3 Streets
b. Section V -D -6 -b Certificates of Dedication & Maintenance
179
5.
Concept Plan - Minor Subdivisions
a. Section III -C -1 Concept Plan Approval
I. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: The Planning Board will make a recommendation no sooner
than its meeting of June 18, 1990. The Board of
Commissioners will consider the items for decision no
sooner than August 6, 1990.
�I
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
v
n t.1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO
RURAL POSTAL SERVICE ROUTES,
A PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE,
AND ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE
ZONING ATLAS, 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
3.43, and Chapter 113A, Article 1; 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 Tuesday,
May 29, 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 7 - Hillsborough
001
Route 7, Hillsborough, encompasses an area beginning at
and including Wildwood Subdivision on N.C. Highway 86; then
southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Woods Edge
Mobile Home Park, and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at
Cheyenne Drive; then crossing westward to Old N.C. Highway 86
and beginning at the NCDOT Maintenance Complex and extending
southward to include Oakdale Drive, Cornwallis Hills
Subdivision, and ending at Davis Road.
2. Rural Route 1 - Durham
Route 1, Durham, begins at the Durham County line on Mt.
Sinai Road, extends westward to New Hope Creek on Turkey Farm
Road and includes Wilkins Drive, Friends School Road, and
Srockwell Road; then extending along Cornwallis Road westward
from the Durham County line and including all of Mt. Herman
Church Road, Couch Mountain Road, and Dove Creek Road; then
004
along Old N.C. Highway 10 west from Dove Creek Road to
University Station Road, north on University Station Road to
U.S. Highway 70, east on U.S. Highway 70, and concluding at
Mt. Herman Church Road.
3. Rural Route 7 - Durham
Route 7, Durham, begins at a point approximately one -
quarter mile north of the Interstate 40 underpass on Erwin
Road (Chapel Hill's zoning limit)'; then continues north on
Erwin Road to the Durham County line, including Dry Creek
Road, Timberly Drive, Moriah Hill Road, and portions of Mt.
Moriah Road and Whitfield Road; then west on Whitfield Road
to Wisteria Drive, and including Pine Hill Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
The North Carolina Environmental Policy Act provides
authorization for local governments to require submittal of
detailed statements regarding environmental impact of major
development projects. The proposed Environmental Impact
Ordinance specifies criteria to be used in determining when
environmental assessment of a project will be required, the
technical requirements of environmental impact documents,
(Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact
Statements), and the local and State review procedures.
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas are as follows:
1. Z -3 -90 Bingham Township
The rezoning request involves two areas in Bingham
Township. The first area is located on the north side of
Dairyland Road (SR 1177) approximately 1000 feet west of
Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102). The second area is located on
the south side of N.C. Highway 54 and extends from White
Cross Road (SR 1952) across Butler Road (SR 1951) to Carl
Durham Road (SR 1950).
The current zoning is AR - Agricultural Residential. The
proposed zoning is R -1 Rural Residential. The purpose of the
rezoning is to provide consistency between the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Atlas.
2. PD -1 -90 Woods Edge Mobile Home Park (Modification)
A modification of the existing Planned Development for
Woods Edge Mobile Home Park is proposed. The property is
located just east of Interstate 40, and west of NC 86. The
property is specifically described as Lot 13, Block B, of Tax
Map 49 in Hillsborough Township, and part of lots 29G and 16
003
of Tax Map 2 in Chapel Hill Township. The existing park
contains 57 mobile home spaces. The applicant is proposing to
remove four (4) mobile home spaces from the existing park,
add a residence for the park manager, and relocate the
required 25 acres of open space from the west side of the
existing park to the south side of the park.
3. PD -2 -90 The Woods
A Planned Development Mobile Home Park is proposed on
property located immediately east of the Woods Edge Mobile
Home Park. The property is bounded by I -40 to the west, and
Woods Edge Mobile Home Park to the east. Access to NC 86 is
provided through Woods Edge Mobile Home Park.
The property contains 48.8 acres, specifically described as
part of Lot 13, Block B, of Tax Map 49 in Hillsborough
Township, and part of lots 29G and 16 of Tax Map 2 in Chapel
Hill Township.
The proposed Mobile Home Park contains 54 spaces. The
existing zoning district is R1 - Rural Residential. The
proposed zoning district is PD- MHP -R1 - Planned Development
Mobile Home Park.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance are as follows:
1. Amend ARTICLE 8.8 REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL
USES by requiring the submission of ten (10) copies of an
Environmental Assessment and /or Impact Statement as part
of a Special Use Permit application if an Assessment
and /or Statement is required by the Environmental Impact
Ordinance.
2. Amend ARTICLE 14. SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES by:
a. Requiring the submission of three (3) copies of an
Environmental Assessment and /or Impact Statement as
part of a Site Plan application if an Assessment and /or
Statement.is required by the Environmental Impact
Ordinance.
b. Requiring the Planning Department to withhold approval
of a Site Plan application until an Environmental
Impact Statement has been made available for public
review and presented to the Board of Commissioners for
consideration.
3. Amend ARTICLE 6.25.7 WATER SUPPLY /SEWAGE DISPOSAL
• FACILITIES REQUIRED to permit the owners of existing
residences in University Lake watershed to locate repair
004
areas for failing septic systems on an adjoining or
separate parcel.
4. Amend ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS by:
a. Clarifying the definition of "efficiency apartment" to
Permit one such dwelling unit in the principal
residence or a detached accessory building such as a
garage. An efficiency apartment must remain in the same
ownership as the principal dwelling and may not exceed
25% of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling.
In no case can an efficiency apartment exceed 800
square feet in area.
b. Adding definitions of "septic tank system" and
"alternative septic system" to provide consistency with
the Laws and Rules for Orange County Ground Absorption
Sewage Disposal Systems of the Orange County Board of
Health.
5. Amend ARTICLE 6.15.2 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
APPROVED by providing a definition of a "community
alternative system." Community alternative sewage
treatment and disposal systems are currently prohibited in
the University Lake watershed except to address a public
health emergency.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations are as follows: ,
1. Amend SECTION IV -B -2 -e RESOURCE PROTECTION to require
a subdivider to develop strategies for the protection of
significant natural and cultural resources from the
impacts of his /her development.
2. Amend SECTION IV- B -5--d FLAG LOTS to:
a. Permit flag lots which provide for the protection of
significant natural and cultural resources.
b. Permit flag lots where a road created in lieu of a
flag lot would not be extended or otherwise needed
for access.
3. Amend SECTION IV- B -8 -e -3 SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED LAND USE
BUFFERS to require buffers for proposed subdivisions
adjacent to significant natural and cultural resources.
4. Amend SECTION IV -B -10 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS to:
a. Require a cluster subdivision design where
•
0
005
significant natural and cultural resources cannot be
protected through a standard subdivision design.
b. Require that open space, provided as part of a
cluster subdivision and containing significant
natural and cultural resources, be protected through
conservation easements, restrictive covenants,
dedication to Orange County, and other means.
5.
Amend SECTION III -C -2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS to
require an applicant
for Minor Subdivision Final Plat
approval to submit a
statement describing how he /she
will protect significant
natural and cultural resources.
6.
Amend SECTION III -D -2
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS to
require an applicant
for Major Subdivision Preliminary
Plat approval to submit a statement describing how
he /she will protect
significant natural and cultural
resources.
7.
Amend SECTION V -C -3
EXISTING SITE DATA to require an
applicant for Major
Subdivision approval to show
significant natural
and cultural resources on the
Preliminary Plat.
8.
Amend SECTION V -D--4
EXISTING SITE DATA to require an
applicant for Major
Subdivision approval to show
significant natural
and cultural resources on the
Final Plat.
9.
Amend SECTION V -D -5
SUBDIVISION LAYOUT DATA to require
an applicant for Major Subdivision approval to show
significant natural
and cultural resources on the Final
Plat and record, in
a separate document, a description
of the resources and any conditions of approval related
thereto.
10. Amend SECTION II DEFINITIONS to exclude, from the
definition of "subdivision ", the combination or
recombination of previously recorded and subdivided lots
which are nonconforming with respect to lot area, lot
width, and /or setbacks.
11. Amend SECTION III -C -5 APPEAL PROCEDURES to require that
an appeal of a Planning Department decision regarding
Minor Subdivision approval be submitted in writing
within 30 days of the decision.
12. Amend SECTION III -D -1 -e APPEAL PROCEDURES to require
that an appeal of a Planning Department decision
regarding Major Subdivision Concept Plan approval be
submitted in writing within 30 days of the decision.
13. Amend SECTION III -D -4 APPEAL PROCEDURES to require that
"10
an appeal of a Planning Department decision regarding
Major Subdivision Final Plat approval be submitted in
writing within 30 days of the decision.
14. Amend SECTION III -D -5 REVISIONS TO PRELIMINARY PLAT to
require the approval of Preliminary Plat revisions for
those aspects of a Final Plat that are not in compliance
with the original approval. Revisions which involve only
the relocation of utility easements and which meet
certain criteria may be approved by the Planning
Director.
15. Amend SECTION IV -B -6 RESERVATION OF SPACE FOR UTILITIES
to limit the placement of utility easements in septic
system fields, setback areas, open space, land use and
stream buffer areas, and adjacent to property lines.
16. Amend SECTION V -D -S -c UTILITY AND DRAINAGE DATA to
require, in the absence of a blanket easement, that the
location of existing and future utility easements be
shown on a Major Subdivision Final Plat.
17. Amend SECTION IV -B -3 STREETS to require a subdivider to
insure right --of- access for a proposed private road to a
public street by- way -of direct access or other private
roads.
18. Amend SECTION V -D -6 CERTIFICATES AND ENDORSEMENTS TO
APPEAR ON A FINAL PLAT to require the recording of a
document which guarantees right -of- access for a proposed
private road to a public street by- way -of direct access
or other private roads. The amendment would also require
that a certificate be placed on the Final Plat, for
signature by the County Manager, acknowledging
acceptance of dedication, without maintenance
responsibility, of offers of public dedication of
rights -of -way, easements, streets, recreation areas, and
other improvements.
19. Amend SECTION III -C -1 CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL to permit a
subdivider the option of submitting a Concept Plan for
Minor Subdivision approval. Although a Concept Plan
would be advisable where a road access easement was
involved, submission of such a Plan would not be
mandatory.
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 received in writing by the date of the
Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which 0
0 0'7
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 2585 or 2575. You will
be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions .
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
PUBLISH: May 16, 1990
May 23, 1990
FILE: 5-29AD.DOC
6
•
0
•
SUBJECT: Z -2 -90
I
O RANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29 1990 Action Agenda
Item # C-1
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (ELITE AUTO BODY SHOP)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Staff Memorandum
Certificate of Mailing
Staff Findings
5/1/90 Draft Public Hearing
Minutes-
5/21/90 Draft Planning Board
Minutes
LJ
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes !X No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup
Extension 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in
Bingham Township.
BACKGROUND: On April 2, 1990, Mr. Wayne P. Hoffman appeared before
the Board of County Commissioners to identify a
problem with the zoning on his property in Bingham
Township. The Commissioners scheduled a special public
hearing for Tuesday, May 1, 1990, to correct an error
in the Zoning Atlas.
Zoning was originally applied in Bingham Township on
September 2, 1981. At that time an Existing
Commercial (EC -5) designation was approved for an
existing auto paint and body shop on the north side of
Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) approximately one half
mile east of White Cross Road (SR 1951). The subject
property is also known as lot 30 on tax map 35 of
Bingham Township. The surrounding land uses are
residential, and the adjacent zoning is AR.
In 1981 the EC -5 zoning lot was drawn incorrectly on
the Zoning Atlas. The auto body shop is on the western
olo
portion of the property. The zoning lot was shown 243
feet east of the body shop on an undeveloped part of
lot 30. The proposed rezoning is to: 1) correct an
error in the Zoning Atlas by shifting the EC -5
district west to its proper location and out of the
right -of -way; and 2) extend the district three (3)
feet to the north so that the structure and a proposed
addition will meet required setbacks (refer to
attached site plan).
The Planning Staff's recommended location of the EC -5
district boundaries is consistent with the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance in that:
1) The auto body shop originally should have been
zoned Existing Commercial and additions to
existing structures are permitted under EC -5;
and
2) If the 1981 EC -5 lot were simply shifted to the
western boundary, the existing structure would
not meet setbacks required by Article 6.5.1
(20).
At the public hearing on May 1, the applicant
requested that the proposed EC -5 district boundary be
re- aligned to include the existing sign which
-identifies his business. In response to his request,
the Planning Staff has revised the proposed district
boundary as shown on the attached site plan.
One citizen spoke in favor of the proposed rezoning;
no one spoke in opposition. The Commissioners
referred this item to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be presented at their meeting on May
29, 1990.
On May 21, the Planning Board recommended approval of
the proposed rezoning with the EC -5 district boundary
revised to include the existing sign as requested by
the applicant and recommended by Staff.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
rezoning from AR to EC -5 as per the Planning Board's
recommendation.
•
11
10
0
C
o� o o
Q1 N CD (�
_`` N m
U rn 1 ' o p
O.- r r \ N
IV
Z-2 -90 ELITE AUTO BODY
w e 3839 ?y r �d go z
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT��
GINGHAM TOWNSHIP L ,n� 1 ul ddd ��
Existing: Agricultural Residential
�J r- N N L)
-- 5 - ot.�
Proposed: Existing Commercial Ir+� f . 1 „w_► -Q n �,
EXISTING EC -5
ZONING LOT
PROPOSED RELOCATION
OF EC -5 ZONING LOT
Q qr
1
I
NO.+
m
v N / q c
.00
SQ / / '/ Qt
/
N �ffJ I I
m Q'. I o
4
'D In
o II N
N
Q r
0 1 ..— - r
m
C W Q I
CD I N '0
a
tico to
w
�:I I
o C
B Q u
cm
to
� N
ai z I I ~ G
N
~ U l
Ir. ~ 4
:7
I
Aq
w u
0 Im 41
u 4-
4L
Ln �4 •
EA Ln cn >
IL
r 'fir,•':.
0
W EA EA
Ld
IL 0 -1 0
t. Ul L4
z z
0 X W
L
-7t
W�
.7r-, 71
C
0
..
-ZO N
.............. . . . ............... .........................................
c
-3
CY
yaw
N
luin
fftw
'Sop
N 7-
In
j
(n `' _
r4
o n
41 1
LO
(a
:7
I
Aq
w u
0 Im 41
u 4-
4L
Ln �4 •
EA Ln cn >
IL
r 'fir,•':.
0
W EA EA
Ld
IL 0 -1 0
t. Ul L4
z z
0 X W
L
-7t
W�
.7r-, 71
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 013
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH. tiORTH CAROLINA 27278
r.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 9, 1990
SUBJECT: Z -2 -90 ELITE AUTO BODY
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Wayne P. Hoffman
Route 10, Box 141
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
LOCATION:
Located on the north side of Old Greensboro
half :rile
Road (SR 1005) approximately one
intersection with White Cross (SR
east of the
1951).
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Existing Commercial -5 (EC -5)
Rezoning Request
PURPOSE:
To correct an error in the Zoning Atlas and to
district three (3) feet so
extend the EC -5
that the proposed addition will meet required
building setbacks.
LOT SIZE:
1.16 acres or 50,700 square feet.
EXISTING LAND USE: Elite Auto Body Shop
SURROUNDING
LAND AND ZONING:
NORTH
- A single family residence and farmland
EAST
- A residential lot with a studio and shop zoned
AR
SOUTH
- Old Greensboro Road, Indian Springs
other residential land
Subdivision, and
WEST
- A single family residence and farmland
MEMORANDUM.
Z - -2 -90 ELITE AUTO BODY
APRIL 9, 1990
PAGE 2
LEND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Agricultural Residential
ZONING: The property is presently zoned Agricultural
Residential.
The intent of the Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) is provided in
Article 4.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a) Intent
The purpose of the Existing Commercial -V (EC -5)
District is to provide a district to be used only
during the application of zoning to previously
unzoned townships to accommodate existing
commercial uses or in zoned townships to previously
zoned commercial property which is not located in
areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted
Land Use Plan.
b) Aonlication Criteria
This district will be applied to existing
commercial uses in unzoned townships and previously
zoned commercial property located in areas not
designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land
Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied
to property used for existing commercial at the
time of application of this ordinance.
T.'-.e following is a list of permitted uses in EC -5:
I:1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten
H2 Single- Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment
H5 Mobile Home dwelling
H6 Family Care Home
Accessory Uses
P4 Bus Passenger Shelter
P7 Church
P10 Governmental Protective Services
(Pol ce and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire
Departments
P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music
P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
S3 Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians
S6 Banks and Financial Institutions
S7 Beauty and Barber.Shops
S10 Farm equipment and sales
S13 Greenhouses (no on premises sales)
S14 Greenhouses (on premises sales)
014'
0
0
LJ
015
ME14ORP NDUM
M Z -2 -90 ELITE AUTO BODY
APRIL 9, 1990
PAGE 3
S15 Health Services: Under 10,000 sq. ft.
S21 Laundry and Dry Clearing Services
S24 Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (Body Shop)
S25 Motor Vehicle Sales Rental (new and used)
S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations
S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers
or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate
Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the
Space Occupied by the Building
S33 Printing and Lithography
S39 Restaurants: Carry Out
S40 Restaurants: Drive In
S41 Restaurants: General
S42 Reta'1 Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods,
Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts occur
Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where:
A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few
Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than
Employees Of The Principal Use.
B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200
Trips /Day)
. C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully
Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage
S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods,
Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur
Beyond the Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located.
A) Medium Traffic Generation (200 -300 Trips /Day)
S44 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods,
Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur
Beyond the Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High
Volume Traffic Generation
S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods,
Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur
Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building
where:
A) Operations Designed To Attract & Serve Few
Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than
Employees of the Principle Use.
B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200
Trips /Day)
C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed
Building & No Storage Or DisplGy of Goods
Outside A Fully Enclosed Building
5:6 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods,
Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse am. - Occur
Beyond the Boundaries of the Lot With Medium -ra--
Generation (200 -800 Trips /Day) No Storage Or D isplay Of
Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building
S50 Storage of Goods, outdoor
016
XEMORJA_ *DUM
Z -2 -90 ELITE AUTO BODY
APRIL 9, 1990
PAGE 4
S51 Storage and Warehousing, Inside Building
S53 Wholesale Sales
The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use
Permit:
P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching
Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage
Treatment Plants
-;he following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use
Permit:
F:7 Group Care Facility
P3 Buildings; Portable
P22 Transmission Lines
0
E
0
CJ
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILI.SRORO[IGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AIMEENDMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I, Emily Crudu Zoning Officer, Orange County, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about April 12, 1990,
I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the
Public Hearing to be held c: z the —e uect f9l r ewo ^i:,a �o ff ?
1.16 acre a� rcel in Bingham Townshio from P.cra c�lt�ra1
Residential to Existin Commercial -5 to each p=ope=ry Owner
as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject
of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change.
WITNESS my hand, this the 12th day of rnr 11990•
EM7—LY CRUDUP
ZONING OFFwCER
�1j.1
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PERTAINING TO 018
APPLICATION: Z -2 -90 ELITE AUTO BObY
BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIAL SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING
ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING ( "Yes" indicates compliance) "NO" indicates Non - compliance)
PLANNING
BOARD BOARD OF
RECOMMENDED COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
The application must comply
with all requirements
specified in Article 20 -
Amendments. Those
requirement's include:
20.3.2 a) Map showing affected
property at scale of not less
than 1' =100" nor more than
1" =20'
20.3.2 b) Legal description
of property
20.3.2 c) Explanation of
alleged error, if any, to be
corrected by proposed amendment
20.3.2 d) Changed conditions,
if any, which make amendment
reasonably necessary to promote
public health, safety and
general welfare.
20.3.2 e) Manner in which
proposed amendment will carry
out purpose and intent of
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
—x—Yes No Site plan provided at scale of 1" =50'. Yes No
Yes —x —No N/A - Rezoning proposed by staff. Yes No
—x—Yes No An error in the zoning atlas is alleged Yes No
since the EC -5 zoning lot was incorrectly
placed on the Zoning Atlas in 1981.
Yes —x—No Changed conditions not alleged. Yes No
—x —Yes No Goal Six of the Comprehensive Plan is Yes No
"The promotion of economic development
which emphasizes employment meeting
Local needs while preserving the
character of communities and protecting
the natural environment."
0
E7
-A
11
0
40
ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF IN_ TEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA
"Yes" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates Non - compliance
Ordinance Requirements
rements
Article 4.2 identifies the
criteria which will normally
be used to determine the
application of a zoning
district designation. The
applicant has applied for
an Existing Commercial -5 (EC -5)
designation. The criteria
for that district are set
forth in Article 4.2.12 and
are as follows:
(a) District will be applied
to existing commercial
uses in unzoned townships
and previously zoned
commercial property
Located in areas not
designated as Activity
Nodes in the Adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
_x —Yes No
(b) Designation can only be _x—Yes No
applied to property used
for existing commercial at
the time of application of
this ordinance.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
The property is not in an Activity
Node.
County records show that "Kluka's
Paint and Body shop" was to be
zoned EC -5 in 1981.
0192
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
_=- •.:_. __ ..._- - -...: _- . -. _f= w= _- _- __-,� - -. ;._ - -- -... . -- ..._ - - -.. __.. PAGE 4-
. - - - -. . -.
WHEREAS, they County of Orange and the Torn of Hillsborough d
h&jje previously and jointly indicated to the Division of
Environmental Management a desire and a determination to seek
additional protection of water quality in the Seven Mile
Creek watershed; and,
WHEREAS, the existing watershed classification for the Seven
Mile Creek basin is WS -III, the classification which would
provide the lowest level of water supply protection; and,
WHEREAS, the existing water quality, waste treatment
discharge status, and local regulatory protection measures
would be sufficient to qualify the Seven Mile Creek watershed
for the protection status of a WS -I Classification, as it is
presently defined, and which is the most protective watershed
classification existing under the current classification
system; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Orange is interested in providing the highest level of
protection possible for the Seven Mile Creek watershed;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The County of Orange
hereby requests that the Division of Environmental
Management upgrade the classification of the Seven Mile Creek.
watershed to a WS -I classification.
VOTE • UNANIMOUS
x��_ r -�.' -- — .. ,. ._... 'r.rc »,.y -rte= _ , ^� _ .... .. : -_^ :• ..... -• _. .-•_-- - _._ -_
VIII. PUBLIC
A. Z' -2 -90 ^ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ELITE AUTO BODY
SHOP -
Planner Emily Crudup explained that this public
hearing is for the purpose of correcting an error in the
Zoning Atlas by shifting the EC -5 district west to its proper
location and out of'the right -of -way, and to extend the
district three (3) feet to the north so that the structure
and a proposed addition will meet required setbacks. The
property is located on the north side of Old Greensboro Road
approximately one half mile east of White Cross Road.-
_ THE PUBLIC HEARING' WAS' OPEN FOR CITIZEN Cole1ENTS
Mr. Wayne P. Hoffman asked that the EC--5 zoning be
extended to include his business sign so he would not have to
move the sign which has been there since 1978. • He contended
that if the sign was moved into the zoned portion, the sign
would not be large enough to be read at a distance.
Victor Tripp spoke in support of this rezoning
request. =
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded
by Co=issioner Marshall to close the public hearing.
_- VOTE: UNANIMOUS.-
0
11
X. IBS FOR DECISION
A.
ADIVERTISEMENT - MAY 29- 1990 EUBLIC HEARING
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded
by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the advertisement for the
May 29, 1990 Quarterly Public Hearing as presented in the
agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
SCI._ APPOINTMENTS
The following appointments were approved by the Board:
HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD - LEIGH PEEK
EAS YES COMMITTEE -- JAMES DULEY
2LTV • , ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to consider, Vice - Chairman
Stephen Halkiotis.adjourned - the meeting.. - The next regular
.�} meeting will, be• held on Tuesday; May 15;: 1990 at 7:30 in the_ -
th _Post Office Chapel Hill; _
='1- = �coustroom ofa e: old.- .• North -•
_ -
. Moses Carey -, Chair _
Beverly'A`:: Blythe; Clerk
rn
PAGE 57--
•_
�-. _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ fwrrn _ _
Motion vas made
by commissioner
Hartwell,seconded 21
by Commissioner Marshall to refer this item to the Planning
Board for a recommendation
to come back to
the Board of
Commissioners on May 29, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
X. IBS FOR DECISION
A.
ADIVERTISEMENT - MAY 29- 1990 EUBLIC HEARING
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded
by Commissioner Hartwell to approve the advertisement for the
May 29, 1990 Quarterly Public Hearing as presented in the
agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
SCI._ APPOINTMENTS
The following appointments were approved by the Board:
HILLSBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD - LEIGH PEEK
EAS YES COMMITTEE -- JAMES DULEY
2LTV • , ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to consider, Vice - Chairman
Stephen Halkiotis.adjourned - the meeting.. - The next regular
.�} meeting will, be• held on Tuesday; May 15;: 1990 at 7:30 in the_ -
th _Post Office Chapel Hill; _
='1- = �coustroom ofa e: old.- .• North -•
_ -
. Moses Carey -, Chair _
Beverly'A`:: Blythe; Clerk
rn
022,.
right -of -way) approximately 1380 feet in length
provides access to the lots. The required road
classification is Class B.
Reduction of the right -of -way from the required
50 feet to the existing 30 feet is needed due to
the unwillingness of the property owners, who own
the road from East Lebanon to the property in
question, to grant additional right -of -way.
In an effort to rectify the insufficient right -
of -way width along the Riley property, the
Planning Department has requested that an
additional 10 feet of right -of -way be dedicated.
In the event the owner of Lot 5D wishes to
subdivide, he will be required to dedicate the
remaining 10 feet for the 50 foot right -of -way.
The same action would be required of the owners
of Lots 5, 5B, 5C and 5E as well.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of a
partial width right -of -way of 30 feet for Will
Riley Road.
AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5 /1/90)
(� a. Z -2 -90 Elite Auto Body Shop
Presentation by Emily Crudup.
On April 2, 1990, Mr. Wayne P. Hoffman appeared
before the Board of County Commissioners to
identify a problem with the zoning on his
property in Bingham Township. The Commissioners
scheduled a special public hearing for Tuesday,
May 1, 1990, to correct an error in the Zoning
Atlas.
Zoning was originally applied in Bingham
Township on September 2, 1981. At that time an
Existing Commercial (EC -5) designation was
approved for An existing auto paint and body shop
on the north side of Old Greensboro Road (SR
1005) approximately one half mile east of White
Cross Road (SR 1951). The subject property is
also known as lot 30 on tax map 35 of Bingham
Township. The surrounding land uses are
residential, and the adjacent zoning is AR.
In 1981 the EC -5 zoning lot was drawn incorrectly
on the Zoning Atlas. The auto body shop is on
the western portion of the property. The zoning
lot was shown 243 feet east of the body shop on
G23
an undeveloped part of lot 30. The proposed
• rezoning is to: 1) correct an error in the Zoning
Atlas by shifting the EC -5 district west to its
proper location and out of the right -of -way; and
2) extend the district three (3) feet to the
north so that the structure and a proposed
addition will meet required setbacks.
The Planning Staff's recommended location of the
EC -5 district boundaries is consistent with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that:
1) The auto body shop originally should have
been zoned Existing Commercial and additions
to existing structures are permitted under
EC -5; and
2) If the 1981 EC -5 lot were simply shifted to
the western boundary, the existing structure
would not meet setbacks required by Article
6.5 . 1 (20).
At the public hearing on May 1, the applicant
requested that the proposed EC -5 district
boundary be re- aligned to include the existing
sign which identifies his business. In response
to his request, the Planning Staff has revised
the proposed district boundary as shown on the
site plan included in the agenda packet.
One citizen spoke in favor of the proposed
rezoning; no one spoke in opposition. The
Commissioners referred the -item to the Planning
Board for a recommendation to be presented at
their meeting on May 29, 1990.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
proposed rezoning from AR to EC -5.
MOTION: Best moved approval of the Planning Staff's
findings on Article 20.3.2 a, 20.3.2 b,
20.3.2 c, 20.3.2 d, 20.3.2 e, and Article
4.2.12 a and 4.2.12 b. Seconded by Cantrell.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid.
VOTE: Unanimous.
40
024
11
tPPROVED: 8 -6 -90
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR QUARTERLY HEARING
May 29, 1990
The Orange County Board of commissioners Met in Joint Session
n with the
orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly public on
May 29, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, new County
Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr.,Hartwell,
Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis (excused at 10.05), John
Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Waddell, Jr., Elizabeth
Eidenier, Chair, Carol Cantrell, Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, Vice�Chair,
Dan Eddleman, Jean Hamilton, Larry Reid, Virginia Boland and Pegge
Abrams.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Lewis and Clint Burklin.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr.,Economic Development
Director Ted Abernathy, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker,
Recreation and Parks Director Mary Anne Black, Clerk to the Board
Beverly Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup,
Don Powell, Eddie Kirk, Mary Scearbo, sheriff's Deputy Archie Daniels,
and County Engineer Paul Thames.
NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent
agenda file in the Clerk's office.
A. OPENING REMARKS:
Chairman Carey welcomed everyone and made introductory remarks.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Carey read the Public Charge.
C. ITEMS FOR DECISION
1. Z -2 -90 Zonin Atlas Amendment - Elite Auto Bod Sho
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item
was presented to consider a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham
Township. On September 2, 1981 an Existing Commercial (EC -5)
designation was approved for an existing auto paint and body shop on the
north side of Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) approximately one half mile
east of White Cross Road (SR 1951). The subject property is also known
67
as lot 30 on tax map 35 of Bingham Township. The surrounding land uses
are residential, and the adjacent zoning is Agricultural Residential.
in 1981 the EC -5 zoning lot was drawn incorrectly on the Zoning Atlas.
The auto body shop is on the western portion of the property. The
zoning lot was shown 243 feet east of the body shop on an undeveloped
part of lot 30. The proposed rezoning is to: 1) correct an error in the
Zoning Atlas by shifting the EC -5 district west to its proper location
and out of the right -of -way; and 2) extend the district three (3) feet
to the north so that the structure and a proposed addition will meet
required setbacks.
THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner
Hartwell, to approve the proposed rezoning from AR to EC -5 as per the
Planning Board's recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE & BUILDING NUMBERS
1. Rural Route 7 - Hillsborough
2. Rural Routes 1 & 7 - Durham
This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this
item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and
building numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Route 7 served by
the Hillsborough Post office and Rural Routes 1 and 7 (partial) served
by the Durham Post Office.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING
BOARD
Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he has received inquires about
road names.
Collins informed the Board that if a road was previously named, a Public
Hearing would be needed to change the name. For a road without a name,
the wishes of citizens who live on that road would be taken into
account.
Chris Best stated that he felt the Emergency Management employees
would greatly benefit from a one -time training class which would explain
the new Enhanced 911 system. They need to have a thorough understanding
of the grid system in each district so that they can continue to serve
the public in the shortest amount of time possible.
Chairman Carey indicated that he had received several letters from
citizens who were scheduled for address changes. These people do not
feel confident that this will be the last time their addresses will
change.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS
68
Mr. Bob Haas indicated that when he first moved to this area the road
he lived on was called Old Chapel Hill Road. Over the years the road
has gradually come to be known as old 86. He spoke in opposition to
this road being officially named Old 86. He stated that he believed it
was confusing to have two roads with such similar names.
Mr. Mark Johnson, a Chapel Hill resident and a member of the
to the
Cornwallis Hills Property owners Association, spoke in opp o
renumbering in their development. He suggested that the numbers not be
changed in that portion of Cornwallis Hills which is developed. A
letter from the Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association outlining
their opposition to this renumbering is in the permanent agenda file in
the Clerk's office.
Mr. Norman Patterson, of Patterson Road, indicated that his road has
been named but a street sign has not been erected. He asked if the
county would put up a road name sign. Mr. Collins indicated that
because this is a private road the residents are responsible for
erecting the sign and the county will then maintain it.
Mr. Joe Taylor indicated that in March of 1989 he was given a
permanent address of 2511 Old NC 86 South. He asked for clarification
as to why his number was being changed again. He was advised that this
was a human error which is now being corrected.
Mr. E. C. Brooks, a resident of Scarlett Mountain Road, indicated that
Scarlett Mountain Road is a public road which does not have a road sign.
He asked that consideration be given to the proper placement of this
sign when it is erected.
Commissioner willhoit asked for clarification on the present road
signs on Old 86. He was advised that it is called Greensboro St, and
then Old 86.
Commissioner Halkiotis pointed out that strong support has already
been received from the residents of the Calavander area to name this
road NC Old 86 and their wishes need to be considered when a final
decision is made.
Commissioner Hartwell indicated he was in agreement with naming at
least a portion of this road Old Chapel Hill Road. He indicated that
New Hope Church Road could be the dividing line. He suggested delaying
a decision on this until the wishes of the community can be heard. He
also spoke in support of not renumbering the houses in Cornwallis Hills.
Commissioner Marshall suggested that before this item is brought back
to the Board of Commissioners, Mr. Haas circulate a petition to the
residents of this road to see how much interest there is in this
renaming issue. These petitions should be received in the Clerks's
office before July 15th.
It was the consensus of the Board to delay action for 60 days on
Orange County Rural Route 7 until a Public Hearing on the name is held.
This may be scheduled for August 27th during the regularly scheduled
Quarterly Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis, to approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural
Routes 1 and 7 (partial) followed by notification of the Hillsborough
Postmaster, the Durham Postmaster and the N.C. Department of
Transportation, as required by G. S. 153A.240.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
10 Environmental IM pact Ordinance
2. Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
a. Article 8.8 Special Uses
b. Article 14 Site Plan Approval
3. Related Subdivision Re lations Text Amendments
a. Section III -C Approval Procedure -Minor Subdivision
b. Section III -D Approval Procedures - Major subdivisions
C& Section IV -B -2 -e Resource Protection
d. Section IV -B -S -d Flag Lots
e. Section IV --B -8 Landscaping a Buffers
f. Section IV -B -10 Cluster Developments
g. Section V -D Final Plat Specifications
These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary,
a proposed Enviromental Impact Ordinance (EIO) and related amendments to
the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance were presented for
receipt of public comments. The North Carolina General Statutes give
local governments authority to require the preparation of documents
disclosing the environmental impact of a major development project. An
Environmental Impact Ordinance (EIO) has been developed to implement
these provisions, allowing orange County to require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for certain projects. The EIO would require preparation of an EA or an
EIS for non - residential development projects which meet specific
applicability criteria. The proposed amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations involve the protection of resources identified in the
"Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, &
Geological significance in the Unincorporated Portions of orange
County", and the "Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas." Zoning
Ordinance amendments pertain to review procedures for Site Plans and
Special Use Permits.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING
BOARD
Betty Eidenier indicated that this ordinance is in response to a
request from the State for local governments to take control of the
environmental impact in their own area. She stated support for adoption
of this ordinance.
Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he had received a letter from
Neil Littman. Mr. Littman raised questions concerning Sections 2.3.5
and 3.1.5. Commissioner Hartwell suggested changing the wording as Mr.
Littman requested. A copy of this letter is in the permanent agenda
file in the Clerk's office. He indicated in the letter that this
ordinance will give some assurances to orange County citizens concerning
the industrial and commercial enterprises which are coming to orange
County. Commissioner Hartwell stated that the difficulty with this
ordinance as it is now written is with ith non - commercial and non - indus
projects that bear little threat to orange County citizens. An example
of this type of project is the pond which he is putting on his land.
Along with obviously needed information, certain information such as
Deed Book and Page number, were requested. In addition to this
stumbling block he pointed out that if his pond had been one square foot
larger than 2 acres, the steepness of the slopes on the whole property
and what percentage of the whole property is affected by the slope
steepness would have had to be provided The cost for such a topographic
survey would be thousands of dollars. This would cover the cost of the
assessment only, not the impact statement itself. These types of
regulations could make it impossible for citizens to build ponds. They
need to be addressed before this ordinance is approved. He suggested
that requesting the application of the slope criteria should be applied
only within a certain proximity of the area to be disturbed.
Larry Reid asked if this ordinance would be applicable to
municipalities where lots larger than 40,000 were being cleared.
Scearbo indicated that it is not applicable in municipalities.
Bill Waddell asked how a development which was impacted by Articles
2.2.21 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and /or 2.2.9 could also come under the influence of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) He questioned why the
Environmental Assessment (EA) would be required if it was clear at the
outset that the EIS would not be required. Scearbo indicated that for
those types of projects the Planning Department would want some of this
information regardless of whether an EIs would be needed. This would
enable contact to be made with other State agencies to ensure that all
permits that are required for the state and the county would be
obtained. This would also help the applicant because he would be made
aware early in the process of any additional permits he might need. If
an EIS is going to be required, the project would not fall into any of
the categories in 2.1.
In response to a question from Mr. Waddell pertaining to sections
2.2.1 and 2.3.2 , Ms. Scearbo explained that if 220 pounds or 1/2 of a
55 gallon drum of hazardous waste is generated in one month a State
permit for a "small generator of hazardous waste" is required. If you
create more than 220 pounds or 1/2 of a 55 gallon drum it is classified
as a "large generator of hazardous waste ". The county Planning Staff
decided to require the EA for small and large generators so that it can
contact the State and require the EIS only if it is a facility that is
actually storing hazardous materials.
Commissioner willhoit questioned what procedure the county would
follow for companies that initially did not exceed the 220 pound limit
but grew in size to where they did exceed that figure? Scearbo
indicated that at the very least a site plan for expansion would have
been filed and in going through the site plan review this issue would
surely come up. The applicant would be notified about the limitations
again at that time.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
Mr. Lindsay Efland, a representative of the Economic Development
Commission, and a member of the EDC's Environmental Impact Ordinance
Review Committee, stated that the EDC supports the need to have
environmental regulations to minimize environmental damage. However,
they are concerned that the Draft Environmental Impact Ordinance will
adversely affect business coming into orange County. The EDC would like
to see the requirements included in the EIO be incorporated into
existing local development ordinances to avoid and additional level of
regulations. They also suggest that the threshold for requiring an IA
be adjusted so that builders /developers could be informed of EA
requirements within 15 days of submittal of the project. A copy of this
statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
In response to a question from Mr. Efland, Scearbo indicated that if
the total project was less than two acres it is automatically exempt.
if the project is more than two acres and involved 40,000 feet of
grading the project may be subject to this requirement.
Mr. Efland stated that the Economic Development Commission believed
that the County needs to move toward developing one Comprehensive
Development Ordinance. He indicated that the EDC expressed concern
about the trend toward adding successive layers of regulations.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
willhoit, to refer the proposed Environmental Impact Ordinance and
related amendments to the subdivision Regulations and Zoning ordinance
to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board
of Commissioners no sooner than August 6th.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
F. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
I. Z -3 -90 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP
This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item
was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas
amendment in Bingham Township. The purpose of the rezoning is to make
the Zoning Atlas consistent with the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. When the Land Use Plan for Bingham Township was
updated on September 6, 1988, portions of the Agricultural Residential
areas were changed to Rural Residential. To make the Zoning Atlas
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Residential areas must
be rezoned to Residential -1. Most of the property proposed for rezoning
is located on the south side of NC Highway 54 near the White Cross Rural
Community Activity Node. A smaller portion is located on the north side
of Dairyland Road (SR 1177) west of Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102). The
current zoning is Agricultural Residential. Residential -i zoning is
recommended to provide the consistency referenced above.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING
BOARD
Commissioner Hartwell indicated that the question is what to do with
specific parcels. The Land Use Plan and the Zoning Atlas need to be in
compliance with each other. Amending the Land use Plan is a viable
option here for excluding the parcels in question.
In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Crudup indicated
that the reason for not permitting on- premises sales was that R -1 is
primarily for residential purposes. With on- premises sales you increase
the intensity of land use in a residential area. This additional
traffic is expected in Agricultural zoning.
Bob Goggins indicated that he does have a road maintenance agreement.
The primary purpose of his greenhouse is to gr9w vegetables to sell at
the Farmer's Market. However customers occasionally do come directly to
the greenhouse. His goal is to assure that on- premises sales are
allowed. A copy of his statement is in the permanent agenda file in the
Clerk's office.
Commissioner Hartwell mentioned that AR, not R -11 was established for
agriculture. AR permits a wide range of businesses, including
greenhouses. It would appear to be an appropriate zoning category for
the operation under discussion.
Mr. Craig Burch asked for clarification of the restrictions for on-
premises sales. Mr. Collins explained that when an area is designated
R -1 it is a statement that the area is going to become predominantly
residential. The goal is to protect the residential integrity of
neighborhoods that developed in that area. Commercial operations are
restricted as a result of this goal of protecting the residential
character of the area.
Commissioner Halkiotis was excused from the meeting at this time.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman
Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990.
VOTES UNANIMOUS
2. PD -1 -90 WOODSEDGE MOBILE HOME PARK MODIFICATION
This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item
was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed modification to
the existing Planned Development for Woodsedge. The applicant is
requesting a modification of the existing Planned Development (PD -H -R1)
for Woodsedge Mobile Home Park. The existing park contains 57 mobile
home spaces. The proposal is to remove four (4) mobile home spaces from
the existing park, add a residence for the park manager, and relocate
the required 25 acres of open space from the west side of the existing
park to the south side of the park. By relocating the open space, the
property west of the park would be unencumbered. In a separate
application, the applicant is proposing a new mobile home park, "The
Woods ", on the property west of the park.
Everyone who planned to speak was sworn in by the Clerk.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD
In response to a question from the Planning Board, Kirk indicated that
the open space located west of the existing park will be moved south of
the park. That would allow the area west of the park to be developed.
He also indicated that this park is currently served by Hillsborough
sewer and water.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, to approve the modification with the following conditions:
(1) The project, including the residence for the park manager, must
remain in unitary ownership. (2) A final boundary survey of the amended
Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. PD -2 -90 THE WOODS MOBILE HOME PARR
This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item
was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed Planned
Development Mobile Home Park. This park would be located west of
Woodsedge Mobile Home Park off NC 86 and east of Interstate 40 corridor.
The proposed park would contain 53 mobile homes spaces and receive
access through existing paved streets in Woodsedge Mobile Home Park. It
is known as part of lot 13, Block B of Tax Map 49 in Hillsborough
Township, and part of lots 29G and 16 of Tax Map 2 in Chapel Hill
Township. The present zoning of the property is R -1 (Rural
Residential). The proposed zoning is PD- MHP -R1 (Planned Development
Mobile Home Park).
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD
Commissioner Hartwell questioned whether or not the 3" forced main
sewer line which would serve these 126 trailers wasn't already allocated
to serve other developments as well. Kirk indicated that the 5 horse
r um was put in Woodsedge with the intention that these additional
powe p p
units would eventually be served.
Paul Thames, County Engineer, indicated that there was some question
as to what would happen with the New Hope Elementary School which will
use the Woodsedge pump station. Extra precautions have been made for
the school so that it pumps at night when the normal sewer use is at its
lowest. Eventually this land will have to be surveyed topographically
and considerable engineering and construction work will have to be done.
That should be specified in the grading and erosion plan.
E. C. Brooks asked how the restrictions placed on this property will
be recorded so that a Title Lawyer won't pass the title to someone who
would think they could buy this open land. Kirk indicated that this
park, including the open space, recreation and park area, must stay in
unitary ownership. Those restrictions would be placed on the Special
Use Permit. It could be changed only if it become 10 or 20 year
transition and then an application would need to be filed for a
different planned development at a higher density rezoning.
Charles Smith, a real estate appraiser, indicated that in his
professional opinion the value of adjoining properties would be neither
enhanced nor devalued.
Rogers Stevens, the applicant, indicated that he owns Oakdale Mobile
Home Park and Woodsedge. He stated that when he went into business he
decided to build the type of park that he would be proud to live in.
His parks have large lots, city sewer and water, paved roads, recreation
areas, pools, garbage pickup, lawn mowing service, storage buildings and
jogging trails. He indicated that his parks offer young couples an
opportunity to build equity in their own mobile home, and establish a
credit rating, while living in a pleasant environment. He read a letter
from Steve Medlin who has been a resident of his park for 7 years. Mr.
Medlin indicated that living at Oakdale Mobile Home Park has been a way
for he and his wife to save money for a home and accumulate equity in
their mobile home at the same time. He stated that Mr. Stevens mobile
home parks are well planned and maintained. He urged the Board of
Commissioners to approve this request.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman
Carey, to adjourn this item to June 26, 1990 for receipt of the
engineering report from the Town of Hillsborough.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. University Lake Watershed Protection
a. Article 6.25.7 Water Supply /sewage Disposal Facilities
Required
b. Article 6.15.2 Interim Development Standards
2. Definitions
b. Article 22 septic Tank system /Alternative Septic System
These presentations were made by Marvin Collins. In summary
these items were presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the application of Article
6.25.7 to existing dwellings and uses. The current standards would
prevent land owners with failing septic systems and no suitable repair
area on the same lot from locating nitrification fields on a separate
lot. Definitions are also provided of "septic tank system,"
"alternative septic system," and "community alternative system." The
latter definition was inadvertently omitted when revisions to the
interim development standards for University Lake watershed were
adopted.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD
Commissioner Hartwell indicated that he believes this was meant to
address the repair of existing systems. However, it is not stated that
way in 6.25.7. In response to this comment, Collins stated that a new
system will eventually be considered an existing system. That system
could then end up with a failing septic system and would need the
latitude provided by this amendment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
G. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
2. DEFINITIONS
a. Article 22 Efficiency Apartment
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this
item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to
the definition of "efficiency apartment" to allow flexibility as to the
location of such units.
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD
OR CITIZENS
A motion was made Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
H. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Definitions
a. Section II Subdivision
b. Section II Minor Subdivision
These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary these
items were presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment
to the Subdivision Regulations to allow the combination or recombination
of non - conforming lots. Item H -1 -b proposes an amendment to the
definition of minor subdivision in Section II of the Subdivision
Regulations.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commission
Carey, to refer these amendments to the Planning Board to be returned to
the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. AV-Real Procedure
a. Section III -C -S Minor Subdivision
b. Section III -D -1 Concept Plan /Major Subdivision
c. Section III -D -4 Final Plan /Major Subdivision
These presentations were made by Emily Crudup. In summary
these items were presented to receive public comment on proposed
amendments to Section III of the Subdivision Regulations - Application
and Approval Procedures. The proposed amendments include a time limit
on appeals of minor subdivisions, and major subdivision concept plans
and final plats.
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD
OR CITIZENS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman
Carey, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Flag Lots
A. Section IV -B -S -d Road Access /Extension
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this
item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to
expand the criteria used in permitting the creation of flag lots.
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD
OR CITIZENS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than August 6, 1990.
4. Street Access Dedication
a. Section IV -B -3 Streets
b. Section V -D -3 -b Certificates of Dedication & Maintenance
These presentations were made by Mary Scearbo. In summary
this item was presented to receive citizen comments on proposed
amendments to Sections IV- B -3 -d -2 and V- D- -6 -b -2, and to add Section V-
D-6-b-3 to the subdivision Regulations. The amendments would clarify
access requirements for each lot and provide for a Certificate of
Dedication when land is publicly dedicated.
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD
OR CITIZENS
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Chairman
Carey, to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
S. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment
a. Section III -C--1 Concept Plan Approval
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary
this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed
amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow Concept Plan submittal
for Minor Subdivisions to be optional instead of mandatory.
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD
OR CITIZENS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Chairman
Carey, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a
recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner
than August 6, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
I. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the
meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on June 4,
1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
O RANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: M_av 2_9, 1990
SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
G.S. 153A -240
Location Map
Notification Letter
Legal Notice
Information Brochure
02
Action Agenda
Item #
PUBLIC HEARING —X —Yes No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building Rural Route 7
numbers to be a Past Hoff office and Rural Routes 1
served by the Hillsborough
and 7 (partial) served by the Durham Post Office.
BACKGROUND: Per an ser ice, allaruralbb xenumbersgareobeingaconverted
Postal Serve ,
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 twenty (20) routes have been changed (Chapel Hill
routes 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,13 and 15; Hillsborough routes
1,2,4,5 and 8; Durham route 2; Rougemont routes 2 and 3;
and Hurdle Mills route 1).
Route 7 Hillsborough includes an area beginning at and
including Wildwood Subdivision on NC 86, southward to
include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Wood's Edge Mobile
Home Park and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at Cheyenne
Drive; then crossing westward to Old NC 86 beginning at
the DOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to
include Oakdale Drive, Cornwallis Hills Subdivision and
ending at Davis Road.
Route 1 Durham begins at the Durham County line on Mt.
Sinai Road, extends westward to New Hope Creek on Turkey
Farm Road and includes thenl extending along Cornwallis School
and Brockwell Road, Road
cis
westward from the Durham County line and including all of
Mt. Herman Church Road, Couch Mountain Road and Dove Creek
Road; then along Old NC 10 west from Dove Creek Road to
University Station Road, north on University Station Road
to US 70, east on US 70, concluding at Mt. Herman Church
Road.
Route 7 (partial) Durham begins at a point approximately
one - quarter mile north of the I -40 underpass on Erwin Road
(Chapel Hill's zoning line), and continues north on Erwin
Road to the Durham County line. Included are Dry Creek
Road, Timberly Drive, Moriah Hill Road and portions of Mt.
Moriah Road and Whitfield Road; then west on Whitfield
Road to Wisteria Drive, and including Pine Hill Road.
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.
0
0
•
" 183A -236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A -i►2
s
cil, set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention
inspector. A fire pprevention inspector shall not make electrical inspection
unless he is qualified to do so under G.S. 153A -351. (1965, c. 626; 1969, c. 1064.
s. 3; 1973, c. 82_, 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 uii
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 Transporu-
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 reassiertin=
street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to l
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 L2ws 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,
2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, C. 568,
amending 1979, 2nd Sess.. c. 1319; Fors-vth:
1981, c. 558; Guilford: 1979, c. 283.
Editor's Note. -- Pursuant to Session Laws
1973. c. 507, s. 5, "Board of Transportation" has
been Pubstituted for "State Highway Comm
sion" and for "Commission" in this section ax
enacted by Session Laws 1973, c. 622.
Effect of Amendments. — The first 191'.
amendment substituted "at the County Coune
house, in at least two public places in dA
6.11
AN
C \\ y \
i.—r•
PMW
AM
•� I _ 1 � M , • \� \, \ C
Axis _ ... ,,�sbo
Air
r —r V
u
AbS
an
C86
\ .
sir, •, �� � � \\ ,�,�, ..E ,.. \\ r' =y-
_
\ ill
aPe
Completed
leted
_
w yrrw,
i\` RR 7, Hillsborou,
\ u- RR's 1 & 7, Durh
C o v M T T
� i r
01
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD 029
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
IS i_ i
i
Dear Resident: r..
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 twenty (20) 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 year, all of Orange County will have street addresses and
rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past.
Hillsborough Rural Route 7 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On
Tuesday, May 29, 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 7 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 physica-1 location of your residence at tax map
reference is as follows:
QLD 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.
Miriam Coleman (Extension 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578) 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 f
306F REVERE ROAD `�
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Dear Resident:
•„ row.
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 twenty (20) 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 year, all of Orange County will have street addresses and
rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past.
Durham Rural Routes 1 and 7 are now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On
Tuesday, May 29, 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 Routes 1 and 7 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 1 ca ion 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.
Miriam Coleman (Extension 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578) 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,
L
Marvin E. Collins 0
Planning Director
N
D
r
L-1
aD
rr: Lr
ti
►r 4
n
co
Z
►n
O
a
C
n
z
n-
CN
K1
`Jol r u
nr
N
1
1�
�I
D'
V
4J
N
ea
ti
rti
N
C7
C
cn
Q
O
W
a
4J
L.V
L M
C 3 1
m c+ » m u
3
� La La
: , •..� y
a 3
.� sG
Q y
y» 0
x .0 O
»
ro
Qrn C:m
U .-�
-1 G a.l
3 O
O �La
^
.y
M M •-, O
r► CD N
» -•1 7,.d 0»
7 y a Ssr+1
q
Sa
Z
p
b
O s: Aj >4
C b•r U
q O N t►
...�
La
..y
... w -•1
3
%D 4 r7 N
O
LI O
.'�....
ry
m -d
C w a
ro
Ch %D r- N
G-
•-I ^
O O m 0
H
b
»» O
N (.
.0 'O
•-+ -.4 " 177
U —t m -0 ^t
C b
m
1
G
ice• 1 r.�. °
O
a
0 v >,
r�
3 ra
..
,�
r•,. ir.r.n
o•a 0 J Ca
.a
W
C)
W C) 1-4
La u
1 1 1(
wti
:,% .
W
0 a..I
W» M E
In
�• b
—1
o m
.:
y
m
a
O r.
» In .
:. C h. N
L
_
>
a
it -C N
a I:
to -0
m •-1
la
-w
Ch
W
-AC
-4 N -4
CM
m
•O
»-0
O 0 3
m
V
W
O,
-.i ..1
1 1 1
m M
"i m
(Wry
m �
1 O 1
0
u
y
G
m m m O
C.
G»
a• r
N ' J
U3
4
G O G
=
••
la -.4 .
M
b
0
- G
0
r r
O
.a r
y«x
Un
0
-Z +I 10
• U o a
-Z
v m
W
E-4
w E-4
� m-0
U A.,...
a
:1
C 3 1
m c+ » m u
3
� La La
: , •..� y
a 3
.� sG
Q y
y» 0
x .0 O
»
-�
�.
a.7
U .-�
-1 G a.l
3 O
O �La
H
» -•1 7,.d 0»
7 y a Ssr+1
q
Sa
Z
p
CI
La
O s: Aj >4
C b•r U
La
..y
... w -•1
3
O
LI O
ry
m -d
C w a
. m m a
C)
G-
•-I ^
O O m 0
H
b
»» O
H
.0 'O
•-+ -.4 " 177
U —t m -0 ^t
V
m
ro 4
9, a
a
0 v >,
r�
3 ra
c.yw»
o•a 0 J Ca
ra
4.w-i*
La u
:,% .
W
0 a..I
W» M E
In
�• b
—1
o m
.:
y
m
a
3 3
» In .
-.t »
>
a
6. La
a I:
to -0
m •-1
la
-w
Im
-AC
-4 N -4
U a i1
m
•O
»-0
O 0 3
m
W
64
-.i ..1
a s] y
»
m M
"i m
m
m �
-`C �
0
�
y
G
m m m O
C.
G»
a• r
N ' J
U3
4
G O G
=
••
la -.4 .
M
b
0
- G
0
r r
O
.a r
y«x
Un
0
-Z +I 10
• U o a
-Z
v m
W
E-4
w E-4
� m-0
a
:1
�
o.=
y
In v,
w
La .63 a
W ji m 0.0
'
y a
ro
0
q a
V
m
O
G
W
b
0 m sa E
y m U a m
In M a 9
Ul
r3
0)
'-I r`
-:z
'�
H I.a •-1
r••t
"'
-.
-"
-V
O
: •.i
I+. a C a
0
3ox�.l
�.�
CUi 0
w
c
-adli
04
00t)mC000%w=w0+
UflM -
»U :Q.0ua
vy,a
olroa
a>1
•• -1
a�
4a+Eya
OIEro
uu0
a
4) ° ou a) • •a 41 .--1 -0 (a
410WO•aa7Ca)a)m
O O•rla)NOCC_w
0 Cl +J C m 0 -.i •••4 Sa
�4mm m,E S � . w E 10
�S4'0
Q m O •-1 R m m
m 43= a °.4'4J
0 41 m, 0aa0
0 0 -• f m C w» 'a q)
41 a) ay ii w C31 1 14
U.1 1 •.a = O w „
0aC�1m mp,44
C C m p m
41 Sr U ,
O
�
04 'm 0� m
�w04107073 $4C
a)rt0m-- 1 =0ma)C+
9 MO V -ri -+i 4J a -•4
= 0 w a 4 4> 0 E 0
� 0 --f 41= 0 0 0 rI 0
�0 mm4J cn'0 �+04 aro
o
c%Q
rill r-
M
CC
c�
un
� rte-•
0
o
ti ti
-- �vacn5�3mvm .wa�m�?,C,,�]
� 4�0mOTC47.Em04+�mr4O.a)t
3 m m •r1 -14 (a Q O 0 (a E C G
= 74 41 90 .C] -4 m Sa -i
O a m >1 a) 4-4 r4 0 4J c
m ^ ^i P-4 C U aj 0 4J � + a) 4 {
c A •.i sr m •.-i a, m
4O7ai00 1-4 m3 °'IIC.4C w-#4
�C E� MQ (ar-•� ,Egg y
mO7 u] .�my SWr•U04J
ar 4j U3 (D (a a� m ay .a w° o.'a
S:
� 43 .Ca7�rOm7, mam •,ic�is
Q •� O C. ri 41 N r-4 rt Cn do X
0 U ,-4 .a . A4.) 3 m •� m 4)
L O C O U (a r- 0 Q 0 m 0°
3U0W ••40,,ma o'•cnma ••1a a
w 0 0 Z m= r0= O O 01'-4 --1 S 0= S44X
Z-0 UH 3'U4J U4J m013 0 4-1E••i 0a.
•-!O m444ja0wm4)04JWO-St
ax m O O O w 0•04.C= C O C U-W 0 0 0
U a7 m G tt) B r= 7 y C >1 �
1 4••S 0 O a+ W 4j m C 4-1 m to 0
3 .G O O� :;4 Li a s
.12 Iv
W 03.04 12 4J Sw
86 asm -W a) 41 e44 -W mC -W•"�.-I�m�.�
Cr U m U 0
X •CO
.rq a7 m 41 'a C7 m
+ mm nY01 w0C '4 •.•r4►0•a0A.0m
(L)'141 •.4 O O -r4 U> .-j •. j m m m a4.j E E O C U
.= 0= 3 $4 F-r G O O C m •.•1 (a r0 O C:3 C= Z a
H H -W E-4 —0--1 R. !a 07 'a A rl 44 O R 4-) +J —4
Cim m H O m % 4J mb.0 r1 O r- —4
C r- J-J m .0 C •.i r~ U •.4 4J -,.+ 0
• m E 0 4-) w m ra U '1 0% v
r01 44sCr4 0 41 a) 3 �a0
CL 0.�moU� m m mwa �l
v.Cmm \�
.,
wQ a. 4) 4ui�m•U��m �
aaa4~ ( ai•� b "4 A c m •3 ro
a rf a)
gb0 -,4 M w y ° a, 4��a7.-4 4J a,
A O 7 m r0 4.3 4) C C
m(aUC.�Jawia)0 0 �000w '�>� �~
m a 347x4 C ro E+ 4J �*' m U,
ca m
4 a a •4= 0 a 0 r- 0 -a %-4 �rY 'Ills
z�w so��m9'om'�,41 -000
O++.0a,U mrdbm ma!m•ar041 i
m .. w a) w .04 C at as «4 > a) 4J --+
mm >;a • -rya - �l >w m.�4W4 mw
Ow bwcn0++1•0r- •0 C�q �4 0w {�.
Cr
w
Lsl
E
U
E
4
a
O
C -1
0
C33
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29 1990
Action Agenda
Item # r=_4" 3
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING __X _Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Summary of Ordinance (EIO)
Draft Environmental Impact Ord.
Related amendments to Subdivision
and Zoning Regulations
Proposea Assessment Form
0
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Scearbo extension 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -925.1
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Environmental Impact
Ordinance (EIO) and related amendments to the Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: Enabling Legislation
The North Carolina General Statutes give local
governments authority to require the preparation of
documents disclosing the environmental impact of a major
development project. An Environmental Impact Ordinance
has been developed to implement these provisions,
allowing Orange County to require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for certain projects.
Previous Public Hearings
Early drafts of the Ordinance were presented for public
hearing on October 10, 1988 and January 23, 1989. Issues
focused primarily on the applicability of the Ordinance,
and what types of projects could be subject to the
requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
C34
Establishment of Environmental Impact Ordinance Review
Committee
A Committee which included the Ordinance Review
Committee, a County Commissioner, the County Manager,
County Attorney, County Engineer, representatives from
EDC, and several citizens who offered expertise in areas
of environmental concern was formed at the direction of
the Board of Commissioners. The Committee has met on
numerous occasions during the past year to develop
ordinance provisions which address environmental concerns
while minimizing costs to the developer.
Summary of Environmental Impact Ordinance
Th EIO would require preparation of an Environmental
Assessment, or and Environmental Impact Statement for
non - residential development projects which meet specific
applicability criteria.
- The EA would consist of a form supplied by the
Planning Department, to be completed by the
applicant, and would provide additional information
on certain aspects of the project.
- The EIS would involve a more detailed discussion of
environmental impacts of and alternatives to the
proposed development project. Few projects would be
required to submit an EIS.
Related amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and
Zoning Ordinance
C proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations
lve the protection of resources identified in
entory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational,
ogical, & Geological Significance in the
corporated Portions of Orange County" and the "Orange
ty Inventory of Natural Areas"
Zoning Ordinance amendments pertain to review procedures
for Site Plans and Special Use Permits.
A more detailed discussion of the proposed regulations is
attached.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
Environmental Impact Ordinance and related amendments
to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance
be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation.
�J
C35
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
EXEMPTIONS
Certain types of development or activities are automatically exempted
from the provisions of the Ordinance, and do not require preparation of
an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.
- any activity involving 2 acres or less;
- farming operations
(EXCEPT sludge disposal); and
- single - family residential development or subdivision
(EXCEPT Planned Developments);
Also exempted are routine repair or maintenance projects, and any
project located outside of the jurisdiction of Orange County Planning
regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
If a project is not automatically exempted from the Ordinance, then it
must be determined if an Environmental Assessment is required.
Projects Requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA)
An EA will be required for a project only if:
1) it does not meet any of the exemptions listed above; AND
2) it involves one or more of the following;
- generation or storage of hazardous wastes
- intensive water usage
- grading in excess of 40,000 square feet
(EXCLUDING roads, and single - family residential development)
- NC Mining Permit
- NPDES (Discharge) Permit
(from NC Division of Environmental Management)
- Environmental Documentation required by State or Federal
Agency
-- development within a water Quality Critical Area
0 - development of sites containing natural or other resources
G 3 6,
identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic,
Recreational, Biological, & Geological Significance in.the
Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" and the "Orange
County Inventory of Natural Areas" (hereinafter referred to
as "natural and cultural resources")
- development of slopes greater than 25%
Preparation of an Environmental Assessment
The EA would consist of a form supplied by the Planning Department, and
completed by the applicant. Additional information would be provided
on certain aspects of the project. This information would be used by
staff to evaluate impacts of the development, determine if further
documentation would be required, and determine if there are additional
permits required by State or Federal Agencies.
The proposed format and content of the Environmental Assessment is
attached (page 32). Most of the information about the project would
already be known by the applicant. Planning staff would assist in the
completion of form as needed. It is not expected that completion of
the EA would involve any significant expense.
Review Process for EA
The EA would be distributed to appropriate state or local agencies upon
acceptance. Action by the Planning Department would occur within 14
days of the acceptance date. The Planning Department will either issue
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or require preparation of
and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In either case, the
applicant will be informed of any additional permits or standards
identified during the review process which may be required by state or
other local agencies.
If a FONSI is issued, there are no further review requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The EIS would provide a detailed discussion of environmental impacts
and alternatives to the proposed development project.
Projects Requiring Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
An EIS will be required for a project only if:
1) it does not meet any of the exemptions; AND
2) preparation of an EA was required; AND
3) it involves any of the following:
- NC Mining Permit
0
0
C 3 7
. - hazardous waste storage or disposal
Federal or State EIS
- Failure to provide adequate protection of natural or
cultural resources
- Land application of wastewater in Water Quality Critical
Area
Preparation of an EIS
An EIS is usually prepared by a professional, and provides a detailed
discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposal and
alternatives to the proposal. Alternatives may be development of a
completely different use, or development of the same project with
modifications to address the specific aspects of the project which
triggered the EIS requirement. The required content and format of the
EIS is found in Section 4 of the Ordinance.
Review Process for EIS
The review process for an EIS would vary, depending on whether or not
State permits or Environmental Documentation was involved independent
of local regulations.
Standard Review Procedure
Step 1 - A draft EIS submitted to the Planning Department would be
reviewed by the Environmental Planner to assure that all
application requirements were met. Acceptance or rejection
of the application would occur within 5 days of submittal.
If rejected, the EIS would be returned to the applicant
with an explanation of its deficiencies.
Step 2 - Once accepted, the EIS would be distributed to appropriate
state and local agencies for their review and comment. It
is required that 10 copies of the EIS be submitted with the
application. Additional copies would be requested if
needed.
Step 3 - A legal notice would also be place in local newspapers,
stating that the EIS would be available for public review
for a period of 15 days.
Step 4 - At the close of the 15 -day review period, all comments
would be compiled and summarized by the Environmental
Planner.
40 Step 5 - The final EIS could then be advertised for public hearing
C33
before the Board of Commissioner. No action would-be ta en
to approve or deny the project until after the
environmental impacts were disclosed at the public hearing.
Variation 1 - Projects Involvin Mining or Hazardous Waste
Standard Review Procedure as above, with the following changes:
Step 1 - (Same as Standard Review Procedure
Step _2 - The distribution list for the EIS also includes the State
Clearinghouse.
Step 3 - While availability of the EIS for review is being
advertised in local newspapers, it will also be advertised
in the Environmental Bulletin published by the State
Clearinghouse. Comments received by the State will be
reviewed by the Clearinghouse at the close of the 15 -day
review period, and will.then be forwarded to the Planning
Department.
Step 4 - Local as well as State comments will be compiled and
summarized. It may take two to three weeks longer to
receive comments from the Clearinghouse, depending on when
the document is received. The Environmental Bulletin is
published twice each month and there are specific deadlines
required by the State which must be met in order for a
notice to included.
Stems - Same as Standard Review Procedure
Variation 2 - EIS Required by a State or Federal Agency
Step 1 - Application requirements include copies of the EIS as
prepared for State or Federal review, and an addendum to
address any impacts of local concern not included in the
original document.
Steps 2 -�5 - Same as Standard Review Procedure., if EIS has
already been reviewed through the Sate Clearinghouse.
OR
Steps 2 - 5 - Same as Variation -A if review through Clearinghouse
has not yet occurred.
�
�
0
0
039
RELAM AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
L
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations involve the
protection of natural and cultural resources. These ordinance changes
are proposed so that resources may be protected without subjecting.
single - family developments or subdivisions to the procedural
requirements of the Environmental Impact Ordinance. The amendments
include development standards as well as procedural and technical
changes. The amendments to the various sections of the Subdivision
Regulations are described below:
Changes in Development Standards
Section IV -B -2 Land Suitability
- The format of the text has been modified to break up an existing
long paragraph.
- A protection strategy for natural and cultural resources located
within the boundaries of a subdivision would be required. A
sampling of protection measures which may be used in the strategy
is provided..
Section IV- B--5 -d Flaa Lots
- Protection of natural and cultural resources may be used as a
justification for the creation of flag lots.
Section IV -B -10 Cluster-Developments
a) Intent
Cluster development may be a required component of the
protection strategy.
d ownership of and Conveyance of Cluster Recreation/Open Space
Permanency of Open Space used to protect natural and cultural
resources must be guaranteed with conservation easements,
dedication to County, restrictive covenants, or other means
appropriate for long -term preservation.
040
Change* to Review Procedures
Section IV -B -10 Cluster Developments
a intent
- Technical reference is made to the natural and cultural
resource inventories.
Section III -C Minor Subdivision A2proval Procedures
- Planning Staff determines if a property contains an natural or
cultural resources during the Concept Plan review process.
- If natural or cultural resources are identified on the site,
the Final Plat application must include a statement of how the
resource is to be protected.
Section III -D Major Subdivision Approval Procedures
- Planning Staff determines if a property contains an natural or
cultural resources during the Concept Plan review process.
- If resources are present, the Preliminary Plat application
must contain a statement of how that resource is to be
protected.
Section V Specifications for Plat Drawings
- Natural and cultural resources must be shown on the
Preliminary Plan and Final Plat.
- Natural and cultural resources and protection measures must be
described in the Declaration (A document currently required by
the Subdivision Regulations, which describes development
restrictions and is recorded with the Final Plat. The
Declaration is prepared by Planning Staff.)
Section IV -S -8 Landscaping and Buffer-Requirement
- Technical reference is made to the natural and cultural
resource inventories.
�
�
G41
ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zoning Ordinance amendments incorporate environmental review
procedures into Site Plan and Planned Development review and approval.
Article-8 Special Uses,
- Environmental Documentation (EA or EIS) required by the EIO
must be submitted as part of the application packet for a
Special Use Permit.
Article 14 Site Plan Approval-Procedures
- Environmental Documentation (EA or EIS) required by EIO must
be submitted with Site Plan application.
- The 21 -day time limit for action by Planning Staff does not
apply when an EIS is required.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Environmental Impact Ordinance Review Committee last met on April 9
toand recommended that the Environmental Impact Ordinance and related
amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance be
presented for public hearing on May 29, 1990.
Effect on Economic Development
The Economic Development Commission representative on the Committee
continued to express fundamental opposition any new ordinance that
would add any layers of land use restrictions or requirements, thereby
making Orange County less attractive to new industries. It was also
indicated that the applicability requirements and procedural
requirements in the attached ordinance addressed the concerns of EDC to
the extent that was feasible if an ordinance maintaining the intent of
environmental documentation and protection was to be adopted.
Protection of Open Space in Cluster Subdivisions
Another issue expressed by the Committee on April 9 involved the
preservation of required open space in a Cluster Subdivision. The
existing provisions in the Subdivision Regulations essentially give
Orange County the "right of first refusal" of the dedication of all
required open space. The proposed changes to Section IV -B -10 (Cluster
Developments) include a requirement that "..conservation easements,
dedication to the County, restrictive covenants, or other means " be
used to assure permanent protection of the resource. This provides an
option for the protection of resources through private agreements if
such a mechanism is found appropriate for a particular site. The
C4
Committee recommended that the concept of "right of first refusal " be
applied only where natural or cultural resources were involved, but not
as a general rule for all cluster subdivisions.
Open space dedication not involving protection of resource inventory
sites involves County policy and procedure in implementing
Cluster Subdivision provisions. It is recommended that this issue be
addressed separately, so that implications of change to the current
policy can be determined.
F
0
0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
C-43
5/7/90
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly has authorized
the governing bodies of all cities, counties, and towns acting
individually, or collectively, to require any special- purpose unit of
government or private developer of a major development project to
submit detailed statements reflecting the environmental impact of such
projects (North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.
113A -1 et seg., more specifically N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A -8); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Administrative Code contains
provisions interpreting the authority of local governments pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. 113A -8, and the role of State Government with respect
to this authority (N.C.A.C. Title I, Ch. 25, .0100 et seg.); and
WHEREAS, Section .0802(c) of Title I, Chapter 25 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code specifically provides that "In processing
applications for state permits, state agencies shall consider any
information generated by the local government pursuant to" the Code's
provisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners
• of Orange County, North Carolina:
�J
SECTION I. PURPOSE
Pursuant to the North Carolina Environmental- Policy Act the Orange
County Board of Commissioners adopts this ordinance establishing a
County policy to encourage the wise and productive use of the
county's natural resources; to encourage a public and governmental
awareness of our environment and of the consequences of
development which affect it; to require that a full disclosure be
made as to the anticipated effect of proposed development on the
resources of the county; and to permit and facilitate full
enforcement of all ordinances and regulations concerning the
environment in an efficient, coordinated and comprehensive manner.
The intent of this ordinance is to provide a mechanism for full
disclosure of anticipated impacts of developments as herein
defined and to make such information publicly available so that
citizens of the county may have input into developmental issues
before they become moot. More specifically, it is the intent of
this ordinance to require the preparation and evaluation of
environmental impact documents for projects that either require
certain state permits, or require a local land use permit for
development within environmentally sensitive areas, as provided in
Section 2 of this ordinance.
-1-
SECTION 2. APPLICABILITY
2.1 Exemptions
044
The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this
ordinance, and no Environmental Documentation is required:
2.1.1 Any project involving a total area of 2 acres or less.
2•1.2 Routine repairs and housekeeping projects.
2.1.3 Routine grounds maintenance and landscaping.
2.1.4 Bonafide farming operations, not including sludge
disposal.
2.1.5 Single - family residential development, except for
Planned Developments
2.1.6 Any project located outside of the jurisdiction of the
Orange County Planning Regulations.
2:2 Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) shall consist of a document
supplied by the Planning Department to address issues of
environmental concern to the County, and completed by the
applicant. Environmental Assessment is required for non-
exempt projects that:
2.2.1 Are expected to generate or store more than 220 pounds
(one -half of a 55- gallon drum) per month of hazardous
wastes, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations,
part 261, Subpart D; and /or
2.2.2 Involves as an integral part of the operation of a
commercial or industrial activity more than 10,000
gallons per day of water usage, esclusive of domestic
water (25 gpd per employee), and water used for
climate control (air conditioning and heating); and /or
2.2.3 Require grading in excess of 40,000 square feet,
exclusive of roads, for non - residential or attached
residential development; and /or
2.2.4 Require grading in excess of 40,000 square feet,
exclusive of roads, for non - residential components of
residential development (golf courses, recreation
facilities, and the like); and /or
2.2.5 Require any of the following Environmental permits:
(a) A Mining Permit pursuant to the NC Mining Act.
(b) A State NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) Permit, as administered by
-2-
11
0
L45
the NC Division of Environmental Management.
(c) A Non - Discharge Permit for a land application
waste disposal system.
(d) A permit for sludge disposal site.
2.2.6 Require Environmental Documentation by a State or
Federal agency.
2.2.7 Are located within the Water Quality Critical Area
of the Water Supply Watershed, as defined in the Land
Use component of the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan; and /or
2.2.8 Contain sites identified in "An Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County" or "Inventory of the
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County,
North Carolina "; and /or
2.2.9 Contain lands with slopes in excess of 25% outside of
drainage easements or stream buffers, as determined
by USGS Topographic maps, at a contour interval of 10
feet.
2.3 Environmental Impact Statement
For projects which require submittal of an Environmental
Assessment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will also
be required if the project has a significant environmental
impact. A project has a significant environmental impact
when it :
2.3.1 Involves surface or subsurface extraction activity
requiring a Mining Permit from the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources; and /or
2.3.2 Involves long -term storage or disposal of hazardous
wastes; and /or
2.3.3 Requires an EIS by a Federal or State agency; and /or
2.3.4 Fails to adequately protect (as described in Section
IV -B -2 -e of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations) sites identified in "Inventory of Sites
of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, &
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portions of Orange County" and the "Orange County
Inventory of Natural Areas "; and /or
2.3.5 Involves a land application wastewater treatment
system, within the Water Quality Critical Area of
Isis
Lib
Water Supply Watersheds as defined by the Orange
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Orange County reserves the right to require preparation of an
EIS pursuant to Section 2.3, notwithstanding a Finding of No
Significant Impact on the part of Federal or State agencies.
SECTION 3. REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
3.1 Review of Environmental Assessment
3.1.1 The Environmental Assessment may be submitted prior to
submittal of the development application to determine
if an Environmental Impact Statement may be required,
provided that:
a) all information necesary to perform the
Assessment is provided, and
b) the project application, when submitted, is
consistent with the project described in the
Assessment.
3.1.2 The Planning Department shall review the EA for
completeness within 5 calendar days of the date of
submittal.
If the EA is found to be incomplete, it will be
returned to the applicant with notification of its
deficiencies.
3.1.3 If accepted as complete, the EA will be reviewed by
the Planning Department and will be distributed to
other appropriate Departments or Agencies for their
review and comment.
3.1.4 Final Action on the EA shall occur within within 14
days from the date of acceptance, or such longer time
as agreed to in writing by the applicant. If the EA
reveals no "significant environmental impacts ", as
that term is defined in this ordinance, the Planning
Department shall issue a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
If significant impacts are identified, then the
Planning Department shall issue a Finding of
Significant Impact and require that an Environmental
Impact Statement be prepared.
3.1.5 The applicant shall be notified if the Planning Staff
learns of any additional state or local permits which
-4-
0
L�
0
(t1
may be required to conduct the proposed activity.
Likewise, those agencies which may require additional
permits shall be notified of the proposed activity and
have an opportunity to provide comments.
3.2 Review of Environmental Impact statements
3.2.1 The Planning Department shall review the EIS for
completeness within 5 working days of submittal.
If the Statement is found to be incomplete, it will be
returned to the applicant with notification of its
deficiencies.
3.2.2 Upon acceptance by the Planning Department, the
EIS will be distributed to other appropriate
departments and agencies for review and comment.
A notice shall also be placed in a newspaper of
general circulation, stating that the EIS will be
available for public review at the Planning Department
for a period of at least 15 days.
If the proposed activity requires a Mining Permit from
the State of North Carolina, or involves the Storage
of hazardous materials, the EIS shall also be sent to
the State Clearinghouse for distribution and review
pursuant to Title I, Chapter 25, .0100 et seg. of the
is North Carolina Administrative Code.
If an EIS prepared for a State or Federal agency has
completed the Federal or State Environmental Review
process, including publication in the "Environmental
Bulletin" then the EIS and any required addendums
thereto shall be advertised as available for public
review at the Planning Department, but need not be
recirculated through the State Clearinghouse.
3.2.3 Upon Completion of the advertised 15 -day review
period, and upon receipt of comments from the State
Clearinghouse when applicable, all comments will be
compiled and summarized by Planning Staff.
3.2.4 The EIS, along with all comments received during the
review period, shall be presented for public hearing
concurrently with the development project. If a
public hearing before the Board of Commissioners is
not required for approval of the development project,
then a special hearing may be scheduled. The hearing
shall take place no later than 30 days after the close
of the public review period or receipt of comments
from the State Clearinghouse, whichever is later.
3.2.5 The Board of Commissioners shall receive the EIS and
all comments as information only. The information
presented may be used only to determine compliance
-5-
048
with specific development standards established in the
Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations.
3.2.6 No action shall be taken on the development project
until after the EIS has been presented to the Board of
Commissioners.
SECTION 4. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EIS
4.1 Purpose
The primary purpose of an EIS is to serve as a decision -
making tool to ensure that the purposes and policies defined
in the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (G.S.
113A) are given full consideration in the ongoing programs
and actions of state and local government. It should provide
a full and fair discussion of significant environmental
impacts and should inform decision- makers and the public of
the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize
adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the environment.
4.2 Requirements
Preparers should use a format for EIS's
good analysis and clear presentation of
including the proposed activity, while
complexity. These documents should not
should include site location maps.
4.2.1 Format and Content:
(a)
(b)
(c)
which will encourage
all alternatives,
minimizing length and
exceed 50 pages and
Cover Sheet. A single cover sheet including the
following information;
(1) designation of the document as a draft,
supplementary or final statement;
(2) title of the proposed activity that is the
subject of the statement;
(3) list of any involved cooperating entities,
(4) name, address, and telephone number of the
person who can supply further information.
Summary. An adequate and accurate summary of the
major conclusions, areas
es to be resolved. The
all federal, state, and
certifications, and other
obtained in implementing
is any uncertainty about
is necessary, it should
statement stressing the
of controversy, and issv
summary shall also list
local permits, licenses,
approvals which must be
the proposal. If there
whether any one of these
be so indicated.
A completed Environmental Assessment document.
Im
�1
0
0
049
(d) Purpose and Need. The underlying purpose and need
for the proposed activity.
(e) Alternatives including proposed activity. Based
upon information and analysis presented in the
following sections on the affected environment and
environmental consequences, it should present the
environmental impacts of the alternatives
including the proposed activity in comparative
form. To the extent possible the comparison of
alternatives should quantify how the purpose and
need would be satisfied by each alternative and
the proposed activity. It should also:
(1) explore and evaluate all reasonable
alternatives;
(2) discuss the reasons for the elimination of
alternatives from detailed study;
(3) include appropriate mitigation measures not
already included in the alternatives; and
(4) describe the environment of the area(s) to be
affected and the environment to be created by
the alternatives under consideration. The
• description should be no longer than is
necessary to understand the effects of the
alternatives.
(5) describe environmental consequences, such as;
(a) direct effects and significance;
(b) indirect effects and significance;
(c) possible conflicts between the proposed
activities and the objectives of
federal, state, and local plans,
policies, and controls for the affected
area.
(6) list the names and qualifications of the
persons who were primarily responsible for
preparing the EIS.
(7) If an appendix is included in an EIS, it
should meet the following requirements:
(a) consist of materials substantiating any
analysis fundamental to the principal
document, as distinct from material of
. lesser significance that may accompany
the document or be incorporated by
dAI
,
reference; oso
(b) normally be analytic and relevant to the
decision to be made;
(c) shall not be counted in the EIS 50 page
limit; and
(d) be circulated with the EIS or be readily
available upon request.
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT.
5.1 Injunctions and Equitable Relief.
Pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 153A- 123(d) and
(3) the County may seek an injunction or other appropriate
equitable remedy against any violation of this ordinance or
to require compliance with any provision of this ordinance.
5.2 Effect on Other Permits and Actions.
Construction or installation of any major development project
shall not commence until subsequent to the filing of a
Finding of No Significant Impact or acceptance of the Final
EIS by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The EIS
shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
pursuant to public hearing procedures established in Section
VII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, and Article
20 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 6. DEFINITIONS
As used in this ordinance, unless the context indicates otherwise:
(1) "EA" - an Environmental Assessment.
(2) "EIS" - an Environmental Impact Statement.
(3) "FONSI" - a Finding of No Significant Environmental
Impact.
(4) "Completed EA" - an Environmental Assessment that has
been accepted by the County Planning Department as
technically acceptable for purposes of this ordinance.
(5) "Completed EIS" - an environmental impact statement
that has been accepted by the County Planning Department
as technically acceptable for the purpose of being
transmitted to the State Clearinghouse or for being
reviewed for adequacy by the County Planning Department.
(6) "County" - Orange County.
r-]
0
0
0
(7)' "County Planning Department" or
means the Orange County Planning
C 5 1
"Planning Department"
Department.
(8) "Environmental Document" - an EA, EIS or FONSI, or all
of them.
(9) "Land Use Permit" means a zoning permit or subdivision
approval. building permit, site plan, or special use
permit.
(10) The term "major development project" shall include but
is not limited to shopping centers, Planned Developments
and industrial and comm ercial projects, but shall not
include any projects of less than two contiguous acres
in extent.
(11) "Public water supply" means a water supply system that
serves a city or town located partly or entirely within
Orange County that has a population in excess of 2,500.
(12) "Special- purpose Unit of Government" - includes any
special district or public authority.
(13) "State agency - includes every department, agency,
institution, public authority, board, commission,
bureau, division, council, member of Council of State,
or officer of the State government of the State of North
Carolina.
(14) State Clearinghouse" - the clearinghouse agency
established by the North Carolina Department of
Administration under the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act.
(15) " Watersupply Watershed" - Land draining to existing
reservoirs which serve as public water supplies for the
County, or to potential reservoir sites which have been
designated for protection against treats to the water
quality of future water supplies.
(16) "Water Quality Critical Area" -- Land draining directly
to existing or future watersupply impoundments by
overland flow and interflow, called shorelands, and
draining into the main channels of trunk streams
emptying into the impoundments, called non -basin
drainage areas.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon and
after its adoption.
moll
054
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SECTION IV. REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS
*IV -B -2. LAND SUITABILITY
In reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Board
shall consider the overall design of the proposal in
light of the suitability of the land for development to
insure that the platting and development of the
subdivision will not create a danger to the health,
safety, and welfare of Orange County residents.
Land suitability shall be determined by an investigation
of conditions including but not limited to flood prone
areas, soil drainage, drainage patterns, slope, historic
sites, and unique natural areas. The investigations
shall be carried out by the Planning Board, the Planning
Department, or other agencies or individuals having the
appropriate technical expertise.
IV -B -2 -a Flood -Prone Areas
Flood prone areas shall be indicated by studies,
reports, or maps by agencies including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
U.S. Geological Survey.
IV -B -2 -c Suitability for Septic Disposal
Soils shall be evaluated for suitability or provisional
suitability for septic tanks according to guidelines
established in the Laws and Rules for Ground Absorption
Sewage Disposal Systems, incorporated herein by
reference. Each lot that does not contain a suitable
building site shall be designated on the plat as being
of restricted development potential and by instrument
recorded in the Orange County registry as specifically
prescribed by Section III -E -S -e of this ordinance.
IV- B -2 -d_ Drainaae
Soil suitability, including slope and drainage, shall
also be evaluated according to soil characteristics
indicated by the Orange County Soil Survey and
topography indicated by the U.S. Geological Topographic
Maps.
053
Iv -13-2 -e Resource Protection
The proposal shall be evaluated by the Planning Board
for potential impairment of habitat of rare and
endangered species or unique natural areas. A
strategy shall be develo ed to rotect resources
kT-4 - -,,, .1 ucri taae Proms
•
or ident.ltlea 11, 1.111 I/l VL aA- __ -- -
Historic Recreational Biolo ical and Geolo Ica
Si nificance in the Unincorporated Portions of Oran e
County" or "Tnvent--v of the Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of Oran a COu--v, North Carolina ".
The strate shall rovide rotection of identified
natural and man -made resources from im acts which
could result from develo ment of the subdivision and
shall include one or more of the followin
a dedication of conservation easements
b restrictive covenants rohibitin clearin
or disturbance of the resource areas
c dedication of resource areas to Oran a Count
d clustering of lots to m
reserve e
th
and s ecialn features nofdtheuproonceet
e Other restrictions or develo ment or>tion which �.
provide an ade uate level of rotection.
The Planning Staff shall review available
documentation of the articular site and determine if
the proRosed stratecry de uatel rotects the
identified resources.
Maps, studies, and reports are
section will be maintained by e
054
SECTION IV -B -5 LOT LAYOUT
IV- B -5 -d. Flag Lots
a) Intent
Orange County discourages and restricts forming flag
lots (as defined in Section II - Definitions). A flag
lot shall be permitted if necessary to allow a property
owner reasonable use and benefit from his land or to
alleviate situations which would otherwise cause extreme
hardship for him.
b) Lot Standards
Flag lots are prohibited except:
(A) where necessary to eliminate access onto arterials
(See Figure 1)
(B) to reasonably utilize irregularly shaped land (See
Figure 2)
(C) to reasonably utilize land with difficult topography
(See Figure 3)
(D) to reasonably utilize land with limited sites
suitable for septic tank nitrification fields (See
Figure 4) or
E to rovide for protection of significant natural or
cultural resources
No flag lot will be allowed if it increases the number
of access points onto an arterial or collector street.
0
P.- .
vJ
SECTIOal IV -B -8 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
• IV- B -8 -e -3 Schedule of Re uired Land Use Suffers
In addition to the Land Use Buffers specified in the
following schedule, buffers shall also be required on
subdivisions proposed adjacent to areas of cultural,
historic, or natural significance as listed in "An
inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational,
Biological, and Geological Significance in the
Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or "Inventor
of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of range
couzity, North Carolina ". The type of buffer required in
those cases shall be determined by the Planning Director
based on individual site evaluations.
SECTION IV -B -10
IV- B -10 -a Intent
056
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS
Cluster developments, as defined in Article 22, allow for
greater design flexibility and originality, permit the
reasonable use of land with difficult physical conditions
(topography, floodplain, unique natural areas, etc.) respect
the physical qualities of the land, reduce the overall
development and public costs and, preserve open space to
serve recreational, scenic and public service purposes.
Cluster developments permit the modification and variation
of lot and yard requirements provided that the sum of
reductions in lot area becomes common open and for
recreation space for the benefit of all residents of the
cluster development or for dedication to public use.
Cluster development may be required where protection of
environmental resources identified in "An Inventory of Sites
of Cultural Historic Recreational Biological, and
Geological Significance in the Unincor orated Portions of
Orange County" or "Inventory of the Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina" cannot
be accom lished through the development of a standard
subdivision. Otherwise cluster developments are an option
for the developer. PP,4-s does . ire astez
However, all cluster developments, whether
required or 4-f opted for by the developer, shall be done in
compliance with the provisions and standards related to or
referring to cluster developments contained in this
ordinance.
Ownership of and Conveyance of Cluster Recreation /Open Space
a. Cluster recreation /open space shall be dedicated public
unless the Board of Commissioners finds that the size,
location, type of development or cost of development or
maintenance of such space or the availability of public
open /recreation space would make public use undesirable
or unnecessary.
b. The applicant may request that the cluster recreation/
open space be designated for private use.
C. If cluster open / recreation space is not dedicated for
public use, it shall be subject to approved legal
arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and
preservation for the intended purpose as provided in
Section V - Specifications for Plat Drawings.
11
C�
057
d. 0 en s ace desi nea do Cultura
L"`- -- -- -
identified in "An Inven of Sites of
tor.
Historic RecreathenUn�nBorlooraeed Portion'soof orange
Sig nificance in th
Tn v Pntory of the Natural Areas . -U-1i
ade uatel rotecLea U ILL Vµ •• �� -- restrictive
easements dedication to Oran a Count
covenants or other means found a ro riate for the
long-term reservation of the articular site or
resource.
SECTION III APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
III -C. APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
III -C -1. Concept Plan Approval
Prior to the submission of the Final Plat, the subdivider
shall submit to the Planning Department two (2) copies of the
Concept Plan of the proposed minor subdivision. The Concept
Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the specifications
for Concept Plan drawings as set forth in Section V -B of this
Ordinance.
The Concept Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department which shall review the Concept Plan for general
compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance and the
Zoning Ordinance, if applicable, including the resence of
any sites identified in "An Inventor of Sites of Cultural
Historic Recreational Biological and Geological
Significance in the unincorporated-Portion of Orange County"
and "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Orange COuntY, North Carolina" and The Planning Department
shall advise the subdivider or his /her authorized agent of
the regulations pertaining to the proposed subdivision, of
any changes required in order to comply with the provisions
of this Ordinance, and the procedures to be followed in the
preparation and submission of the Final Plat.
III -C -2. Application Re uirements
Upon approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning
Department, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation
of the Final Plat. (See Section II - Definitions)
Applications for minor subdivision Final Plat approval shall
be filed with the Planning Department and shall contain the
following information:
f A statement describin the methods ro osed to protect
environmental resources identified in "An InventorX of
Sites of Cultural Historic Recreational Biological
and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated
Portion of Orange County" or "Inventory of the Natural
Areas and Wildlife Habitats of orange CountZ, North
Carolina-.
0
11
w
SECTION III
III -D
III -D -1
E
APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS
Conce t Plan AyRrqyal
III- D -1 -b. Planning De artment Review Procedures
0
059
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, includin the resence of an sites identified
in "An Inventor of Sites of Cultural Historic
Recreational Biolo ical and Geolo ical Si nificance in the
unincor orated Portion of Oran a Count or. "Inventor of
the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Oran a Count
North Carolina" The 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.
III -D -2. Preliminar Plat ARRroval
III- D -2--a. Application Requirements
For every subdivision within the territorial jurisdiction
established by Section I of this Ordinance, and which does
not qualify for minor subdivision approval procedures, the
subdivider shall submit a Preliminary Plat which shall be
reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by the
Board of Commissioners before any site disturbance,
construction or installation of improvements may begin.
Applications iled with the Preliminary
Planning Departmentandpshallp
shall be f contain
shall
the following information:
7 A statement describin the methods ro osed to rotect
environmental resources identified in "An inventory of
Sites of Cultural Historic Recreational Bio10 ical
and Geological Significance in the unincoo orated
Portion of Oran e County" and "Inventor of the Natural
Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Oran a Count North
Carolina ".
C E�')
SECTION V SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS
V -C PRELIMINARY PLAT
V -C -3 Existing Site Data
V- C -3 -e. Other Conditions
Streams and rivers, ponds or lakes, swamps or marshes, and
natural areas identified in "An Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological and Geological
Significance in the Unincorporated Portion of Orange County"
or "Inventgry.of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Oranc
ie Countv, North Carolina" shall be shown. In addition,
man -made features including houses, barns, and known or
identified cemeteries shall be shown in their approximate
location. The zoning of the subject tract and adjacent
properties shall be noted.
V -D FINAL PLAT
V -D -4 Existing Site Data
V- D -4 -b. Other Conditions
Streams and rivers, ponds or lakes, swamps and marshes, and
natural features as identified in "An Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological
Significance in the Unincorporated Portion of Orange County"
or "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County, North Carolina ". shall be shown on the plat.
In addition, man -made features including houses, barns,
sheds, railroads and overhead utility lines shall be denoted.
Cemeteries shall be shown if they are designated by a prior
recorded instrument or if they are disclosed to or found by
the surveyor during the course of the survey.
V -D -5 Subdivision La out Data
V- D -5 -f. Protection Of Natural and Cultural Resources
Any areas identified in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural
Historic Recreational Biological and Geological
Si nificance in the Unincorl2orated Portion of Orancze Count z"
or "InventorK of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Oran a Countv. North Carolina ". shall be shown on the Final
Plat. A descri tion of the resource and the conditions of
subdivision a2proval which assure its rotection shall be
included in a document of describincr development restriction
to be recorded concurrent) with the lat.
I]
C
6 "1
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
•
ARTICLE
8 SPECIAL USES
8.8
Regulations GOVeM n Individual Sye„ vial Uses
The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use
consi
are divided generally into two se
specific components of the application
of additional and while the
to comply with Section 8.61
beyond those necessary
second consists Of the specific standards which are
in Section 8.2 and
supplementary to the general standards
Subsection 8.4.7.
to the required conditions in
The following additional information is required for all
Special Use Applications:
a) For Class A Special Uses twenty -six (26) copies of the
B Special Uses ten (10) copies
Site Plan, and for Class
Site Plan, prepared by a registered North
of the
Carolina land surveyor, landscape architect, architect,
information listed
or engineer, which shall contain the
in Article 14.2.2.
b) Elevations of all proposed structures to be used in
the development.
C) For Class A Sloecial Uses twent -six 261 coviies and for
of the
Class B S ecial Uses ten 10 ca ies
or Environmental Impact
Environmental Assessment and
-e Count
Statement if re uired by the Ora-
Environmental impact Ordinance. _
d) A fee, as set by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners.
40
ARTICL9 14 SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES 064
14.2.2 SUBMITTAL RE UIREMENTS
The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Inspections
Department:
a. Three (3) copies of the site plan prepared according
to Article 1462.1 and 14.2.3 (additional copies may be
required depending on the nature and location of the
proposed development);
b. The site plan application form;
C. A copy of the Orange County tax map with the subject
property identified; and
d. Legal documentation establishing entities responsible
for control over common areas and facilities to be
approved by the County Attorney.
e. Three 3 copies of the Environmental Assessment
and/or Environmental Im act Statement if required by
the Orange County Environmental Im act Ordinance.
Other items which should be submitted simultaneously, but are
not required as part of the site plan application are:
a. Erosion control and grading plans as necessary to be
approved by the Erosion Control Supervisor for a grading
permit, and
b. Building construction plans to be approved by the Code
Enforcement Supervisor prior to issuance of a building
permit.
14.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW
14.3.1 Upon submission, the Planning and Inspections Department will
review the site plan application for completeness in form and
content according to article 14.2. If an application is
incomplete, it will be returned to the applicant within five
(5) working days. When a complete application has been
accepted, the plan, or set of plans, will be distributed to
applicable agencies or other departments for review and
comment. At the same time, the Planning Staff will review
the plan(s) based on, but not limited to, the following
general criteria:
a. Compliance with all applicable County ordinances;
*1*
0
11
063
b, Extent and intensity of impacts to the surrounding
' area;
C. Respect for existing site conditions, including slope,
vegetation, drainage patterns, etc.;
d. Efficient use of the land to minimize disturbance and
grading and to conserve energy;
e. Safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian
circulation; and
f. Logical placement of structures and other site
functions.
14.3.2 Where an application is found to be inconsistent with the
above criteria, Staff may recommend changes to the site p lan.
Following review of the site plan, Exce t as andllns ections
Article 14.3.3 of this Ordinance the Planning and within
Department will take final action on the app
21 days of acceptance. Such action will be one of the
following:
a. Approval,
b. Approval subject to conditions, or
C. Denial.
IFailure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in
Article 14.3, and /or to address agency comments solicited
during plan review, will result in denial of the application
if a plan is approved subject to conditions, no zoning permit
or subsequent building permit shall be issued until all
conditions of approval have been met to the satisfaction of
Orange County. - which
14,3,3 The Site Plan for a rOStatement rElSlreursuantrtoathel f
Orane
a Environmental Im act -- mAv not be a flroved by
0
the Plannin ue aL ��«� „� �•...�_ - -- -
for public review and has been resented to the Oran e
Count Board of Commissioners in accordance with Section 3.2
of the Environmental Impact Ordinance.
*1*
APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I
Project Name
Applicant
Address
Owner
Address
Location of property
Acreage
Tax Map Reference
Zoning District
Date received
Date accepted /rejected
Summary comments;
Township
Phone
Phone
PIN(s)
Land Use Plan Category
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Reviewed by
064
J
I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT,
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS NEEDED
0
A. Zoning and use of adjacent property.
North South
East West
B.
Topography:
highest elevation.
lowest elevation
general direction of slope
Estimate % of property with
0 - 5% slope
5 - 15% slope
15 - 25% slope
more than 25% slope
065
C. Drainage
Are there any streams or drainage easements located on the
property?
Is any of the site located within a:
Watersupply Watershed
Water Quality critical Area
Floodplain
Describe
C66
D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory
Nat-ural or Cultural Resources? (As identified in the "Inventory of
Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and
Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange
County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Orange County, North Carolina ".)
yes no
a. cemeteries
b. archaeological sites
C. historic sites
d. areas of geological significance
e. designated natural areas
f. designated habitat
g. other
For each "yes" answer above, please indicate location on site plan
and complete the following, with the assistance of the Orange
County Environmental Planner. Also complete Attachment A.
(1) Type of resource
Inventory reference no. or page
Description of Resource
(2) Type of resource
Inventory reference no. or page
Description of Resource
(3) Type of resource
Inventory reference no. or page
Description of Resource
0
11
G 6 7
II. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Describe proposed use of property
2. Number of lots
3. Number of structures
4. Estimatgofrattachederesidential units ad(excluding roads, but
development
including parking areas)
5. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non-
residential use (excluding roads),
6. Estimated area to be graded for roads
7. Road Type: Public Private
Class A
Class B
Class C
Total road length
8. Hours of operation for commercial or industrial use
0
068
H. STATE PERMITS'REQUIRED
ti
1. Does the project involve the mining of earth products?
If so, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be
excavated?
Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to
NCDRCD?
Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed
activity.
2. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous
or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental
Protection Agency? (A listing of all hazardous materials is
available from the Planning Department)
Describe the wastes to be generated.
How much material is expected to be generated per month?
Will any material be treated onsite?
Volume?
Will any material be stored onsite?
Volume?
Where will disposal of the material take place?
How will materials be transported to the disposal site?
What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air
quality in case of spills?
r]
0
100%
3,1 Will the project involve a land application system for
treatment of wastewater.
If yes, describe
Has an application for a non- discharge permit been submitted
to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange
County Department of Environmental Health?
4. Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design
capacity of more than 3000 gallons per day? _�
If yes, describe
Has an application for a non - discharge permit been submitted
to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange
County Department of Environmental Health?
5. Does the activity involve sludge disposal?
If yes, where is the source of the sludge?
Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed.
Has a NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental
Management been issued?
Cl
i'
070
6. Water Usage
a. Estimated no. of employees X 25 gpd - gpd
b. Estimated water use for climate control gpd
C. Process water gpd
$ consumed
% discharged to septic system
% discharged to sanitary sewer system
% discharged to surface (including storm sewers)
(describe: )
% evaporated
% reclaimed /reused
% other
100%
d. Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in
association with production or manufacturing
% reused
% consumed
% discharged
(describe:
% other
100%
e. Describe source of water
r • •1
gpd
Total Water Usage
C
0
071
ATTACHMENT A
TO EZ COMPLETED ONLY IF INVENTORY SIFINECESSARY ) TIFIED IN I.E
0 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL
(1)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development
b. Proposed Mitigation
(2)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development
0
b. Proposed Mitigation
(3)a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development
b. Proposed Mitigation
0'740
L J
• ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date May 29 1990
073 1
ACtion Agenda
Item # r-1
SUBJECT: Z -3 -90 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _ X Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
Vicinity Map
Permitted Uses in R -1
RE
INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup
Ext. 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas
amendment in Bingham Township.
• BACKGROUND: The purpose of this rezoning is to make the Zoning
Atlas consistent with the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. when the Land Use Plan for Bingham
Township was updated on September'6, 1988, portions of
the Agricultural Residential areas were charged to
Rural Residential. To make the Zoning Atlas consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Residential
areas must be rezoned to Residential -1.
Most of the property proposed for rezoning is located
on the south side of NC Highway 54 near the white
Cross Rural Community Activity Node. A smaller portion
is located on the north side of Dairyland Road (SR
1177) west of Dodsons Crossroads (sR 1102). The
current zoning is Agricultural Residential. ResidEn-
tial-1 zoning is recommended to provide the consis-
tency referenced above.
If approved, the rezoning from AR to R -1 would make
very little difference with regard to land use /devel-
opment. The minimum lot width required is 150 feet in
AR and 130 feet in R -1. Uses permitted in AR which are
not permitted in R -1 are as follows:
Commercial Feeder Operation
Greenhouse (with on- premise sales)
Cemetery (requires a Class B SUP in R -1)
Nonprofit Educational Cooperative (Class A SUP)
RECOMMMATION:
074
E
Extraction of Earth Products (Class A SUP)
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
rezoning from Agricultural Residential to Residential -
1.
v • �y
1 1
Z- - 90 BINGHAM TOWNSHIP
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT 3
BLrckf1 n Current: AR
€ _ ___ Proposed: Residential -1
•- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------
.
cr co
WL
' 1 -rte
a ,
• �� )(
1.10 o, •c \
T T� LL ._.- .__... � _ � , �� �" .7 i S �" f � ~ �^: 1, � �• F .,
j r
/; Dodsons rJ A w/ c
'� r / �y
M•�
IF 5A
ftc
• - "� ` White Crass �
_ ,err � e ! � �� ! j j��� ✓� �� � � � \ �-
r
l
x
_.. ••�r�r�•�r r� � ~•fir ��
Chwhom CounTy
U 6
Z -3 -90 - BINGHAM TOWNSHIP
PERMITTED USES IN RESIDENTIAL -1:
Intent
The purpose of the Residential -1 (R -1) zoning district is to
provide locations for rural non -farm residential development,
at very low intensities, in areas where the short and long-
term solutions to domestic water supply and sewage disposal
shall be individual wells and ground absorption systems.
Uses permitted by right in this district include:
PERMITTED BY RIGHT
Single family dwelling
Two family dwelling
Mobile Home
Family Care Home
Temporary Mobile Home (during construction)
Accessory Uses
Botanical Gardens & Arboretums
Bus Passenger Shelter
Church
Governmental Protective Services
Parks, Public and Non - Profit
Schools, Elementary, Middle and Secondary
Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings
Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations
Recreational Facilities, Profit and Non - Profit
Universities, Colleges & Institutes
Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses
Greenhouses (No On- Premises Sales)
Class I Kennels
Recreational Facilities (Profit /Non - Profit): Golf Club & Golf
Club Countryclub
PERMITTED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Airport, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L.
Public Utility Stations /Sub - stations
Land Fills (2 acres or more)
Historic Structures Non - Residential /Mixed Use
PERMITTED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A CLASS B SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Day Care Facility
Group Care Facility
Temporary Mobile Home (Custodial Care)
Cemetery
Portable Buildings
•
•
•
Land Fills (Less than 2 acres)
Community Center
Radio and Televisions Transmitting /Receiving Towers
Elevated Water Storage Tanks
Transmission Lines
Recreational Facilities, Non - Profit
Class II Kennels /Riding Stables
0772
(2
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT U ~�
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
a]
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I, Emily Crudup, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about May 11, 1990, I
mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the
Public Hearing to be held on the ro osed rezoning of
Property Propgrty in Bingham Township from Agricultural Residential to
Residential-1, to each property owner as required by Article
20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject
of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification charge.
WITNESS my hand, this the 11th day of May, 1990.
EMILY CRUDUP
ZONING OFFICER
0
OR AN G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # r-
SUBJECT: PD -1 -90 WOODSEDGE MOBILE HOME PARK (MODIFICATION)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
PUBLIC HEARING —x —Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Application for Modification
vicinity Map
Staff Memorandum
Certificate of Mailing
INFORMATION CONTACT: k
Extension 2582
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed modification
to the existing Planned Development for Woodsedge
Mobile Home Park.
BACKGROUND: (:existing he applicant is requesting a modification of the
Planned Development (PD -H -R1) for Woodsedge
obile Home Park Woodsedge was approved on February
and is located east of Interstate 40 and west
of NC 86. The property is specifically described as
Lot 13, Block B, of Tax Map 49 in Hillsborough
Township, and part of Lots 29G and 16 of Tax Map 2 in
Chapel Hill Township.
The existing park contains 57 mobile home spaces. The
proposal is to remove four (4) mobile home spaces from
the existing park, add a residence for the park
manager, and relocate the required 25 acres of open
space from the west side of the existing park to the
south side of the park. By relocating the open space,
the property west of the park would be unencumbered.
In a separate application, the applicant is proposing
a new mobile home park, "The Woods ", on the property
west of the park.
The proposed modification does not alter the existing
in
development or function of the park. By g
the open space, removing four mobile homes and adding
a residence for the park manager, there will be three
fewer dwelling units on the property.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the
0,0
modification with two conditions:
1. The project, including the residence for the park
manager, must remain in unitary ownership.
2. A final boundary survey of the amended Planned
Development and improvements shall be recorded by
the developer.
1
081
(PLEAS. TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88
APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DATE: 4 /—!—/ 90
APPLICATION NUMBER: PD-_L_--!W-
I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for Article ,;Lo of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance for P JQ — DXRP rnBD�F�C�4T�o► �'�tSi�uS Pte= 1
i c LW &,i, a N TC
'r— -Z ^:k .r B u. L
The following information -is provided in support of this request:
A. PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Street Address or Location: JAW 8
Orange County Tax Map_ _Bloc . Q Lot(s) Township „l��uS3aQ+?J
Zoning District(s):
W
square feet
Lot /Parcel Size: acres or
Number of Existing Buildings: S % Gross Floor Area: 1B A C-*
square feet
Number of Proposed B ild'ngs :_ S� _Gross Floor Area: G
KIA
square feet
Individual
Water Supply: Cft N+u& Public (Specify) UJA Community
Individual
Wastewater Disposal. Wiles, Public (Specify) Community I.t
rI
iSchool District: .- 1(�,_P_ 132ow Fire District:
- YrGeneral Land Uses in Area:
Critical Areas: atttcg Stream /Drainageway
Flood Prone Area
j4 1 K Watershed (Specify) H
Historic Site
Other (Explain)
B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION:
Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina
surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the
following information:
North point, scale, and date.
Extent of area to be developed.
Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to
the site.
L/ Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site.
Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown
on flood maps or soils maps.
L---Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow.
Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea
level datum.
%L p Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage
eas.
Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access.
(PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE)
o8�
C. OTHER 5UBMITTAL INFORMATION:
iw Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
.'Iwo (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy
with the property in question clearly marked.
The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the
names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred
(500) feet of the property in question.
L--'Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
A Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Add i 'onal information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by
title 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating:
1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not
available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department
certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed
wastewater treatment system for the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police,'fire, and rescue squad protection.
3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting
documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our)
responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony,
exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the
Class A Special Use Permit.
Q 12—s 00"
APPLICANT IGNATURE(S)
�/ Z *7
DATE
NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s),
please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request.
rrrrrrrrtrtrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrwrrtrtr+ r++ rtrrrrt+ rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtrrrrr *rrrrtrrrrrrrrtrtr
FEES: Amount $ �� Q. �4 Date Paid: �" l 7 / �CI Receipt # /a �i
r
O
Q
r
c
� n
E
•
,r r1 v i
MOOIFIGATION OF EXIST ISO P^RK
083 I
OPEN SPACE REMOVED
OPEN 5PAGE A00E0
r• O O
MOBILE N! ?ME PARK
t7GEF. 0. STf LENS - OWNeM
4.19AC
M 14Z
.96 AC 2218 A.^..
4892 1 1
,� 21 c: 21c'21A• 218 1
2n3 .92AC .92 AC 921 1
�M 32 AC
I W=S EDGE
I 1 1
25 5oa9 01 � 5
11
13 9 a5 / 8.35 AC.
s 24 3.77 AC. 8 816 1 + —
/ ' -
50 87AC.
NA
% a5r3 2 s
�
16.8 AC.
OW SH
-r h I v
\ 5 P >�UKE POWER d CO. 15 x192 q/w Iv
13.8 AC.
0 1
29G a : t
,OB Z t•
Sr"IMON 4 t
�8L
i � `. �D• 8 5 Aw. �� 15 1520 14
t
�
7.71 AC. '
09o4s TTE 8.09 AC-
•- RDA
49AL \ ,6878
_Q a
1 I '�
7655 17 .3619 p� 12 �.
92 AC. 2
1 s
11.77 4 12
1 3- e336
7 .52 AC. 10.34 AC.
055
r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
V`
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
DATE: MAY 4, 1990
SUBJECT: PD -1 -90 WOODSEDGE MOBILE HOME PARK (MODIFICATION)
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Roger Dale Stephens
Box 38 Oakdale Mobile Home Park
Hillsborough, NC 27278
LOCATION: Located on the west side of NC 86 and east of
• Interstate 40.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval to remove four (4) mobile home
spaces from the existing park, add an
open space from the west side of the
existing park to the south side c} the
park.
PURPOSE: To construct a residence for a park manager
and to relocate the open space to provide
adequate area for a proposed new Mobile Home
Park.
LOT SIZE: 50.0 acres or 217,800 square feet.
EXISTING LAND USE: Woodsedge Mobile Home Park
SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING:
NORTH - Wooded land with one large undeveloped tract
and four smaller lots zoned R -1.
EAST - wooded lots zoned R -1 and NC 86.
SOUTH - Lots ranging in size between 8 and it acres cn
Scarlette Mountain Road, zoned R -1.
WEST - The wooded tract proposed for "The Woods"
Mobile Home Park and Interstate 40.
oas I ;
MEMORANDUM
PL) -1 -90 WOODSEDGE MOBILE HOME PARK
(MODIFICATION)
MAY 4, 1990
PAGE 2
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Residential
ZONING: The property is presently zoned PD -H -al and
R--1 (Rural Residential).
The intent of the Rural Residential (R -1) district is
provided in Article 4.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a) Intent
The purpose of the Rural Residential (R -1) District,
is to provide locations for rural non -farm
residential development, at very low intensities,
in areas where the short and long -term solutions to
domestic water supply and sewage disposal shall be
individual wells and ground absorption system.
b) Application Criteria
This district will usually be applied where the
following conditions exist:
1. Designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan
as Rural Residential.
2. Urban services, including water distribution
and sewage collection mains are not 1.kely
within 10 -20 years. -
E
. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 087
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
b
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I, Eddie Kirk, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about May 11, 1990, I mailed, by
certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public
Hearing to be held on the re nest for A modification of the
existing Planned Develo ment (PD -H -R1J for Woodsed a Mobile
Home Park in Hillsborou h and Ch_ a�_e_l Hill Townshi s to each
property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of
the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject
of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change.
0 WITNESS my hand, this the 11th day of May, 1990.
EDDIE KIRK
ZONING OFFICER
0
oss
1]
�J
OR AN G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: MAY 29.- 19 9 0
089 1
Action Agenda
Item # r-: - B�
SUBJECT: PD -2 -90 "THE WOODS" MOBILE HOME PARK
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ,x,Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
Application
vicinity Map
Staff Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Staff Findings Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Agency Letters Durham - 688 -7331
Letters from neighboring Mebane - 227 -2031
property owners Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
Certificate of Mailing
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Planned
Development Mobile Home Park.
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Planned Development
and
Mobile Home Park designation for 48.8 acres
located west of Woodsedge Mobile Home Park off NC 86
and east of the Interstate 40 corridor.
The proposed park would contain 53 mobile home spaces
and receive access through existing paved streets in
Woodsedge Mobile Home Park. It is known as part of
lot 13, Block B of Tax Map 49 in Hillsborough
Township, and part of lots 29G and 16 of Tax Map 2 in
Chapel Hill Township. The present zoning of the
property is R -1 (Rural Residential). The proposed
zoning is PD- MHP -R1 (Planned Development Mobile Home
Park).
The applicant is proposing to extend Hillsborough
water and sewer from Woodsedge Mobile Home Park to
serve the proposed park. The property is located in a
Rural Residential area as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. That designation
permits single family residential housing. For
development of the mobile home park to proceed certain
development standards must be met and a Special Use
Permit obtained.
Letters have been submitted from the Orange County
Sheriff's Department and the Orange County Emergency
Management Division of Emergency Medical Services.
000
2
The Sheriff's Department indicates there will be an
increase in calls, however, the proposed park will not
require additional personnel at this time. Fire and
rescue calls will be handled by the Hillsborough Fire
Department and Orange County Emergency Medical
Services respectively.
The proposed Planned Development would add 53 units
that would receive access through Woodsedge Mobile
Home Park to NC 86. According to trip generation
information from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, each mobile home would generate
approximately 4.814 trips per day. This would add 255
trips per day to NC 86. The latest traffic count on
NC 86 in 1988 indicated 6,500 vehicles per day. With
53 mobile homes in "Woodsedge" and 53 in "The Woods"
the total estimated traffic generated would be 510
trips per day.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has
indicated the preliminary plan has been reviewed and
approved. While the addition of turn lanes may be
desirable, they indicate that right -of -way limitations
on NC 86 do not allow for turn lanes and the proposed
expansion should not lead to an increase in safety
problems at the intersection.
There are two acres of proposed recreation area for
the park. This area includes a tennis court, picnic
area and children's swings. The Orange County
Recreation and Parks Department has indicated that the
provision for open space and recreation area exceeds
the minimum required. Mary Anne Black, with the
Recreation and Parks Department, has provided her
recommendation concerning the tennis court, picnic
area, children's swings and pedestrian paths in
attached correspondence. She also recommends 6 to 8
foot wide walking paths in the wooded area to connect
the picnic tables, shelter, tennis court and swings.
The ordinance requires eight (8) parking spaces to be
provided for the recreation area, however, the
Recreation and Parks Department has a concern with
this requirement. The recreation area would be for
the express use of the residents of the park. Since
all of the mobile homes are within walking distance of
the recreation area, the Recreation and Parks
Department has indicated there is not a need for eight
parking spaces to be provided. The Planning Staff is
recommending five (5) parking spaces be provided for
the recreation area.
The site plan, as it is presently drawn, does not
indicate parking for the recreation area. The
applicant has indicated a parking area can be provided
if required. The mobile home on lot 27 or 28 could be
moved to the vacant lot beside 53, thereby creating an
area for a drive into the recreation area. The
0
11
0
091 3
parking spaces could then be located in the recreation
area.
A 6 inch water and sewer line is proposed to be
extended from Woodsedge Mobile Home Park. A letter
has been received from the Town of Hillsborough
stating these lines are available. Detail drawings
will be required to obtain further approval. Brunssen
Engineering Services has indicated the existing 5
horse power pump station located in " Woodsedge" is
capable of serving the additional proposed units. The
County Engineer indicates a concern with the 6 inch
lines and recommends minimum 8 inch water and sewer
lines.
The Orange County adopted Water and Sewer Policy
indicates that the extension of water and sewer in
rural areas should be discouraged except where they
will enhance the rural character and provide for open
space by allowing clustered development. It also
indicates that the development project must be
"assured of installation" at the time of approval.
"Assured of installation" means approval of
preliminary plans by the municipality as specified in
the Water and Sewer Policy. The applicant has
submitted preliminary plans to the Town and these are
presently being reviewed by the Town Engineer. The
County has not received approved of the preliminary
plans from the Town at this time.
• The Orange County Engineer and Orange County Erosion
Control Officer have reviewed the site plan for storm
drainage and grading. The County Engineer has
indicated there may be intensive grading in some areas
due to steep slopes. The County Engineer and Erosion
Control Officer will review the drainage patterns when
Erosion Control plans are submitted. Further measures
to control storm drainage may be required on the
Erosion Control Plan.
RECOM MNDATION: The Planning Staff has not received any information
which would establish grounds for making a negative
finding on the general standards. These standards
include maintaining or promoting the public health,
safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing
the value of contiguous property, and the use being in
compliance with the general plan for the physical
development of the County.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the
site plan and all supporting documentation and has
found that the applicant does comply with the specific
standards and required regulations except for the
preliminary water and sewer plans by the Town. The
Planning Staff recommends extending the public Baring
to accept further information on approval of the
preliminary water and sewer plans from the Town of
Hillsborough., Provided the Planning Board and County
092 4
Commissioners find in the affirmative on the general
standards, and find in the affirmative on the
preliminary water and sewer plans, the Planning Staff
recommends approval of the request. The Planning
Staff does, however, recommend the attachment of
conditions to the approval which are specified as
follows:
1. The grantee of this Special Use.Permit shall post
with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the
County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an
amount equal to the cost of all improvements plus
10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis
Of fully executed construction contracts or
certification by a registered engineer employed
by the grantee of this Special Use Permit.
Security for construction of the improvements in
this project may follow.phasing in the project.
Specifically, as improvements are completed in
each phase that phase and a corresponding amount
of money.may be released from the security
instruments or the security instruments may be
renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of
the improvements.
2. Security shall be provided for the grading,
paving and stabilization of all cleared areas,
streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks
and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street
signs; utility installation and hookups and
recreation facilities.
3. All necessary easements to permit utility
(electricity, telephone and cable television by
any cable television provider franchised by
Orange County to serve this development)
installation, servicing and hookups to the
development and to each unit within the
development shall be provided at no cost to the
utility provider.
4. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs,
utilities, recreation facilities and sites, and
landscaping around units shall be maintained as
constructed. All such improvements and
facilities shall further be maintained and
operated in a safe manner.
5. The grantee shall promulgate rules and
regulations governing tenancy in the development
which shall restrict accumulation of trash and
rubbish outside of the mobile home units, shall
restrict storage of goods outside of mobile homes
and which shall further prohibit the storage of
junked or unregistered motor vehicles. The
grantee shall file with the Orange County
Planning Department a copy of the rules and
regulations promulgated under this condition and
r7
�J
093
5
maintain an up -to -date copy of the rules and
Planning
regulations in the Orange County
Department.
6.
The recreation areas shall be cleared and
the improvements. A
grassed around proposed
shall be constructed, picnic area
tennis court
and shelter installed and children's swings
path all
built. Pedestrian paths and walking
as recommended by Orange
Oalso
be constructed
County Recreation and Parks Department. The
be open to
recreation facilities and sites shall
this development at all reasonable
the tenants of
maintenance
the
(5)parking spaces
(6) parking
recreation area.
7.
Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum.
landscaping, existing
In lieu of planted
vegetation shall be maintained between units.
8.
All plans for grading, drainage, soil erosion and
be reviewed and
sedimentation control shall
approved by the Orange County Erosion Control
Officer and Orange County Engineer. In addition,
Control Officer and
the Orange County Erosion
County Engineer shall inspect the
Orange
installation of control devices and the on -going
shall at
work for the total project. The project
times meet the requirements of the Orange
all
County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance.
9.
Cluster mailboxes shall be provided close to the
entrance as approved by the Hillsborough
Postmaster on May 3, 1990.
10.
There shall be at least two (2) parking spaces
per mobile home unit in the development.
11.
The roads in the mobile home park shall be paved,
four (4)
all weather surfaces consisting of
(crusher run) and one and
inches of base material
one -half (1 -1/2) inches of 1 -2 asphalt or tar and
gravel surface treatment consisting of a minimum
(crusher run)
of six (6) inches of base material
covered with alternating layers of tar and pea -
size gravel.
12.
Each mobile home space shall have a permanent
be composed
site number sign. The number shall
of reflective materials or contrasting colors,
shall be at least six (6) inches or greater in
to the mobile home
height, and shall be affixed
at a point six (6) feet or more above ground
level. The number shall be affixed to the mobile
home when the unit is placed on the space and
assigned to the space on
shall match that number
094
the approved space numbering /location system 6.
plan.
13. Removal of snow and ice from the roads in the
development and the sidewalks within the
development shall be the responsibility of the
owner of the park. Such removal shall be
completed promptly.
14. Prior to the start of any construction, the final
plans for the water system must be approved by
the Town of Hillsborough, the State and the
Orange County Engineer. The final plans for the
sewage system must also be approved by the Town
of Hillsborough, the State and the Orange County
Engineer prior to the start of construction.
15. Water and sewer lines shall be installed and
approved prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit.
16. The project must remain in unitary ownership and
no lots can be sold to individuals.
17. A final boundary survey of the Planned
Development and improvements shall be recorded by
the developer.
18. The final site plan and narrative of the project
incorporating all changes, deletions and
additions through the final approval of the
project are incorporated herein and made a part
of this Planned Development Special Use Permit.
A copy of the final site plan and narrative are
on file with the Orange County Planning
Department. Grading and building permits, upon
application, will be issued after approval and
recordation of the Special Use Permit.
19. The development shall be built and operated
according to the site plan and written narrative
supplied by the developer and in compliance with
the above conditions.
095
8/88
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY)
•
APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DATE: 4 12.10
APPLICATION NUMBER: PD- .2 -_&_
AO of the
I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article
Orange County Zoning Ordirnance for D F `` uPl^o romd
�J
The following information'is provided in support of this request:
A. PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Street Address or Location: 1 & ^Township C one "-L
Orange County Tax Map
Zoning District(s): square feet
Lot /Parcel Size: C. acres or square feet
Number of Existing Buildings:��Gross Floor Area: square feet
Gross Floor Area: Individual
Y4, Number of Proposed Buil ings: �_ Community N 1
1 CIT X1:.6 Public (Specify) Individual
Water Supply: (Specify) Community k L
Wastewater Disposal: L iusl Public (Sp Y) Fire District: a`
-p School District: 3
General Land Uses in Area: Flood Prone Area
Critical Areas: 14t NE Stream /Drain ageway Historic Site
i,l R'atershed (Specify)
Other (Explain) N
B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION:
Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina
survevor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the
following information:
North point, scale, and date.
Extent of area to be developed.
Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to
the site.
Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site.
Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown
on flood maps or soils maps.
�G Location of all water courses on the site, including direction fbased on mean sea
��Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet
level datum. and storage
Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service,
areas.
L,-----Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access.
(PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE)
096
Z. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION:
N d— Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy
with the property in question clearly marked.
The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the
names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred
(500) feet of the property in question.
v"'_ Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
U10__ Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by
Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating:
1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid
waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not
available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department
certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed
wastewater treatment system for the property.
2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection.
3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting
documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our)
responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony,
exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the
Class A Special Use Permit. .
APPLI CAN ICSI GNAT URE(S)
fz� /_ ) 7
DATE
NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s),
Please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request.
rrrrr.r rrrtrrrrrrrr. rrr. rtrrrr .rrrr.rrr. *r *rrr.rrrrrrrrtr. r.rrrrrrr.rrrrrrrrrrrrrr
FEES: Amount S %���, �� Date Paid: y / / -7/ 9L, Receipt
0
0
Roger D°. Stephens
• Box 38 Oakdale HHP
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Orange County.Commissioners
Orange County Planning Department
p. 0. Box 8181
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
April 9, 1990
097
Dear Commissioners and Planning Staff
Y respectfully submit this application for approval to build a 53 unit
Park on 48.7 acres located near Hwy 86 in
Planned Development Mobile Home Woodsed e
Hillsborough Township. The property is located in a rural area y poor and will
Mobile Howe therefore, re fitstusedis restricted. There are mobile homes scattered
not pert; therefore, i proposed location very suitable far
in and around adjoining property making the prop
a PD -MRP. developments
Y am sure that as County Commissioners reviewing housing erred to the
and'subdivisions in the past few years you realize what has Kapp
cost of new homes and -lots~ The average cost of an acre' °A °lacatOrange n Adda he.
: ranges from $12,000 to $20,000 and eves higgtr$1000adanwell at $2000 and you
*cost of a septic system at $18QO00cta8$25g000. If one is fortunate enough to
-,-have a. minimum lot cost of $17,
afford the lot cost you will finds gamilyehave notthad to t
imenin thenwork °force•
Most young people just .beginning
to establish credit; not to mention savings to buy a lot, and a conventional
house is out.of the question.
With $500 to $1000 down a couple can buy a nice mobile home, rent a
lot in this proposed MAP at $125 a month and have a combined monthly payment
averaging $350. This will allow them to save for hopefully a dawn payment
on a home and lot of their awn one day.
theory works
time again5init
worked for we 20 years ago the past 8-years. ar Orange
. My son and I have awned and operated 2 mobile home p ks in-Orange
County for approximately 8 years. We have garbage pick-uP�
swings, la areas, city water ' and sewer and
roads, provide swismning pools, g , p y Furnish to alternative
paved streets for the,residents. These two parka
to housing in a crowded
d ductionawhereretinterest on $500 a t
home purchase is
an allowable tax
deductible..
Three to four years ago .due -to the bleak outlook for affordable hous ng
in this county the commissioners appointed a low to moderate income esing
ro task force to study and make recommendations to ease this p
task force has met, studied and recommended that more mobile home spaces be
allowed in the county. to furnish
As -MHP owners who have proven our saffordablenandbrespectable places
our county residents with clean, decent,
Sto live.I ask you to approve this application.
Sincerely
X lJ
Roger and Scott ens
SUPPLEMENT TO "THE WOODS" NARRATIVE 098
"The Woods" a Planned Development Mobile Home Park shall consist of 54
mobile homes on individual lots of approximately 5000 square feet. The mobile
homes will be placed on permanent pads of 4 inch crushed stone and set up in
accordance with standards in the State of North Carolina Regulations for
Mobile Homes and Modular Housing. All mobile home foundations will be enclosed
with vinyl skirting installed within 90 days from placement on lot. Mobile
homes must also have a 10 x 1O.deck meeting North Carolina Building Code
within same time period. No other detached structures will be allowed on
mobile home lot. All mobile homes will be numbered in accordance with the equal
interval numbering system employed by Orange County Planning Department.
Numbers will be made of reflective materials at least 6 inches in height
and affixed 6 feet or more from ground level. All lots and surrounding
buffer area is to be left in a natural state in order to provide natural
screening as required in Plan B Buffer Standards.
Article 7.20 -1 PD -MHP District's Definition and Intent states adequate
housing is fundamental to the welfare of county residents; however, conventional
housing is not consistently affordable to, nor appropiate for, all members
of the general public. Where properly regulated and located, mobile home
parks address the public need for alternative housing and achieve a satisfactory
relationship to adjoining and nearby property.
"The Woods" would be located between I -40 and Woodsedge PD -MHP and
a heavily wooded area to the north and south with double wide and modulars
located on its boundaries. This location puts, it in direct relationship
with the adjoining property thus maintaining a continuous value of adjoining
property.
The Woods MHP would provide affordable housing to Orange County residents
who cannot afford conventional homes; thus, promoting the health, safety and
general welfare of the general public. I feel "The Woods" is in compliance
with the general plan for the physical development of the county by providing
affordable homes for its citizens, good living conditions and being planned
so as to minimize any disturbances to our natural environment.
E
0
099
•
Property Owners Within 500' Of Property Proposed For Park
7.2.23A
Karen S. Jordon Rt. 5 Box
152 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
7.2.23B
Gerald & Toni Scarlett Rt.
3 Box 989 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
7.2.18
Eugene C. Brooks P.O. Box
1130 Durham, N.C. 27702
7.2.17
11
7.2.12C
Margaret Sparrow Ross 4 Bolin Heights Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
7.2.12B
Robert & Lori Ann Sparrow
7.2.12
Robert Sparrow
7.2.13
Ann G. Richardson 2247 Walton St. Petersburg, VA 23805
7.2.14
Advisory Bd. of NC Church
of Nazereene 7609 Linda Lake Rd.
Charlotte, N.C. 28215
7.2.29F
Charlie Jones Rt. 3 Box
990 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
•
1--J
100 ,
E
PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500" OF WOODSEDGE MHP
4.49.B.14
John Bratton P.O. Box 190 Knightdale, N.C. 27545
4.49.B.21
Worth & Deana Overman Rt. 7 Box 25 Hillsborough,
N.C. 27278
4.49.B.20
Martha Bratcher % Mazy Bradshaw Rt. 3 Box 201 Hillsborough, N.C.2727$
4.49.B.21C
William & Mary Fowler Rt. 5 Box 146 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
4.49.B.21A
Charles Harris Rt. 5 Box 147A Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
4.49.B.21B
Edna Fowler Rt. 5 Box 147A Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
4.49.B.22
Marvin T. Glenn•& Doris G. Huckabee 5811 Park Rd. Charlotte, N.C. 28209
4.49.B.25A
Lillie Mangum Box 729 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
4.49.B.24A
Winston Workman N. Boundlane 72 Rt. 3 Millersville, MD 21108
4.49.B.26
Alfred King Rt. 5 Box 148 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
E
-4 ISAC
�
14z 19 •�_74 AC-
«� ^
± 20 x- .96 AC
c: 21C 21A • 21B
21 ci 9 "c
2713 .512 AL 92 AC
t
I
W=5 EDGE
. 1
/ 24 3.77 AC.
1 101
22
4092
1 1
11
1w1
1 1 .
5oe9 ola� 5
1
8.35 AC. • 1 `4
1 1
1 1
1
it
` N 2sr3 2S
i
4.8 AC.
o � •- z 100
0w
V sH , ,6
, 11V
\
V. 70 NS IP KE POW ER CO. 15 R /"'
1B.B AC. 1
SrC� 1DN
- 111 4 14 BC7Z r
�� 16 1620
1 7.71 AG.
1739•AC.
5 AC.
1 �9p�6 8A9 AC.
lr, \ 12C
• `_ - I9aC \ \ •6878 � B
5002 � Y g -pc}1C
�. 8783 - 7655 .5619 p� 12 i
tK1 Y,5B9
7.52 AC. 2 I 17 ' 2-09 Aw S
6 11.77 AG 12
3 7.52 AC.
eB36 1034A.�
• • r yZw •r. �f�
t `� � '• -' • ��- `� ^r - •may
Townshi
tom• ...:`. Mi_•� ,•~ •. Township
51 Ac-
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
IT �,
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
1G;►
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
DATE: MAY 7, 1990
SUBJECT: PD -2 -90 "THE WOODS" MOBILE HOME PARK
GENERAL INEORMATION
APPLICANT: Box 38
Dale Home Park
Hillsborough, NC 27278
LOCATION:
Located on the west side of Woodsedge Mobile
Home Park off NC 86 and east of Interstate 40.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval as a Planned Development Mobile
Home Park (PD- MAP -RI).
PURPOSE: To allow construction of a 53 unit Mobile Home
Park.
LOT SIZE: 48.77 acres or 2,124,421.2 square feet.
EXISTING LAND USE: spaceeforeWoodsedgetMobile presently
Home Park.
SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING:
NORTH - Wooded land with one large undeveloped tract
and four smaller lots zoned R -1.
EAST - Woodsedge Mobile Home Park zoned PD -H -R1.
SOUTH - Lots ranging in size between 8 and 11 acres on
Scarlette Mountain Road, zoned R -1.
• WEST - , Interstate 40.
104
MEMORANDUM
PD -2 -90 "THE WOODS" MOBILE HOME PARK
MAY 7, 1990
PAGE 2
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Residential
ZONING: The property is presently zoned R -1 (R,-,r-=l
Residential).
The intent of the Rural Residential (R -1) district is
provided in Article 4.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a) Intent
The purpose of the Rural Residential (R -1) District.
is to provide locations for rural non-farm
residential development, at very low intensities,
in areas where the short and long -term solutions to
domestic water supply and sewage disposal shah be
individual wells and ground absorption system.
b) Application Criteria
This district will usually be applied where to
following conditions exist:
1. Designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan
as Rural Residential.
2. Urban services, including water dis- ributicn
and sewage collection mains are not like!V
within 10 -20 years.
E
0
105
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PERTAINING TO
APPLICATION: THE WOODS
is standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as
Planned developments must comply with general and specific wires written finding certifying
well as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) req
compliance with the following:
dual special Uses as set forth in Article B.S. These regulations are
(1) Specific regulations governing indivi
divided into two (2) sections which include:
(a) Application components; and
for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and
(b) specific standards
Special Uses (Article 8.2.4).
forth in the
Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article
5
(2) Other requirements as set
6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements).
(Dimensional Requirements) and Article
Planning Department regarding the application in
question. The
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County
the Planning Board in its deliberations.
findings have been presented by Article and requirement
to assist
COMP, 0� ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates Non-compliance)
ARTICLE 8.2.1 _ APPLICATION
PLANNING
PLANNING
BOARD
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
EVIDENCE SUBM� TO SUPPORT FININGS
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
8.2.1 The applicant shall have
the burden of establishing by
competent material and
substantial evidence compliance
with all required regulations
and standards including the
following general conditions:
To be determined Board
Will _Will Not
1. The use will maintain or Will
Will Not of er v
after receiving evi dence to be
promote the public health,
submitted or heard at public
safety and general welfare,
hearing.
if located where proposed
and developed and operated
according to the plan as
submitted.
To be determined by Board �_
Will _Will Not
2. The use will maintain or Will
Will Not
after receiving evidence to be
enhance the value of
submitted or heard at public
contiguous property (unless
hearing.
the use is a public necessity,
in which case the use need
not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
ARTICLE 8:2.9 _ APPLICATION COMPONENTS (continued)
' PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
3. The use is in compliance
with the general plan for
the physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion
thereof, adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
106 2
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Is Is Not To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Is Is Not
RTICLES 8.6 AND $.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates co RLiancee; "No" indicates Non - compliance)
PLANNING PLANNING
STAFF BOARD
RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Reguirements
8.6 - Application submitted
„_x —Yes No
A complete application on appropriate Yes No
on forms providing full and
forms has been submitted.
accurate description of
proposed use, including
Location, appearance and
operational characteristics
8.8 a) - Twenty -six (26) copies
—X—Yes No
Twenty -six copies of the site plan, Yes No
of the site plan prepared by a
prepared by ENT Land Surveys, have
registered Land surveyor or
been submitted.
engineer
8.8 b) - Elevations of all
—x—Yes No
Typical single wide mobile homes Yes No
proposed structures to be
are shown on the site plan.
used in the development
8.8 c) - A fee, as set by the
_x —Yes No
$9,840.00 application fee has been Yes No
Board of County Commissioners
paid
U]
0
10'7 3
ARTICLE 14.2.2 _ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS "Yes" indicates compliance "No" indicates Non -co liance)
PLANNING
PLANNING BOARD
STAFF RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
a) Twenty -six (26) copies of --X—Yes No 26 copies submitted as previously
Yes No
the site plan submitted
referenced in 8.88.
Appropriate a lication form has Yes No
b) Site plan application form �x_Yes No PP
been submitted.
omitted Yes No
c) A copy of the Orange County
,x —Yes No
Tax Map has been su
Provided on site plan. Yes No
Tax Map with the subject
b) Name, address, and phone —x—Yes No
Provided in application. Yes No
property identified
the property owner
d) Legal documentation
—x—Yes No
The owner, Roger Dale Stephens,
Yes No
establishing entities responsible
will maintain ownership and
for control of common areas and
control of the park.
Zoning and land uses are provided Yes No
facilities to be approved by
on the site plan.
be developed and all adjacent
the County Attorney
Land uses
ARTICLE 14.2.3 SPECIFICATION-FOR
PLAN PREPARATION ( "Yes"
indicates com l- o iaUM "No" indicates Non -com liance)
are provided on the site plan.
numbers
PLANNING
PLANNING
BOARD
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
s) Boundary of lot labeled _x_Yes No
Provided on site plan. Yes No
with bearings and distances
b) Name, address, and phone —x—Yes No
Provided in application. Yes No
number of the applicant and
the property owner
c) Name of project, vicinity —x—Yes No
Provided on site plan. Yes No
map, north arrow, scale, tax
map reference number, date of
plan preparation, and subsequent
revision dates
No
Zoning and land uses are provided Yes No
d) Zoning of the property to —x—Yes
on the site plan.
be developed and all adjacent
zoning and existing adjacent
Land uses
e) Adjacent right -of -way ,x —Yes No
Right -of -way widths with road names Yes No
widths with road names and
are provided on the site plan.
numbers
ARTICLE 14.2.3 SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION (cunt_ i)
' PLANNING
Ordinance Ag2UiCjMg=
108 4
STAFF
PLANNING
RECOMMENDED BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
f) Total gross land area of the `x Yes No
— Land Use Intensity figures are
parcel, maximum and proposed
provided on the site plan.
floor area, minimum and proposed
open space, and minimum and
Proposed pedestrian /landscape
area (refer to Article 5.1.2
of the Zoning Ordinance)
g) Maximum and proposed —x —Yes No Not applicable.
impervious, surface and required
stream buffers in PWII and WOCA
(Article 6.23 and 6.24)
h) Estimated traffic generated —x —Yes No
— The average trip rate per mobile home
by the proposed development in is 4.814 trips
trips p per day. With S3
p per day (if it exceeds 800 mobile homes this would generate
trips per day, submit a traffic approximately 255 trips per day.
impact study in accordance with
Article 13)
i) Front, side, and rear —x Yes No
building setbacks as required by
Articles 5 and 6 of the Zoning
Ordinance
j) Location of all proposed —x—Yes No
buildings and structures labeled
according to floor area, building
height and function, and proposed
finished floor elevation
k) Vehicular use areas including ,x —Yes No
existing and proposed streets
and access drives, off street
parking and loading to comply
with Article 10 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and entry /exit points
of adjacent parcels
L) Overhead and underground
utilities with accompanying
easements and storm drainage
facilities /easements; (including
septic tanks and wastewater
disposal fields, wells, fire
hydrants, irrigation, and
security lights.)
Front, side and rear setbacks are
indicated on the site plan.
Location of proposed mobile homes
are indicated on the site plan.
Vehicular use areas are indicated
on the site plan.
,x —Yes No Underground utilities are proposed.
Utilities are generally within the
road right -of -way, other easements
are indicated on the site plan.
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
F-J
109 .5
A . RTICLE 14. .3 SPECIFICATION FOR PLAN PREPARATION continued)
PLANNING
PLANNING BOARD
STAFF RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
ordinance RR gjC' meets
m) Solid waste disposal —x—Yes No
facilities
n) All free - standing and well- ,x-Yes No
mounted signs i .accordance
with Article 9 of the Zoning
Ordinance
o) A landscape plan demonstrating _X—Yes No
compliance with Article 12.3 of
the Zoning Ordinance
p) Existing contour lines (dashed) __x__Yes No
and proposed contours (solid) at
5 -foot intervals with 10 -foot
contours bold. Where site
conditions warrant, 2 -foot
contours may be required
q) Retaining walls, tree wells, ,x_Yes No
or rip rap as part of the grading
plan
r) Streams, ponds, drainage _x--yes Nc
ditches, swamps, floodway and
floodplain boundaries
s) Phase lines and numbers if lx —Yes No
the development is to be phased
•
Solid waste will be collected by Yes No
private contractor.
The entrance sign is indicated on Yes No
the site plan.
A landscape plan has been submitted. Yes No
The property is presently wooded
and the applicant indicates there
will be minimal clearing.
Contour lines are indicated on the Yes No .
site plan.
A grading plan will be submitted to Yes No
the Erosion Control officer prior
to construction.
The site plan indicates there are no Yes No
streams, ponds or flood areas on the
property. Drainage ditches will be
determined by the Erosion Control
officer on the Erosion Control Plan.
Phasing is not proposed. Yes No
2 ARTICLE _ ED-MHP PLANNED DEVELOPM NT- MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT ( "Yes" indicates com Hance• "No" indicates Non-
c Hance)
PLANNING
STAFF PLANNING
RECOMMENDED BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIpENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance R uirements
Article 7.20 sets forth regulations and requirements for a Planned Development Mobile Home Park. The following
standards apply:
7.20.1 PD -MHP District: Definition and Intent
The district is located in such —x —Yes No
a manner as to be compatible with
the character of existing develop-
ment of surrounding properties,
thus ensuring the continued
conservation of building values
and encouraging the most appropriate
use of land in the County.
7.20.2 Area Requirements for lstablishment of District
A mobile home park shall contain _x—Yes No
a minimum of 10 mobile home spaces.
The maximum size of any mobile —x—Yes No
home park shall be 50 acres. A
new park may be developed adjacent
to an existing park.
7.20.3 Permitted Principal Uses and Structures
All principal uses and 4x —Yes No
structures should be indicated.
7.20.4 Development Standards for Mobile Home Parks
The park will extend the roads from Yes No
woodsedge MHP, which is to the east.
Interstate 40 is to the west, the
open space area is to the south and
there is a 100 foot buffer to the
north. The district is, therefore,
Located in such a manner to be
compatible with existing development
of surrounding properties.
The proposed park contains 53 units. Yes No
The size of the proposed Mobile Home Yes No
Park is 48.77 acres.
Mobile homes are indicated on the Yes No
site plan.
a.1 $ 2 Each mobile home space x Yes No
— The site plan indicates each mobile Yes
has a minimum area of 5,000 square home space has a minimum area of 5,O00 No
feet and minimum width of 50 square feet and a minimum width of
feet. Each space shall be 50 feet.
Located on the ground as shown
on the plan.
a.3 Only one (1) mobile home and ,x —Yes No The site plan indicates only one Yes No
its customary accessory buildings
mobile home on each space.
may be erected on one mobile home
space at one time.
■
0
0
■
lit
7
ARTICLE 720 - PO -MHP PUNNED DEVELOPMENT - MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT (continued)
PLANNING
PLANNING
BOARD
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDI GS
FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Order R u�o 'reme ^ts
No The site plan indicates each mobile
Yes No
b. Each mobile home must be x_Yes
home will be placed on a permanent
placed on a permanent stand that
meets ordinance requirements.
stand_
c.1 Each mobile home shall be x_Yes
No The site plan indicates a 20'
Yes No
Located at least 20 feet from
separation between mobile homes.
another mobile home or building,
except small storage buildings.
c.2 Each mobile home shall be !x„_Yes
The site Lan indicates a 22 foot
NO p
Yes No
Located at least 22 feet from
front setback.
the right -of -way line of an
access drive or street.
c.3 A detached structure _ x Yes
NO The site plan does not indicate any
Yes No
Located on the same mobile home
additional detached structures on
Lot shall be located at least
the mobile home lots.
5 feet from any mobile home or
other building.
d.1 Mobile homes shall be -Yes
No Each mobile home is required to
Yes No
-X
obtain a building permit and will
installed in accordance with
be inspected for proper installation.
standards in the State of North
Carolina Regulations for Mobile
Homes and Modular Housing.
.
d.2 Foundation enclosures and -x -Yes
r
No Skirting will be installed within
Yes No
skirting must be installed within
90 days of installation of each
90 days of placement of a mobile
mobile home.
home on a mobile home space.
No Steps and decks will be inspected by
Yes No
d.3 steps and decks to be —X—Yes
installed must meet the standards
the Orange County Building Inspector
of the North- Carolina state -
for compliance with the NC state
Building Code.
Building Code.
e.1 Each mobile home shall -X—Yes
No Each mobile home space will have
Yes No
abut an improved access drive
frontage on the street.
or street.
e.2 Mobile home spaces shall not
No Access will be provided directly to
Yes No
-x—Yes
the street in the Mobile Home Park.
have direct vehicular access to
a street or thoroughfare other
than those located within the
mobile home park.
AR_ 7JCLE 7,20 z PD-MHP PLAN DEVELOPMENT - MOBILE HOME PARK DTSTRiCT continued
PLANNING
Ordinance tg2Ui=El=
114 8
STAFF
PLANNING
RECOMMENDED BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED To SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
e.3 The layout of streets should
—x—Yes No
minimize overall length of streets
and provide for safe, continuous
flow of traffic within the park.
e.4 All streets shall be a
_x —Yes No
minimum of 18 feet in width and
Located within a 40 foot right -
of -way. Streets shall be paved
to standards specified in the
Zoning Ordinance.
e.5 Each street shall have a
— x_,Yes No
maintained 6 foot wide shoulder
running parallel and adjacent
to each side of the paved street
surface.
e.6 Cul -de -sacs shall have a ,x
—Yes No
maximum length of 800 feet, a
turnaround radius of 45 feet
and a right -of -way radius of
55 feet.
e.7 Streets shall be laid out
to intersect as nearly as
possible at right angles.
e.8 Each mobile home space
shall have off - street parking
facilities for 2 vehicles.
f.1 The identification sign at
the park entrances shall meet
the location, height and size
specifications in the Zoning
Ordinance.
f.2 Traffic control signs shall
be placed throughout the mobile
home park where necessary.
f.3 Street names shall be
approved by the planning Dept.
and street signs shall be
constructed to Orange County
standards.
—x—Yes No
,x —Yes No
--x —Yes No
_x —Yes No
The street is laid out to provide a
Loop road that provides an extension
Of two streets in Woodsedge Mobile
Home Park.
Indicated on the site plan.
Indicated on the site plan.
There are no cut -de -sacs proposed.
There are not right angle streets
proposed.
Each mobile home has a two car
parking area.
The identification sign is indicated
on the site plan.
Traffic control signs are indicated
on the site plan.
—x —Yes No The street is an extension of streets
in Woodsedge MHP. The street name
has been approved by the Planning
Department.
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
_Yes No
_Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
11,3 9
ARTIC E 720 - PD -MHP PLANNED DEVELOPMEN7- M08ILE
HOME PARK DISTRICT (continued)
PLANNING
PLANNING
BOARD
. STAFF
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
FINDI G5
Ordinance RR ul�rement
.
No A mobile home space numbering/ Location Yes No
f.4 A mobile home space _x_Yes
system is indicated on the site plan.
numbering /location system for
the park shall be submitted.
No Permanent site number signs shall be Yes No
1.5 A mobile home space shall _x_Yes
affixed to each mobile home when
have a permanent site number
sign and shall be affixed to
installed.
the mobile home.
The grounds of the mobile —x—Yes
The site Lan indicates that park Yes No
No P
g.1
maintenance is the responsibility of
home park shall be maintained
free of litter, debris, and
the park owner.
trash.
g.2 Grounds, buildings, and `x,Yes
No Park maintenance is the responsibility Yes No
storage areas within the park
of the park owner.
shall be maintained to prevent
growth of noxious weeds.
No A cluster mail box system is indicated Yes No
9.3 A cluster mail delivery _x_Yes
on the site plan.
. system shall be provided which
is in compliance with the
appropriate postal service
guidelines.
g.4 A central collection system rx_Yes
No Solid waste will be collected by a Yes No
private contractor two times per week.
for garbage and refuse must be
provided either through a private
collection system or through the
use of bulk containers (dumpsters).
g.5 Tenancy rules and regulations —x—Yes
No Tenancy rules and regulations have Yes No
y
governing the operation of the
been submitted.
mobile home park shall be submitted.
h. All requirements of the Soil _x_Yes
No An Erosion Control Plan must be Yes No
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
submitted and approved by the Erosion
Ordinance must be complied with
Control Officer.
during construction.
i. Adequate and suitable —x —Yes
Na A two acre recreation site is Yes No
recreation areas shall be provided.
indicated on the site plan.
j. Mobile home parks shall be �x,Yes
No park rk is surrounded by the open Yes No
screened on all sides from
space area required. A 100 foot
adjacent highways and from
buffer is indicated next to the
existing, adjoining, conventional
property for Woodsedge Mobile
residential developments or
Home Park.
existing mobile home parks.
ARTICLE 720 _ PD -MHP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -MO ILE HOME PARK DISTRICT (continued)
r
PLANNING
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
Ordinance R uirements FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Mobile home spaces must be ,x —Yes No A, 100 foot buffer is indicated on
Located at least 100 feet from the site plan from all exterior
an exterior property line which property lines.
is not a street right -of -way.
114
10"
PLANNING
BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
Yes No
Land within the 100 foot buffer —x—Yes No Land within the 100 foot buffer is ro Yes
my not be disturbed. Existing presently wooded and
vegetation within the buffer proposed to No
be left undisturbed.
must be retained. Additional
plantings may be required to
satisfy type "B" buffer standards.
Mobile home spaces must be set —x—Yes No
back from a public street right-
of -way a distance consistent with
the front yard setback requirement
of the zoning district. Disturbance
Of existing vegetation within the
setback area is prohibited.
Plantings may be required to meet
type "B" buffer standards.
Bulk refuse containers (dumpsters) _x—Yes No
must be screened as required in
the Zoning ordinance.
k.1 An adequate, safe and potable
water supply shall be provided
for the mobile home park.
k.2 An adequate and safe sewage
disposal system shall be provided
in the mobile home park.
The street is proposed to be private Yes No
as are the streets in Woodsedge
Mobile Home Park.
Bulk refuse containers are not Yes No
proposed for the development.
Yes —X—NO The Town of Hillsborough has indicated Yes No
that a 6" water line is available to
serve the proposed park. Preliminary
plans are presently being reviewed by
the Town.
Yes _x No The Town of Hillsborough has indicated Yes No
that a 6" sewer line is available to
serve the proposed park. Preliminary
plans are presently being reviewed by
the Town.
k.3 Street lighting shall be __x_Yes No
provided throughout the park with
Lights located at each street
intersection. Where the distance
between intersections exceeds 500
feet, additional Lights may be
required.
The site plan indicates street
Lights at 500 foot intervals.
Yes No
k.4 All utility systems shall --x—Yes No The site plan indicates utility Yes No
be underground. All necessary systems will be underground. Water
easements shall be shown on the and sewer lines are proposed in the
mobile home park plans. road right -of -way.
0
115 11
�J
ARTICLE 5 - DIMENIOAL REQUIREMENTS indicates Q REMENTS S "Yes" c lawn ia�c "No" indicates Non -c cep
PLANNING
.
PLANNING
BOARD
STAFF
RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Ordinance ReQuirements
Article 5 lists standards for
minimum lot size, lot width,
front, side and rear setbacks,
maximum building height and
Lot coverage, and development
intensity.
The applicant has applied
for a PD- MHP -R1 designation.
The standards for that district
are set forth in Article 5.1.1
and are as follows:
a) Minimum lot area per dwelling
_x—Yes
No
Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Yes
No
unit - 40,000 sq. ft.
Planned development approved on site
basis.
b) Minimum Lot width -
_x —Yes
No
Same as above.
Yes
No
N/A sq. ft.
Yes
No
c) Required front setback -
_x —Yes
No
Same as above.
N/A ft.
d) Required side and rear
_x —Yes
No
Same as above.
Yes
No
setbacks - —N /A! ft.
e) Maximum building height -
_x—Yes
No
Same as above.
Yes
No
N/A ft.
Compliance with lot coverage
and development intensity
standards is addressed in
Article 6.
�J
�1[> 12
ARTICLE 6 z APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUI� REMENTS ( "Yes" indicates cam fiance "No" indicates non -com fiance)
Note; See Appendix A for "Definitions ".
11
PLANNING
STAFF
PLANNING
RECOMMENDED
BOARD
FINDINGS
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS
Ordinance Re uirements
Article 6 lists specific
standards which apply to
various types of development
applications.
Article 6.12 contains those
development intensity
standards which apply to
group developments controlled
by the Land Use Intensity
(LUI) system
a) Minimum gross land area -
435,600 sq. ft.
—x —Yes
No
Applicant's site contains 48.77 acres
Yes
No
or 2,124 r 421 sq. ft. gross land area.
b) Maximum gross land area -
2,178,000 sq. ft.
—x —Yes
No
Article 7.20.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Yes
No
c) Maximum floor ratio -
—X—Yes
No
Maximum permitted by ordinance s
ce
Yes
.058.
123,216 sq. ft. Applicant's plans
No
indicate floor area of 65,775 sq. ft.
d) Required minimum open
—x—Yes
No
Applicant's plans indicate 2,001,146
Yes
space ratio - .84.
No
sq. ft. of open space.
Required minimum open
space - 1,784,513 sq. ft.
e) Required minimum liveability
—x—Yes
No
Applicant's submission indicates
Yes
space ratio - .75. Required
1,748,498 sq. ft.
No
minimum liveability space -
1,593,315 sq. ft.
f) Required minimum recreation
_x —Yes
No
Applicant's plans indicate recreation
Yes
No
space ratio - .031.
Required
areas totalling 87,120 sq. ft.
minimum recreation
space - 65,857 sq. ft.
Note; See Appendix A for "Definitions ".
11
117 13
ARTICLE 7 ; SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED REVEL ( "Yes" indicates comalig= "No" indicates non -
cpi erk4l
PLANNING PLANNING
BOARD
STAFF RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance RR u�,remnts
Article 7.4 indicates the
application must first comply
with all requirements specified
in Article 20 - Amendments.
Those requirements include:
20.3.2 a) Map showing affected —x—Yes NO
property at scale of not less
than 1" = 100' nor more than
1" = 20'.
20.3.2 b) Legal description —x—Yes No
of property.
20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged _x—Yes No
error, if any, to be corrected
by proposed amendment.
• 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, —x—Yes No
if any, which make amendment
reasonably necessary to promote
public health, safety and
general welfare.
20.3.2 e) Manner in which —x—Yes
proposed amendment will carry
out purpose and intent of adopted
comprehensive Plan.
•
Site plan provided at scale of Yes No
1" = 100'.
Description provided on site plan. Yes No
No error alleged. Yes No
Applicant indicates the development Yes No
will promote public health, safety and
general welfare in the narrative.
No Property is located in a rural Yes No
residential area which allows cluster
single family residential development
at the proposed density provided
certain criteria are met and a Special
Use Permit is obtained.
Article 7.4 then indicates the
application must comply with
certain specific requirements
common to all Planned Developments.
These include:
7.4.1 so located with respect to ,x_Yes No
major streets and mass transit
facilities and designed so as
not to create traffic on minor
streets in residential districts.
Direct access provided via NC 86 Yes No
which is designated as an arterial.
Traffic will be routed through the
main entrance road in Woodsedge
Mobile Home Park.
ARTICLE 7 _ SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Continued
PLANNING
Ordinance R uirements
118 14
STAFF PLANNING
RECOMMENDED BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
7.4.2 so located with respect to ,x„Yes No
water, sewer, and storm drainage
facilities that enlargement or
extension will not result in
higher net public cost or earlier
incursion of public cost.
and
So located with respect to _x Yes No
police, fire and rescue services, —x—
Yes
schools and parks so as to
have access in the same 'manner
as permitted under the existing
zoning
7.4.3 Site suitable for —x —Yes No
development without hazard from
flooding, erosion, and soil
subsidence or slipping.
Extension of water /sewer services are Yes No
necessary. Cost to be borne by the
developer. Water & sewer information
in narrative.
Letters have been received from Yes No
police, fire and rescue service.
Soil survey /topographic maps indicate Yes No
there are no streams affecting the
development.
0
•
119
RT
ICLE 8.2_y Z SpECIFIC STANDARWALL SPECIAL —USES "Yes" ind comPliance! "Wo" indicates Non -com Hance)
PLANNING
PLANNING BOARD
STAFF RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED
REGIMEN EVIDENCE SU6M, ITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance RR uie'rements
Article 8.2.4 requires the
applicant to address the
following:
a) Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage
disposal facilities, solid
waste and water service.
b) Method and adequacy of
police, fire and rescue
squad protection.
c) Method and adequacy of
vehicle access to the site
and traffic conditions
around the site.
Yes _.,x_NO Applicant indicates water and sewer Yes
service through extension of the Town
of Hillsborough lines from Woodsedge
Mobile Home Park. Preliminary water
and sewer plans are presently being
reviewed by the Town Engineer. Solid
waste will be placed in individual
trash cans at each home and will be
collected by a private contractor.
x_Yes No Fire protection will be provided by
the Orange Rural - Hillsborough Fire
Department, rescue service by the
orange Rescue Service, and police
protection by the Orange County
Sheriff's Department (See attached
correspondence).
—x —Yes No The orange County Planning Staff had
projected 255 vehicle trips per day
from the site. This projection was
based on 53 proposed dwellings (mobile
homes) times 4.814 vehicle trips per
dwelling per day.
The 1988 average daily traffic count
on NC 86 was 6,500 vehicles per day.
15
No
Yes No
Yes No
Igo
ARTICLE L. z SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES ( "Yes" in!�c nliance: "So" indicates Non - compliance)
PLANNING
STAFF PLANNING
RECOMMENDED BOARD
RECOMMENDED
FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance 42q uirements
8.2.2 Those opposing approval of the application on the grounds that the use will not promote the public health,
safety and general welfare, will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance
with the general plans for the physical development of the County shall have the burden of establishing, by
competent material and substantial evidence the specific manner in which the proposed use does not satisfy the
requirements for approval of the application for a Special Use.
Where the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the general standards, specific rules
governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards the application
must be approved unless the Board shall also find, in some specific manner that:
a) The use will not maintain
or promote the public health,
safety and general welfare,
if located where proposed
and developed and operated
according to the plan as
submitted.
b) The use will not maintain
or enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public necessity,
in which case the use need
not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
c) The use is not in compliance
with the general plan for
the physical development of
the County as embodied in
these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion
thereof, adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
,Will Will Not To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Will Will Not To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
Is Is Not To be determined by Board
after receiving evidence to be
submitted or heard at public
hearing.
16
Will Will Not
`Will Will Not
Is Is Not
C1
0
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
FROM: ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
P.Q. BOX 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278
RE: FIRE AND RESCUE COVERAGE
DATE: APRIL 6, 1990
121
In response to your request, Orange County Emergency Medical
Services and,Hillsborough Fire Department will continue to
provide emergency medical and fire service to the area in
Orange County at the extension of i"'e Trailer Park.
ulec �,:s e
•
Should you need any further information, please call us at
929 -8109 or 732 -8161.
L
LINDY PENDERGRASS
Sheriff of Orange County
TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: SHERIFF PENDERGRASS
RE: PLANNING IMPACT STATEMENT
ADDITION TO WOODSEDGE MOBILE PARK
DATE: MAY 3, 1990
144 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278
AFTER REVIEW OF PROPOSED 53 UNIT "THE WOODS" MOBILE PARK,
THIS DEPARTMENT WILL EXPERIENCE A MODERATE INCREASE FOR CALLS
FOR SERVICE AND PAPER SERVICE.
THIS EXPANSION ALONE WILL NOT, AT THIS TIME, REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO MAINTAIN THE.LEVEL OF SERVICE,
HOWEVER WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER NEW OR EXPANSION OF PRESENT
SUBDIVISIONS, COULD REQUIRE THIS DEPARTMENT TO REQUEST
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL IN THE FUTURE.
THIS DEPARTMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT
SERVICES AS NEEDED.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME OR MAJOR
TRUELOVE.
LP /RF
rI
0
m
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Graham. North Carolina 27253 -0766
May 8. 1990
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
E
ORANGE COUNTY
Mr. Eddie Kirk
Orange County Planning Department
306 -F Revere Road
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
123
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: "The Woods" Mobile !come Park off NC 86 - Park
Expansion
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is to advise that the subject preliminary plan has been
reviewed and approved by this office.
Right -of -way limitations on NC 86 do not allow for the
addition of turn lanes. While improvements such as this may
be desirable: the proposed expansion should not lead to an
increase in safety problems at this intersection.
If you have any questions
office.
EMC /SPI /pi
do not hesitate to contact this
Yours very truly,
�,-. 0 - ('-'- - , " 4, � 2 "
E. M. Cowan. P. E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
An Equal O000rtunrty / Affirmative Action Emolover
N C
r r
�y
C+,�qT� MVP
Orange County Recreation and Parks Department
Mary Anne Black, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Post Office Box 8181 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Eddie Kirk, Planner 11
Mary Anne Flack `Mo
May 15, 1990
"The Woods" Planned Development
12
M I� I
I have reviewed the preliminary plan of the above- referenced
planned development. I have also met and spoken with the
applicant, Mr. Roger Dale Stephens.
Two issues of the proposal are of interest to our department:
1- provision of open space -- The proposed location of
this area is appropriate and the amount exceeds the minimum
required.
2. provision of required recreation area -- The
proposed location of this area is appropriate and the amount
exceeds the minimum required. The developer proposes to
improve this area with the amenities listed below. I have
provided ray recommendation concerning each.
(a) one (1) tennis court -- This offers an excellent
recreation opportunity for the residents. I have forwarded
tennis court lay --out information to Mr. Stephens.
(b) a picnic area -- I recommend a small shelter (20 x 20 )
with a minimum of four (4) tables and an additional 4 tables
scattered throughout the wooded area. One trash receptacle
should be provided for every two (2) of these tables, not
associated with the shelter,
(c) children's swings -- I recommend a minimum of three (3)
children's swings and one (1) children's sliding beard be
incorporated with a small sandbox to compose a play area.
This play area need not be fenced, in that it is buffered and
far removed from vehicular traffic. I have agreed to assist
Mr. Stephens in appropriately locating this play area within
the recreation area.
(d) pedestrian paths -- These paths are located
appropriately. I would recommend that the streets in the
planned development be clearly marked to show those points of
intersection with a pedestrian path (signs and painted cross-
walks) in that numbers of children will be "running the
Playground" across these streets.
Offices located at 300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough, INC
Telephones: 919 732 -8181 • 919 967 -9251 • 919 6-qR -7331 • 919 227.2031 • Fa. 919 732 -474:
. •
U
.: to
I would-also recommend the development of walking paths in
the wooded area. These paths can connect the picnic tables,
the
shelter and tennis court as they
shoulddbehwellwmarked w�th well
recreation area. These p aths
defined headroom fat a minimum of 10 feet). Paths should be
six to eight (6 -8) feet in width with an average slope of 5%,
not to exceed 15 %.
I have some concerns regarding the number of parking spaces
you have indicated are required to serve the recreation area
in this planned development.
The Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council will
review my recommendations at their June 5th meeting and I
will promptly forward an to you any additional comments they
may have.
•
0
125
126 ,
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner II
FROM: Paul Thames, County Engineer
DATE: May 18, 1990
SUBJECT: The woods Mobile Home Park
As per your request, I have reviewed the latest plans, submitted
directly to my office by the developer on May 17, 1990, for the
above referenced project, and I have the following comments.
1. According to the contour lines shown on the plans, it
appears that the project is plagued by very severe slopes,
particularly for siting mobile homes, in the vicinity of
proposed sites 1 -5 and 24 -31. Sections of the proposed
roadway in these areas will also be affected by the steep
Slopes. In the areas listed above slopes appear to approach
or exceed 20$. I recommend that a full site design contour
plan be submitted prior to final plan approval, because it
appears that extensive grading will be required.
2. I do not understand the reasoning behind the proposed catch
basin and drainage design. If there are to be no side ditches
or no curb and gutter, why install catch basins. If there
are to be no curb and gutter or no roadway side ditches, why
not let the drainage sheet flow across the project? The need
for nor the exact placement of storm drainage cannot be
determined until the grading plan has been designed. In any
event, letting storm drain pipes outlet onto the ground
without any velocity dissipation, channelization or means of
dispersing flow to a sheet flow pattern is not a good
practice. I question the use of 8" drain pipe. Storm drain
Pipe of smaller than 15" diameter is difficult to maintain
because it is prone to stoppages.
3. I recommend a minimum of 8" water and sewer lines. Although
a 6" waterline is presently the maximum line size from the
existing section of the park to the tie -in point with the
Hillsborough system, a new 12" line is scheduled to be
installed between Hillsborough and the new elementary school
at New Hope Church Road. Note that fire hydrants are shown on
the sewer line. I recommend that the Town of Hillsborough and
its engineer be required to okay the utility design before the
project receives final approval from the County.
0
0
127
It is apparent that the project needs much work before final
approval is given. However I have no problem with the general
concept of this project as outlined in these plans. The problems
that I have outlined above involve adjustments to the engineering
design of the project. The plans that have been submitted to this
date reflect a minimum of engineering design, other than basic
schematic layout. At the appropriate point in the review phases
for this project, the problems outlined above will warrant
additional and more intensive study of the final engineering
design. If I may provide any additional comment or clarification,
please advise.
•
•
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2$
306F REVERE, ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner
FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor
SUBJECT: The Woods Mobile Home Park: Revised Plans
DATE: May 21, 1990
The corrections in the topography on the plans addresses my
concerns about placement of homes in the drainageway. However,
the correction reveals some potential problems with steep topo-
graphy that the County Engineer has described in more detail. The
proposed street drainage should be supported with calculations
and more detail in the final construction plans and erosion
control plan.
0 __
0
0
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
HMa C. GRANT, A
POSTMASTER
• DATE: HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 2727$ -9998
OUR REF:
/3hD
SUBJECT:
�-14 744e--
ze/,n�
d
z r
C'. •t
V r �a�4 �T
BpUNSScN
ENGINEERING
SERVICES, �
�� '��� ' ��»�
*=umaEwxNapyywmxuoCOmxuo/NG | '
.30 �-HURCHWELL CT
DURHAM, NC 27713
90-31
Rodger Stephens
Rt. 7, Box 38
Oakdale Drive
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
Re: The Woods
5 HP Pump Station Duolex
Dear Rodger,
The engineering calculations indicate that the existing 5 H p
pumP station located in the "Woods Edge" Mobile Home Park i
capable of serving the additional proposed units in "s
Th
Woods" Mobile Home Park' � e
Si ly,
.. ^`t~~�. /L, sen
Professional Engineer
North Carolina
No. 12381
919/54A'|
�'0
----------
... .......... .......... .......... ........
..........
........... ...........
..........
..........
.........• . ......... .. ........ ...........
.
............ ... T ..........
.......... .......... ....
...... ......... ...........
........... ..........
.......... ........... ..........
. . ....... ... ..... ....
..... . .......... ............................... .
.. ..............
..........
. . .......... .. ...... .......... ... ... __..... T . ...........
............... ................ ...........
....... .. ........
. ........... .......... .......
. ......... ... ..........
..... ... ..... . . ..... ....
. .........
.......... .. ..... .... ......
.. . .............. ..........
.......... --- ...... .........
- ------ . .....
.......... .......... ........ ...
..... .......... --------
. ..... . .......... .... .......... ...... ------
.......... . .....
. ... .........
...........
......... .......... -----------
...........
I ;.....................; .
T.......... ..........
.... ..... .... .......... ....... .
.......... T .......... .. .
..........
-
.....
. ..... .....
......
. ........ . ....... . . ...
...................... .
C71 own of 3Iillshorou94
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
April 26, 1990
Orange County Planning Department
Revere Road
Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
Dear Sir:
132
101 E. Orange Str
P.O. Box 429
(919) 732 -2104
This letter is to state that a 6 inch water line is available to
serve the proposed Woods Mobile Home Park, and a 6 inch sewer line is
also provided for this purpose. Mr. Stephens must submit preliminary
drawings to the Town's engineer who will review for feasibility and
capacity. Detail drawing and specifications will also be approved by
the Town's engineer prior to their submittal to the State Agencies.
Should you need additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
Agath Johnson, Town Clerk
0
133
I
134
/Icr Z,r -erzc
PIZ,
Ith
c,7 �..�
v
0
r r
I /
1-3
JYL17-�--- AL
� - - -- ,rr7_
-- - - - - -- - --
i -
1 x
''�G.Z��.,G �,rr� '7"r,..rrGC_4� �tL'� 7vC'C.J G{�CR�•��.
n
. :< <'� :��'�:�-� << �� _Grit -C- G�.� -� ..�•�.�-�`-�`-' ' .
(rt. ✓ /7%y(.rL-
v /
r
J
9
137
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROIJGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
F
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I, Eddie Kirk Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina,
DO HERESY CERTIFY that on or about May 11, 1990, I mailed, by
certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public
Hearing to be held on the rea^ uest for a Plarned Devela ment
Mobile Home PD- MHP -R1 "The Woods" in Hillsborou h and
Chapel Hill Townshi s to each property owner as required by
Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance.
The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject
of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification charge -
WITNESS my hand, this the 11th day of May, 1990.
EDDIE KIRK
ZONING
OFFICER
138
•
9
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: N4y 29, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # G -1
G -2 -b
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS -
1) ARTICLE 6.15.2 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPROVED
2) ARTICLE 6.25.7 WATER SUPPLY /SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
3) ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X—Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendments Planning Director - Extension 347
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501
. PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the application of
Article 6.25.7 to existing dwellings and uses. The
current standards would prevent such uses with failing
septic systems and no suitable repair area on the same
lot from locating nitrification fields on a separate
lot.
Definitions are also provided of "septic tank
system," "alternative septic system," and" community
alternative system." The latter definition was
inadvertently omitted when revisions to the interim
development standards for University Lake watershed
were adopted.
BACKGROUND: On April 2, 1990, the Board of Commissioners adopted
protection measures for University Lake watershed. The
new standards limit water supply and sewage treatment
systems to individual wells and on -site septic systems
or individual on -site alternative disposal systems.
"On- site" means that no system will be permitted where
effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot. Repair
areas must be located on the same lot as the dwelling
(or use) which generates the wastewater.
Following adoption of the standards, the County
Attorney was reviewing easement documents to permit the
septic system repair area for a dwelling to be located
140
on an adjoining residential lot. Located in University
Lake watershed, the situation prompted the County
Attorney to express concern to the Planning Director
about the application of the new standard to existing
dwellings in the watershed. Specifically, if the
primary and /or back -up nitrification field(s) for an
existing residence failed, and there was no suitable
location on the same lot for a repair field, the
standard would prevent the owner from residing in the
dwelling. To eliminate such situations, amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance are needed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendments.
FILE: SEPTH2O.DOC
�J
9
w
•
141
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance
REFERENCE: 1) Article 22 Definitions
2) Article 6.15.2 Interim Development Standards
Approved [University
Lake Watershed (ULW) District]
3) Article 6.25.7 Water Supply /Sewage Disposal
Facilities Required [University
Lake Watershed (ULW) District]
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —X—Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
_X— Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENTS: To clarify the application of Article
6.25.7 to existing dwellings and uses. The current standards
would prevent such uses with failing septic systems and no
suitable disposal site on the same lot from locating
nitrification fields on a separate lot.
An additional purpose is to provide definitions of "septic
tank system," alternative septic system," and "community
alternative system." The latter definition was inadvertently
omitted when revisions to the interim development standards
(Article.6.15.2) for University Lake watershed were adopted.
IMPACTS /ISSUES: On April 2, 1990, the Board of Commissioners
adopted protection measures for University Lake watershed.
The new standards limit water supply and sewage treatment
systems to individual wells and on -site septic systems or
individual on -site alternative disposal systems. "On- site"
means that no system will be permitted where effluent
disposal occurs on a separate lot. Repair areas must be
located on the same lot as the dwelling (or use) which
generates the wastewater.
Following adoption of the standards, the County Attorney was
reviewing easement documents to permit the septic system
repair area for a dwelling to be located on an adjoining
residential lot. Located in University Lake watershed, the
14 iGr r� e_
situation prompted the County Attorney to express concern to
the Planning Director about the application of the new
standard to existing dwellings in the watershed.
Specifically, if the primary and /or back -up nitrification
field(s) for an existing residence failed, and there was no
suitable location on the same lot for a repair area, the
standard would prevent the owner from residing in the
dwelling. To eliminate such situations, amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance are needed.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
ARTICLE VI. APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
6.15.2 Interim Development Standards Approved
a. University Lake Watershed
1. Area Affected - These standards shall
apply to the University Lake Watershed.
2. Nature and Duration of Standards - The
following interim development standards
shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and
disposal systems as well as public
water and sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake
watershed except to address a public
health emergency as determined by
the Orange County Health Department.
b) By April 30, 1991, studies will be
conducted to determine the
advisability of making public water
and sewer services available within
the watershed. In addition, a pilot
program for monitoring and
inspecting alternative treatment and
disposal systems as operated by the
Orange County Health Department will
be evaluated to determine the
advisability of permitting such
systems in the watershed.
C) Following receipt and review of the
above mentioned studies, a decision
will be made regarding the use
of alternative treatment and
disposal systems and the
L`
r
a
143
availability of public water and
sewer services in the watershed.
6.25.7 Water Sumply /Sewage Dis2osal Facilities Required
[University Lake Watershed (ULW) District]
Every principal use and every lot within a
subdivision shall be served by a water supply and
sewage disposal system that is adequate to
accommodate the needs of such use or subdivision
lot and that complies with all applicable
regulations of the Orange County Health Department.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, water supply
and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to
individual wells and on -site septic systems or
individual on -site alternative disposal systems.
"On- site" shall mean that no system will be
permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a
separate lot from the source of wastewater
generation.
The use of community alternative wastewater
disposal systems and public water and sewer service
is restricted as specified in Article 6.15.2.a. of
this Ordinance. No new septic tanks and their
nitrification fields shall be located within a
designated stream buffer zone or within one hundred
(100) feet of a perennial or intermittent stream as
shown on the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange
County, whichever is the greater distance.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
ARTICLE XXII. DEFINITIONS
Septic Tank System - A subsurface sanitary sewage system
consisting of a septic tank and a subsurface
disposal field.
Alternative Septic System - Any approved ground absorption
Sewage treatment and disposal system other than an
a pr ved privy or an approved septic tank system.
ARTICLE VI PPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
6.15.2.x-erim eve s r�orove
University Lake Watershed
1. Area Affected - These standards shall
144
apply to the University Lake Watershed.
2. Nature and Duration of standards - The
following interim development standards
shall apply:
a) Community alternative treatment and
disposal systems as well as public
water and sewer service will not be
permitted in the University Lake
watershed except to address a public
health emergency as determined by
the Orange County Health Department.
A_ communit alternative system is
aoy system serving more than one
wastewater sources and neither owned
nor operated by a u�blic entity. A
communit X alternative system,
including a community alternative
seRtic system, is designed to convey
effluent to surface water the land
surface or the soil subsurface via
direct discharge, sRray irrigation,
overland flow or nitrification
lines.
b) By April 30, 1991, studies will be
conducted to determine the
advisability of making public water
and sewer services available within
the watershed. In addition, a pilot
program for monitoring and
inspecting alternative treatment and
disposal systems as operated by the
Orange County Health Department will
be evaluated to determine the
advisability of permitting such
systems in the watershed.
c) Following receipt and review of the
above mentioned studies, a decision
will be made regarding the use
of alternative treatment and.
disposal systems and the
availability of public water and
sewer services in the watershed.
-i
•
0
145
6.25.7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities Recruired
University Lake Watershed (ULW) District]
Every principal use and every lot within a
subdivision shall be served by a water supply and
sewage disposal system that is adequate to
accommodate the needs of such use or subdivision
lot and that complies with all applicable
regulations of the Orange County Health Department.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, water supply
and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to
individual wells and on -site septic tank systems or
individual on -site alternative disposal systems.
"On- site" shall mean that no new treatment system
will be permitted where effluent disposal occurs on
a separate lot from the source of wastewater
generation. ReQair systems are 2ermitted on a
separate lot provided the Orange County Health
Department certifies that:
1. The residence or use has a failing systems and
2. There is not a suitable location for a reRair
� system on the same lot as the residence or
use.
The use of community alternative wastewater
disposal systems and public water and sewer service
is restricted as specified in Article 6.15.2.a. of
this Ordinance. No new septic tank systems or
individual alternative systems shall be located
within a designated stream buffer zone or within
one hundred (100) feet of a perennial or
intermittent stream as shown on the USGS quadrangle
maps for Orange County, whichever is the greater
distance.
************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE:
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
FILE: AMEXSEPT.DOC
146
0
0
L�
0
0
14'7
0 RANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29 1990
Action Agenda
Item # G -2-0-
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Article 22 - Definitions (Efficiency Apartment)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Amendment
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Scearbo ext.2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the
definition of "efficiency apartment" to allow flexibility as
to the location of such units.
BACKGROUND: Single -- family dwelling units may contain an efficiency
apartment. Current standards require that the
efficiency apartment be located within or attached to
the principal residence.
Planning Staff has encountered difficulty in
determining if an efficiency apartment is "attached" in
a manner which complies with the intent of the
ordinance. In one instance, it was requested that the
efficiency apartment be "attached" to the primary
residence via a 100 -foot long enclosed walkway.
The proposed amendment would allow an efficiency
apartment as a separate structure, provided that
size limitations are met to assure that the structure
is accessory to the principal residence.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment referred to the Planning Board for
recommendation.
.4�
148 0
•
149
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2
i
ORDINANCE: zoning Ordinance
REFERENCE: Article 22 - Definitions (Efficiency Apartment)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
BOCC X Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X High Middle Low
Comment :
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To amend the definition of an efficiency apartment in Article
22 to allow flexibility as to the location of such units.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
A single family dwelling unit with an efficiency apartment is
permitted by right in RB, AR, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R8, R13,
• LC1, NC2, CC3, EC5 and OI zoning districts.
By definition, the efficiency apartment must be located
within the single family residence and may not be detached
or separate from the principal residence. Planning staff has
interpreted an efficiency apartment to be "within a single -
.family residence ..." if it is connected to the principal
dwelling.
Planning Staff has encountered difficulty in determining if
an efficiency apartment is "attached" in a manner which
complies with the intent of the Ordinance. In one instance,
it was requested that the efficiency apartment be "attached"
to the primary residence via a 100 -foot long enclosed
walkway.
The proposed amendment would allow an efficiency apartment
as a separate structure, provided that the total area of the
unit did not exceed 25% of the area of the residence, with a
maximum size of 800 square feet. It is also required that
the efficiency unit remain in the same ownership as the
principal residence. Individual sale of the efficiency unit
or the primary residence, or expansion of the efficiency unit
in excess of the maximum allowable floor area would not be
permitted until the property was subdivided in accordance
with the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. No more than
one efficiency apartment is permitted on a lot.
The amendment would allow more flexibility in the location of
the efficiency apartment, yet through size restrictions,
150
assure that it remained accessory to the primary residence. 3
Furthermore, an appropriately- equipped unit as small as 750
square feet is considered accessible and usable by the
physically handicapped (based on N.C. Department of
Insurance, Engineering Division recommendations.)
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
Efficiency Apartment - An additional dwelling unit within a
single family residence that meets the following criteria:
1. The efficiency unit contains no more than 25% of the
gross floor area of the total dwelling.
2. The lot meets the minimum lot size requirements of the
zoning district in which it is located.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Efficiency Apartment - An additional dwelling unit accessory
to a single family residence that meets the following
criteria:
1. The efficiency unit contains no more than 25% of the
gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit but not
more than 800 square feet. Expansion of the floor area
beyond this limit will not be permitted unless the
property is subdivided in accordance with the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The lot meets the minimum lot size requirements of the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. The efficiency unit complies with the N.C. Residential
Building Code including minimum light /ventilation and
room sizes.
4. The efficiency unit is accessory to the principal
dwelling unit and may be attached or detached.
5. The efficiency unit is provided with an approved water
supply and sanitary facilities.
6. The.efficiency unit remains in the same ownership as the
primary residence.
There shall be no more than one (1) efficiency apartment,
whether detached or attached, on any lot.
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review
Committee recommended approval of the proposed amendment on
April 4, 1990.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
C
`. &II
• O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29- 1990
Action Agenda
Item # 14- I -�
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
Secion II - Definitions (Subdivision)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendment Mary Scearbo ext. 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the
Subdivision Regulations to allow the combination or
recombination of non - conforming lots.
BACKGROUND: A subdivision is defined as any "division of a tract or
parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites, or
other divisions for the purpose of sale or building
development..." . Also included in the definition are
several exemptions, which include the combination, or
recombination of existing lots.
In order for a combination or recombination to be exempt
from the Subdivision Regulations, the resultant lots must
equal or exceed certain standards of the Subdivision
Regulations. Those standards include lot area, lot width,
access to a public road, and Health Department approval of
a sewage disposal site.
Non - conforming lots, by definition, do not meet these
requirements. Most non - conforming lots are so defined
because they do not meet existing standards for lot size.
Lot width is also a common non -- conformity.
The proposed amendment would allow non - conforming lots to
be combined or recombined if no additional non - conforming
aspects of the lots are created and the resultant lots, if
already developed, meet applicable impervious surface
standards.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment be referred to the Planning Board for
recommendation.
152 0
•
153
. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2
ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations
REFERENCE: Section II Definitions (Subdivision)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC
Public
!X Other: County Attorney
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To amend the Subdivision Regulations to allow the recombination of non-
conforming lots.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
A subdivision is defined as any "division of a tract or parcel of land
into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions for the
purpose of sale or building development..." Included in the definition
are several exemptions, or actions which are not considered a
subdivision. One exemption is the combination, or recombination of
existing lots. A combination is the merging of two or more lots into
one. A recombination is a reconfiguration of existing lot lines, with
no change in the number of lots.
If a division of property is not exempt, then it is subject to the
Subdivision Regulations. Subdivision of a non - conforming lot could not
be approved however, because lot standards would not be met.
In order for a combination or recombination to be exempt from the
Subdivision Regulations, the resultant lots must equal or exceed
certain standards of the subdivision regulations. Those standards
include lot area, lot width, access to a public road, and Health
department approval of a sewage disposal site.
Non - conforming lots, by definition, do not meet these requirements.
Most non - conforming lots are so defined because they do not meet
existing standards for lot size. Lot width is also a common non-
conformity.
Recently, a situation arose in which a property owner wished to
deed a 71strip to his neighbor to accommodate a driveway. The plat
• could not be recorded because each lot, both created prior to the
adoption of Subdivision Regulations, contained less than 40,000 square
154
3
feet in area. Even though recombination of the lots is desirable, the
existing ordinance provisions do not allow for the recordation of a
plat of recombination.
Similar situations have been encountered by Planning Staff in the past.
The proposed amendment would allow for non - conforming lots to be
combined or recombined as long as no additional non - conforming aspects
of the lots are created. In the example cited above, a plat of
recombination could be approved if structures on both lots still met
setback requirements, and impervious surface standards (if applicable)
were met.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROVISIONS:
SUBDIVISION - "Subdivision" means all divisions of a tract or parcel of
land into two or more lots, building sites, or other divisions for the
purpose of sale or building development (whether immediate or future)
and includes all division of land involving the dedication of a new
street or a change in existing streets, provided_ however, the
following is are not included within the definition and is are not
subject to any regulations pursuant to this part.
(1) The recombination or recombination of portions of previously
subdivided and recorded lots if the total number of lots is
not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the
standards of the County as shown in its Subdivision Regulations_
Resultant lots, as referred to herein, shall be deemed to equal
standards of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations if the
following standards are met:
a. No conforming lot standard becomes non - conforming as a result
of the recombination; and T
b.
Any applicable impervious surface standards are met; and
C. Access is provided to a public road, either direct, or by
recorded easement; and
C. A site suitable for sewage disposal is approved by the Orange
County Health Department. Where soil is unsuitable for
sewage disposal, or soil suitability is undetermined, a
notice of restricted development potential shall be submitted
and the lot(s) in question shall be so noted on the.plat.
(2) The division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres if no
street right -of -way dedication is involved_
(3) The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening
or opening streets
(4) The division of a tract in single ownership of the entire area of
which is no greater than two acres into not more than three lots,
0
E
4
if no street right -of -way dedication is involved and if the
resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County
as shown by its subdivision regulations.
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review Committee
considered the proposed amendment on April 4, 1990, and recommended
approval.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
L -J
E
jsb I i
•
Y L ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION TEXT AMENDMENT
(SECTION II - DEFINITION OF MINOR SUBDIVISION)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Amendment
15'7 1
Action Agenda
Item # N -1-6
PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No
INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the
definition of minor subdivision in Section II of the
Subdivision Regulations.
BACKGROUND: Section III -B of the Subdivision Regulations
(Classification of Subdivisions) was amended on September
5, 1989 to allow the creation of up to five (5) lots
during a twenty -four month period through the minor
subdivision review process. Prior to the September 5
amendment, four lots could be created from a lot -of-
record.
Revision to the definition of "subdivision, minor in
Section II of the Subdivision Regulations was overlooked
at that time. The proposed amendment will provide
consistency between Section II (Definitions) and Section
III -B (Classification of Subdivisions).
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment be referred to the Planning Board for
recommendation.
•
156 i
i
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
2 159
REFERENCE: SECTION II - DEFINITIONS
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board
-" BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle lx —Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To amend the definition of "subdivision, minor" in Section II
of the Subdivision Regulations to correspond with the
definition as previously amended in Section III -B.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
Section III -B of the Subdivision Regulations (Classification
of Subdivisions) was amended on September 5, 1989 to allow
the creation of up to five (5) lots during a twenty -four
month period through the minor subdivision review process.
Prior to the September 5 amendment, four lots could be
created from a lot -of- record.
Revision to the definition of "subdivision, minor" in
Section II of the Subdivision Regulations was overlooked at
that time. The proposed amendment will provide consistency
between Section II (Definitions) and Section III -B
(Classification of Subdivisions).
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
SUBDIVISION, MINOR - A division of a tract of land into no
more than four (4) lots which access to be provided either
from an existing public street or from a private road as
defined in the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
SUBDIVISION, MINOR - A division of a tract of land that does
not:
• (1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the
residual acreage, from any one (1) tract of land in
any twenty -four (24) month period;
(2) Dedicate or improve any new public street other 3 160
than widening an existing public street;
(3) Extend public water and /or sanitary sewerage
systems other than laterals to serve individual
lots; and
(4) Necessitate the installation of drainage
improvements which would require easements through
one (1) or more lots to serve other lots.
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review Committee
recommended approval of the proposed amendment on April 4,
1990.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
i *16fea-zi Ail# 4 3eF
i
.!
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date May 29- 1990
1 f. Fi, L
Actiom Xqenda
Item W-2- 1 b, 4, c
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
(SECTION III -C -5 APPEAL PROCEDURES {MINORS}
SECTION III -D -1 -e APPEAL PROCEDURES {MAJOR CONCEPT PLANS}
SECTION III --D -4 APPEAL PROCEDURES {MAJOR FINAL PLATS })
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup
Ext. 2580
Proposed Amendment
4/27/90 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 III of the Subdivision Regulations -
Application and Approval Procedures. The proposed
amendments include a time limit on appeals of minor
subdivisions, and major subdivision concept plans and
final plats.
BACKGROUND: Section III of the Subdivision Regulations contains
the application and approval procedures for major and
minor subdivisions. Currently, the provisions for
subdivision appeals do not include a time limit
between the Planning Board or Planning Department
decision on an application and when the appeal of that
decision may be requested.
A time limit on appeals is necessary since regulations
and policies affecting an application as well as
subdivision site conditions may change considerably
before the applicant's contention for an appeal may be
resolved. The Planning Staff recommends a time limit
L
1 6 � 2
of thirty (30) days to be consistent with the time
limits for appeals set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
amendments to Section III of the Subdivision
Regulations.
0
0
163 3
• PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations
REFERENCE: Section III -C -5 Appeal Procedures (minors)
Section III -D -1 -e Appeal Procedures (maj.concepts)
Section III -D -4 Appeal Procedures (major finals)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High ___X Middle Low
Comment: Minor Amendment
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To include a time limit for appeals of
Planning Board or Planning Department
decisions regarding minor subdivisions,
major subdivision concept plans or
final plats; and to correct an error
regarding Planning Department action
and the appeal procedure for major
• subdivision final plats.
IMPACTS /ISSUES: Section III of the Subdivision Regulations
contains the application and approval
procedures for major and minor subdivisions.
Currently the provisions for subdivision
appeals do not include a time limit between
the Planning Board or Planning Department
decision on an application and when the
appeal of that decision may be requested.
A time limit on appeals is necessary since
regulations and policies affecting an
application as well as subdivision site
conditions may change considerably before
the applicant's contention for an appeal may
be resolved. The Planning Staff recommends a
time limit of thirty (30) days to be
consistent with the time limits for appeals
set forth in -the Zoning Ordinance, such as
decisions of the Zoning Officer appealed to
the Board of Adjustment, and Board of
Adjustment decisions appealed to the
Superior Court. A period of thirty days
would also allow an applicant time to
investigate development alternatives, obtain
cost estimates, etc.
164 4
0
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
III. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
III -C. ARRroval Procedures for Minor Subdivisions
III -C -5. A eat Procedures
The decision of the Planning Department regarding a
minor subdivision application may be appealed to the
Planning Board. A written request for the a heal must
be-submitted-to the Planning and Ins ections Depart-
ment within thirty 30 da s after the decision on
the minor subdivision is made. If appealed, the
application shall be placed on the next regular
meeting agenda of the Planning Board. The Planning
Board shall have final approval authority, and, where
applicable, all Final Plats shall contain information
and /or conditions approved by the Planning Board.
III -D. ARproval Procedures for Ma or Subdivisions
III -D -1. Conte t Plan ARRroval
III- D -1 -e. Appeal Procedures
The decision of the Planning Board regarding a
Concept Plan may be appealed to the Board of
Commissioners. A written reauest for the aR2eal
must be submitted to the Plannin and Inspections
De artment within thirt y (30L-days following the
Plannin Board's decision on the Concept Plan.
If appealed, the Concept Plan shall be placed on
the next regular meeting agenda of the Board of
Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall
have final approval authority, and, where
applicable, all Concept Plans shall contain
information and /or conditions approved by the
L
0
0
165 5
• Board of Commissioners.
III -D -2. Preliminary Plat A royal
III -D -3. Final Plat Approval
III -D -4. Appeal_ Procedures
The decision of the Planning De artment
regarding a Final Plat applicaton may be appealed
to the Board of Commissioners. A written request
for the—aRpeal must be submitted to the Plannin
and Ins ections De artment within thirty 30 da s
after the decision on the Final Plat is made. If
appealed, the Final Plat shall be placed on the
next regular meeting agenda of the Bee-
-GeffiffilsSleae6a,-Plannina Board for a recommendation.
The Plannin Board's recommendation on the a Deal
will be presented to the Board of Commissioners at
the next available meeting. The Board of
Commissioners shall have final approval authority,
and, where applicable, all Final Plats shall
contain information and /or conditions approved by
the Board of Commissioners.
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: 4/4/90 No comments.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
E
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET
CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27516
April 27, 1990
Ms. Emily Crudup, ASLA
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
IGG
R �E�
Telephone (919) 968 -2700
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 proposed set of amendments
to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. I understand these
items are scheduled to be presented at the public hearing
May 29, 1990. Becuase these proposed amendments do not app ear to
have an impact on the Joint Planning Agreement, we have no comments
to offer at this time.
Thank you again for providing this information for our review.
Sincerely,
Kendal Brown
Planner
0
0
ORANGE COUNTY 167
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # N�3 °-
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION IV -B -5 -d FLAG LOTS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _ X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Amendment
Illustration of Flag Lots
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Scearbo ext. 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed
the criteria used in permitting the cre+
• BACKGROUND: Flag lots (see attached diagram) may
eliminate access onto an arterial or
irregularly shaped, contains slopes,
available for septic disposal.
amendment to expand
ation of flag lots.
be created only to
to use land which is
or has limited area
Many subdivisions submitted to the Planning Department
involve the creation of a private road easement to provide
access to a single lot. The total time and cost involved
in the subdivision approval process significantly
increase when new roads are required.
The proposed amendment would allow a flag lot to be
created if a road easement would not be used for access to
any other lot, and any future extension of the road would
be unlikely.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment referred to the Planning Board for
recommendation.
iss I •
E
r
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 161-4
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION IV -B -5 -d - FLAG LOTS
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High X Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To expand the criteria used in permitting the creation of flag lots-
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
Flag lots (see attached diagram) may be created only to eliminate
access onto an arterial or to use land which is irregularly shaped,
contains steep slopes which limit building area, or has limited area
available for septic disposal.
Many subdivisions submitted to the Planning Department involve the
creation of a private road easement to provide access to a single lot.
A road maintenance agreement must be prepared, and if the road is
more than 500 feet in length, it must be constructed to Orange County
private road standards. In some cases, the function of the "road" will
be only to serve as a driveway for a single residence.
The total time and cost involved in the subdivision approval process
significantly increase when new roads are required. Providing
assurance of legal access rights and proper road construction and
maintenance involves research and review by the applicant or his /her
attorney, as well County staff.
The proposed amendment would allow a flag lot to be created if a road
would not be needed for access to another lot, and future extension of
the road would be unlikely.
•
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
*IV- B -5 -d.
*Amended
7/5/88
Flag Lots
a) Intent
3
170
Orange County discourages and restricts forming flag
lots as defined in Section 11 -- Definitions) . A flag
lot shall be permitted if necessary to allow a property
owner reasonable use and benefit from his land or to
alleviate situations which would otherwise cause extreme
hardship for him.
b) Lot Standards
Flag lots are emeept allowed only:
(A) where necessary to eliminate access onto
arterials (See Figure 1);
(B) to reasonably utilize irregularly shaped land
(See Figure 2);
(C) to reasonably utilize land with difficult
topography (See Figure 3);
(D) to reasonably utilize land with limited sites
suitable for septic tank nitrification fields
(See Figure 4); or
LEZ where it is unlikely that a road created in
lieu of a flag lot would ever be extended or
otherwise needed to provide access to
adjoining parcels (See Figure 5.).
No flag lot will be allowed if it increases the number
of access points onto an arterial or collector street.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review Committee
considered the proposed amendment on April 4, 1.990 and recommended
approval.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
f
0
t
W
W
171
1
LOC4L STREET
FIGURE I }
SS RE��
�•ts 1
1
• L�_`�
i•a
• �'
srRFF r
( FIGURE S )
STREET
(Figure 5)
SEPTIC
TAN K
NITRIFIC
FI ELD
w
LU
cx
f—
N
4TREET
(
FIGURE 2 )
-33 -c-
STREET
(FIGURE y)
• i�
H
h
J
4
-
C
W
• K
171
1
LOC4L STREET
FIGURE I }
SS RE��
�•ts 1
1
• L�_`�
i•a
• �'
srRFF r
( FIGURE S )
STREET
(Figure 5)
SEPTIC
TAN K
NITRIFIC
FI ELD
w
LU
cx
f—
N
4TREET
(
FIGURE 2 )
-33 -c-
STREET
(FIGURE y)
• i�
1.'7 2
0
E
173 1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29, 1990
Action Agenda
�6
Item #
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION IV- B -3 -d -2 STREETS
SECTION V -D -6 -b CERTIFICATES OF DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ^X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Amendment
INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Extension 2582
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comments on proposed amendments to
. Sections IV- B -3 -d -2 and V- D- 6 -b -2,. and to add Section
V- D -6 -b -3 to the Subdivision Regulations. The
amendments would clarify access requirements for each
lot and provide for a Certificate of Dedication when
land is publicly dedicated.
BACKGROUND: When a private road is proposed within a subdivision,
the ordinance guarantees right of access by all lots
served by the road. The proposed amendment would
clarify that each lot would have access from a State,
municipal or private road.
When land in a subdivision is currently proposed for
public dedication, the County Commissioners accept
that dedication during approval of the Preliminary
Plan. The Resolution of Approval of the Preliminary
Plan states that the "County Commissioners accept the
irrevocable offer of dedication upon recordation
without maintenance responsibility ". The proposed
amendment would provide for a Certificate of
Acceptance of Dedication that would be placed on the
Final Plat. By acceptance of the Preliminary Plan
Resolution of Approval, the County Commissioners would
authorize the County Manager to sign the certificate
on the Final Plat. The certificate would be signed
prior to recordation of the plat.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment be referred to the Planning Board for
recommendation.
174 •
E
•
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
is
0
I � 5
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION IV- B -3 -d -2 STREETS
SECTION V -D -6 -b CERTIFICATES OF DEDICATION AND
MAINTENANCE
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: ^x` Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _x—Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To amend Section IV- B- 3 -d--2 and Section V- D- 6 -b(2) and to add
Section V- D- 6 -b(3) to the Subdivision Regulations. These
sections would clarify access requirements for each lot and
provide for a Certificate of Dedication when land is publicly
dedicated. The Certificate would be affixed to the final
plat and signed by the County Manager.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
When a private road is proposed within a subdivision, the
ordinance guarantees right of access by all lots served
by the road. The proposed amendment would clarify that
each lot would have access from a State, municipal or private
road.
When land in a subdivision is currently proposed for public
dedication, the County Commissioners accept that dedication
during approval of the Preliminary Plan. The Resolution of
Approval of the Preliminary Plan states that the "County
Commissioners accept the irrevocable offer of dedication upon
recordation without maintenance responsibility ". The
proposed amendment would provide for a Certificate of
Acceptance of Dedication that would be placed on the Final
Plat. By acceptance of the Preliminary Plan Resolution of
Approval, the County Commissioners would authorize the County
Manager to sign the certificate on the Final Plat. The
certificate would be signed prior to recordation of the plat.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
IV REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS
IV -B -3 Streets
IV- B -3 -d -2 A private road shall be required to meet
standards set by Orange County. Satisfactory
.proof that the standards are met will be required
by the County Manager or his appointed agents.
If a subdivision is to contain private roads, the
subdivider shall guarantee (a) a right of access
to any private road in the subdivision by all
lots served by the road; Lbj right of access for
the iproposed Rrivate road to a State- or
municipally-maintained road by-way-of-direct
access or other Private roads • and.� ( c )
perpetual maintenance of any private road ija-
servingthe subdivision at the standards set for
approval. See Section III -E -5 -k for additional
requirements.
V SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAT DRAWINGS
V -D Final Plat
V -D -6 Certificates and Endorsements to-ARRear on Final
Plat
V -D -6 -b Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance
(2) Where a Final Plat shows a private road
thereon, an instrument shall be recorded
contemporaneously with the recordation of
this approved Final Plat which guarantees
(a) right of access to any private road in
the subdivision by all lots served by the
road; b right of access for the Rroposed
rivate road to a State- or munici all -
maintained road b -wa =.of direct access or
other Private roads; and 4.b4. (c) maintenance
for any private road 4-f?- serving the
subdivision at the standards set for
approval. These guarantees of right of
access and maintenance of the subdivision
roads shall run with the land. Upon
recordation the Deed Book and Page Number of
the recorded document shall be referenced on
the Final Plat.
Owner: Date:
ra
E
11
4
1'77
A
3 The following shall be printpd on the final
' plat and shall be followed b the si nature
of the County Mana er:
"Oran e Count hereb accepts- for the use
of the general Public, without maintenance
responsibility, the offer of ublic
dedication of all public ri hts-of-wa
ublic easements ublic streets ublic
recreation areas ublic open s ace ublic
utilities and other publi c im rovements
shown on this lat."
County manager: Date:
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: April 4, 1990
The Ordinance Review Committee recommended approval without
change.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
0 BOCC REVIEW:
E
1p
0
i
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1
F
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 29, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # N
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT
SECTION III -C -1 - CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed amendment
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Scearbo Ext. 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732 -8181
Durham - 688 -7331
Mebane - 227 -2031
Chapel Hill - 967 -9251
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the
Subdivision Regulations to make Concept Plan submittal for
Minor Subdivisions optional instead of mandatory.
BACKGROUND: Minor Subdivision review and approval presently occurs in
two steps - Concept Plan and Final Plat approval.
The Concept Plan provides basic information about the
proposal, and enables staff to inform the applicant of the
specific requirements for Final Plat Approval. The Final
Plat is more detailed and specific, and is recorded after
approval by the Planning Staff.
The Concept Plan is of value because non - compliance with
the Subdivision Regulations can be identified and resolved.
The subdivider can also be informed of all conditions of
approval before a significant investment is made.
Some applicants have complained that the Concept Plan
requirement adds to the cost of the subdivision, without
providing benefits equal to the $60.00 cost. Planning Staff
proposes that the Concept Plan be optional rather than
mandatory. Submittal of the Concept Plan is advisable in
most cases. However, the choice could be left to the
applicant. The proposed amendment includes text which
informs the applicant of the benefits received through
Concept Plan approval.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed
amendment be referred to the Planning Board
for recommendation.
c
180
0
0
r
M
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 L-S
ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
REFERENCE: SECTION III -C -1 - CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High __X_ Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 29, 1990
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To make Concept Plan submittal for Minor Subdivisions optional instead
of mandatory.
IMPACTS /ISSUES:
Minor Subdivision review and approval presently occurs in two steps;
Concept Plan and Final Plat approval.
The Concept Plan provides basic information about the proposal, and
enables staff to inform the applicant of the specific requirements for
Final Plat approval. Survey of the property, approval of septic
disposal sites by Environmental Health, and preparation of documents
such as easements or Road Maintenance Agreements are not required at
this step.
The Final Plat is more detailed and specific, and is recorded after
approval by the Planning Staff. The- approval process may take several
weeks, depending on the number of changes needed to the Plat, and the
whether.or not the easement, road maintenance, or other documents
adequately carry out the standards of the Subdivision Regulations.
The Concept Plan is of value because any problems of non - compliance
with the Subdivision Regulations can be identified and resolved. The
a
subdivider can also be informed of all conditions of approval before
significant investment is made.
Some applicants have complained that the Concept Plan requirement adds
to the cost of the subdivision, without providing benefits equal to the
$60.00 cost. An example would be the creation of two lots from a
tract, with both lots having sufficient frontage on an existing State -
maintained road.
Planning Staff proposes that the Concept Plan be optional rather than
mandatory. Submittal of the Concept Plan is advisable in most cases.
However, the choice
textcould
which left
informstthe the
applPcantapplicant.
of theThe
benef�tsd
amendment includes
received through Concept Plan approval.
t
Yr
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS:
III -•C.l A roval Procedures for Minor Subdivision
III -C -1. Concept plan► #M2r=mrd Submission
Submittal of a Conce t Plan is not mandatory but is advisable
in most cases , partic3alarly where access easements are
needed. Conce t Plan review can reveal any aspects of the
ro'ect which are inconsistent with standards of the
Subdivision Regulations. In addition com lete information
on what will be recruired for Final Plat approval can be
provided through the review process. The review process also
permits reconsideration or redesign-of the project prior to
si nificant investment by the subdivider.
Prior to the submission
gohai 1 may submit to the
the Concept Plan of the
submitted, the Concept
with the specifications
forth in Section V -B of
of the Final Plat, the subdivider
Planning Department two (2) copies of
proposed minor subdivision. If
Plan shall be prepared in accordance
for Concept Plan drawings as set
this Ordinance.
� Cif P40n 5JA'*4 -i be ubm to Upon submission of .a
Concept PlanL the Planning Department •..hie shall review the
Concept Plan for general compliance with the requirements of
this Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, if applicable, and
shall, advise the subdivider or his /her authorized agent of
the regulations.pertaining to the proposed subdivision, of
any changes required in order to comply with the provisions
of this Ordinance, and the procedures to be followed in the
preparation and submission of the Final Plat.
The Planning Department shall complete its review of the
Concept Plan within fourteen (14) days'of submission by the
applicant. One (1) copy of the Concept Plan shall be
retained by the Planning Department, and one (1) copy shall
be returned to the subdivider or his /hex authorized agent.
ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review Committee
recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
0
t..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
'TOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
BEVERLY BLYTHE, CLERK TO THE COMMISSIONERS
DON POWELL, INFORMATION SERVICES SUPERVISOR
MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 25, 1990
MAY 251990 D
SUBJECT: (1) PETITION TO RE -NAME OLD N.C. 86
(2) EDITORIAL - HABITAT REQUEST
(3) PIPES COMPLAINT - HOUE NUMBERING IN GENERAL
COPIES:
I am providing two additional petitions concerning the
re- naming of Old N.C. 86 to Old Chapel Hill Road. The
comments provided in my May 23 memorandum stil apply.
An additional attachment is an editorial presented on WRAL -TV
on May 24. I don't know that any response is necessary, but
it is provided as information.
The final attachment is a letter sent to Chairman Carey by
Ross and Nancy Pipes. The concerns that they express are not
new, having been stated by others at public hearings on house
numbering. The quotation cited by the Pipes was inserted in
the public hearing /property owner notice at the request of
the Board. It came about as a result of citizens appearing at
public hearings and challenging the method rather than the
house nu- proposed to be assigned.
If you have questions, let me know.
�.lw�;' _. �'
,,
4.
R l �D
PETITION
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Wes t ^e uncler=_i(inec -I +- es:iclants o-f c3range County, hereby petition
you to permanently r-)amia, t-.h(e Old road -from Hillsborough tow-Ar'd
CI- pet dill OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rather than Cold N. C. O6-
WC= *car c..' ;er l3et i. t- i. on than Mlffibc:.r- ed addresses be 1 i. steel as
<NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD,
NAME ADDRESS
L' W Do
PETITION F
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
f County,, heraby petition
We, the Lmclersigne�� 0-T
t rmanentiv -n.-=krnc� :-,rj r-tDa,,j frcim Hi. l'-15;bC:)rCUgh tOWard
C.
OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rat-,her than Old N. E36.
WtF +Ltr-t;i-;c-r rjetitio,,j be listed z.s
<NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD.
NAME ADDRESS.
---------------------------
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 12000, Raleigh, N.C. 27605
DU
Editorial # 7172
Topic: Gravel vs. houses
Broadcast date: Thursday, 5/24/90
Tirne: 6:30 pill
Presented by Giles Lambertson, Editorial Director
Habitat. for Humanity, despite a rather pretentious name, is a
down-to-earth organization. It builds modest houses using
volunteer help and donated materials. It's an efficient labor of
love, a practical way to provide_ new housing for people who
can't afford it any other way.
But in Orange County, Habitat for Humanity is considered just.
another developer. The county planning board ruled so this week.
The hoard voted against let.ting the organizaLiion gravel roads
in its subdivision. .Against code, you know. In that subdivision,
7 houses already are up and 27 more are planned. But only 23 can
be built if money is diverted to asphalt..
The ruling strikes us as short- sighted. Or course, the narrow
view is what planning boards usually take. They focus or► arcane
codes and sLat.ules rather than looking- al. the bigger picture.
Well, a broader view is this: Habitat for Humanity is in
partnership with the county io provide affordable housing. if
p-ravelin- a surface helps that cause, it should he allowed.
There is nothing, after all, Lo stop the properly graded roadbed
from being paved later. Sometime after people are securely in
their new homes.
When the decision is reviewed next month, we hope Orange
County's comrnissioners see it this way.
Dissenting opinion is welcome. Please give name, address and permission for your opinion and name to be
used on the air. Respond to the address listed above or call Giles Lambertson at (919) 821- 8730.
May 23, 1990
Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
344 Warren Way
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Dear Mr. Carey:
W3,90FY
- '" :1,D] �o 2 �5 a
My wife and I live at 112 Bonaparte Drive (or Route 7, Box 112) in Hillsborough, and we own a business
located at 1506 E. Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. As Orange County business owners, residents, and
taxpayers, we want to make you aware of our opinion regarding the proposed House Numbering
Ordinance.
We strongly oppose the House Numbering Ordinance and the proposed change of our home address. We
consider this to be a totally unnecessary change. It will, if approved, represent a major inconvenience to
us and other county residents. This change will not be the simple transaction suggested by the attached
letter from Marvin Collins.
Furthermore, we do not like the tone of Mr. Collins' remarks. In inviting people to a public hearing, Mr.
Collins says:
"We welcome your comments. We ask however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns
regarding the assigned house number or street address."
As we interpret his remarks, Mr. Collins is telling us to like it or lump it. He says "we welcome," however,
"please confine your comments," people. We think Mr. Collins is saying he really doesn't care what we
think. With an attitude like this, we do not think Mr. Collins should be in the position of Orange County
Planning Director.
If we have no choice in the matter, why is the public hearing scheduled?
Three House Numbers in Three Years
We have lived in our house for 3 years. A little over a year ago, the U.S. Post Office notified us that they
were changing our address from 112 Bonaparte Drive, Hillsborough, to Route 7, Box 112, Hillsborough. If
you change our address to 302 Bonaparte, this will be our third address in three years.
it's Not as Easy as Promised
When the U.S. Post Office changed our address, their letter of notification told us how easy the change
would be. Now, about a year later, the Orange County Planning Department is singing the same tune.
But your proposed address change it is not as easy as you make it sound.
Your proposed changes will require a lot of time, expense, and aggravation on the part of residents. More
is involved than redirecting mail, which in itself requires time and expense in notifying hundreds of people,
creditors, merchants, and publishers of the change. Also involved is changing driver's licenses, car
registration, bank accounts, insurance documents, title documents, and home mortgage documents.
Residents will also have to include a note of explanation in their federal tax returns. The IRS computers
will assume that a different address implies the sale of one home and the purchase of another. Without
the forms the computer is looking for, an explanation will be required.
We know the proposed address change will result in confusion that will require time and expense to
unravel. We are still experiencing confusion from the last address change, as well as duplicate mailings of
a lot of material. For example, we received two U.S. Census forms, one addressed to 112 Bonaparte and
the other to Route 7, Box 112. I filled out both forms and included an explanation with both. Do you
know what happened? The U.S. Census Bureau sent a representative to our house. The census
representative said the Census Bureau was confused and /or didn't receive both of our forms. We had to
fill out a third form.
With all of the important issues of the day, we are disappointed that our elected officials waste their time
the time of government agencies that implement such changes, our time, and our money on matters like
the House Numbering Ordinance. Please stop this foolishness from happening.
This is the third letter we have sent to Orange County Commissioners in three years. We never received
an acknowledgement or reply to our previous letters. Soon, we may start taking names and voting out of
office Commissioners who are non - responsive to taxpayer concerns.
Qir y,
Pipes and Nancy A. Pipes
cc: Marvin Collins
Orange County Planning Director
. I
I
< � ccn 5 A
Dear Resident: 7 97
In April, 1987, following the conclusion of ,.ublic hearings, the Orange
County Board of Commissioners adopted a Numbering Ordinance which
authorizes the conversion of rural route a -id ,pox numbers to house numbers
for all Orange County addresses. to date rural postal routes have
been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and
businesses on single lots and all new Cubdivisions have been assigned
street addresses adhering to the county —:ride system. All addresses are
computer maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions
(voter registration, tax records, 911 emergence) as well as mail delivery
by the appointed postal service areas. the year all of Orange
County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be
a thing of the past.
Hillsborough Plural Route 7 is now being pi-eposed for conversion to house
numbers. On Tuesday, May 29, 1990, a public hearing will be held before
the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the accuracy of the
proposed house numbers assigned to- residences and buildings on Rural Route
7 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 route
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 1 inch
high.
:.The proposed , NEW ADDRESS which follows reflects the physical location of
your. residence at tax map reference: 4.42E..56
OLD ADDRESS
112 BONAPARTE DR
NEW ADDRESS
302 BONAPARTE DR
If'you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the public
hearing. We welcome your comments. 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.
Miriam Coleman (Extension 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578)
Orange County Planning Department
P, O. Box 8181 -- 306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031
Chapel Hill 967 -9251 Durham 688 -7331
Sincerely,
Marvin Collins
Orange County Planning Director
r.�
Y �
ORANGE'COUNTY
'MMORROW
PRESERVATION- PROGRESS- P EOPLE
DRAFT Environmental Impact Ordinance
Economic Development Commission Comments
May 29, 1990
As one representative of the Economic Development Commission on the
Environmental Impact Ordinance Review Committee, I would like to present
comments on behalf of EDC's representatives, John McKee and I.
The Economic Development Commission supports the need to have environmental
regulations to minimize environmental damage and realizes that it is
difficult to write an ordinance that will cover needed impacts while not
inhibiting appropriate economic development and non - residential tax base
expansion. We applaud the efforts of the Review Committee, but still feel
that some changes should be made to limit the -need for an additional layer
of governmental regulation.
Generally, the EDC is concerned that the Draft Environmental Impact
Ordinance (EIO) will adversely affect businesses coming into Orange County.
In order to increase Orange County's non - residential tax -base and the job
supply for residents, new and expanding businesses need to know
specifically what is required of them and when approval /denial decisions
will be made.
1) EDC suggests that the requirements now included in the EIO be
incorporated into existing local development ordinances to avoid an
additional level of regulation. This would best serve our citizens by not
lengthening the approval process. Delays cost money and severely limit the
number of companies willing to go through the approval process necessary to
locate in Orange County.
2) EDC suggests that the threshold for requiring an Environmental
Assessment (EA) be adjusted so that Planning Department staff could inform
builders /developers of EA requirements as well as approve projects within
15 days of their submittal. EDC also suggests that the Planning Staff have
broad authority to approve /accept the EIS.
3) The Environmental Impact Ordinance needs to be specific as to what would
be required by Orange County, in addition to any required federal or state
permits.
Comments given by the EDC on March 22, 1989 are still relevant to this EIO
review. A copy of these comments are available from the EDC office.
ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 712 • 110 N. CHURTON ST. • SAWYER BUILDING • HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278
(919) 732 -8181 (919) 968 -4501 (919) 688 -7331 (919) 227 -2031
2800 Brightside Dr.
Chapel Hill N.C. 27516
May 22, 1990
Orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough N.C. 27278
EXCLUSION FROM PROPOSED REZONING
My family and I moved to our new home in Bingham Township in
1988, with the intent of eventually earning a portion of our
income from the sale of goods produced in a Greenhouse. I
was unaware at that time of any plans by the county to
rezone our property from AR to R -1, and was only recently
informed of any such plans by your department.
Although on-- premise sales are not projected as being a large
percentage of total sales, they are nonetheless, an
essential part of public relations in a well managed
greenhouse operation.
I have been in the horticulture business for the past nine
years and purchased property in the county to insure that I
might increase my earning capability in the future, through
the production of.greenhouse and landscape materials.
I am confident that you will see my need to be granted an
exclusion from the proposed rezoning. I am aware that
neither of us knew of the others plan at the time the Land
Use Element was put into effect.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please
inform us of your decision.
Sincerely,
'd �.� %
Bob Gogg
n (erehce # �' 3S.. "C
Neal Littman
228 South Churton Street
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919- 732 -7568
May 29, 1990
Board of County Commissioners
Orange County
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Proposed Environmental Impact
ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
During your consideration of the proposed Environmental
Impact Ordinance please consider the changes proposed in this
letter. For the sake of clarity, the suggested additions to the
ordinance are in boldface print.
1) Please amend Section 2.3.5 so that it reads:
"Involves a land surface application wastewater
treatment system, within the Water Quality. Critical
Area of Water Supply Watersheds... "
As the ordinance is currently written, it could (and should) be
interpreted to include conventional septic systems as "land
application wastewater treatment systems] ". This should not be
the intent of the ordinance.
2) Please amend Section 3.1.5 so that it reads:
"...If significant impacts are identified, then the
Planning Department shall issue a Finding of Significant
Impact and shall recommend to the Board of Commissioners
that they require that an Environmental Impact Statement
be prepared. If, upon issuance of the Finding of
Significant Impact by the Planning Department, the
applicant does not voluntarily agree to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement, then the Board of
Commissioners shall consider the recommendation of the
Planning Department at their next regularly scheduled
meeting. If the Board of Commissioners concurs in the
Finding of Significant Impact by the Planning
Department, no further consideration of the project
application shall occur until the completion of the
t-
Page Two: Proposed EIS
Environmental Impact Statement by the applicant."
The requirement that an applicant prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement will impose a substantial financial burden on the
economic viability of a proposed project. while a useful public
tool in terms of protecting the environment, the Environmental
Impact Statement will not be frequently prepared because of its
cost in both time and money. Many projects that are feasible
with only an Environmental Assessment may not be economically
viable if an Environmental Impact Statement is required. This
decision is one that inherently involves analysis of some
subjective criteria. The ultimate and final decision to require
the Environmental Impact Statement should not be made without
having protection from an arbitrary or inappropriate interpretation
of information by the Planning Department staff.
Thank you for your consideration of these important aspects
of the proposed ordinance.
NL:ck
sincerely,
W
Neal Littman
PETITION
TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
We, the undersignes resiJents 04 Orange County, hereby petition
yoo to permanently name the w:d rcad from Hillsborough toward
Chapel Hill OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD rather than Old N. C. 06.
We further petition that numKored addressea be listed as
{NUMBER> OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD.
NAME
ADDRESS
"Any, eel
_ ______-
--------------------------------------------------r- ------
__-____-______-____'_________'__-_________________ _ /
--------------------------------------------------- ��\"- ^~
�_____________
------------------------------------------------ ______________
---------------------------------------------------------------
~°� '--- -'- .-_----____--___-'�-___'-_______'_'__�-_-_____-__'
____________ ________
��� ____-___--_____-_'-_-_______-____-__________-_____-_____--_-_
Notes for. ..... .. . ...
•
Cornwallis
Property Owners Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 1 013, Mffsborough, NC 2 72 78
Marvin Collins
Orange County Planning and Inspections Department.
Hillsborough, NC 27278'
Dear Mr. Collins;
The residents of Cornwallis Hills living on the following six roads
(Lafayette Drive, Nutbush Court, Bonaparte Drive, Smallwood Court,
Pointe Place, and Twisted Court) have recently received letters
proposing new addresses as part of the county -wide renumbering
process. Considering the following facts:
- Cornwallis Hills already has logically assigned house numbers
throughout the subdivision,
- The currently assigned numbers leave gaps wherever .a new house
could be built, and the covenants controlling development within
Cornwallis Hills restrict the density of housing any further,
-- The proposed system contains unavoidable anomalies because of
roads turning between EW and NS orientation, so the proposed new
system will not make it any easier for 911 emergency teams or
the post office to locate a particular address,
- Cornwallis Hills is so close to Old 86, the current addresses in
question (between 100 and 120), are almost the same as most of
the new ones that have been proposed,
We respectfully request that:
- The house numbers on these roads not be changed from the current
assignments.
Two streets within the development are newly built and already
have addresses assigned from the new system and should keep them;
any other new streets would be assigned per the new guidelines.
Of the six streets listed above, Lafayette Drive is not yet
completely developed, and two new houses have already been
assigned new addresses based on the new system; these houses and
all future houses would also be numbered based on the new system.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any
questions, I can be reached at 732 - -6540.
Sincerely,
-�Zzj <Z� '�W�
Mark W. Johnson
President
Cornwallis Hills Property Owners Association
PAUL E. PEARSON, PASE-
NEW HOPE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
P.O. BOX 609 * HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH
CAROLINA 27276
May 29, 1990
Orange County Board of- Commissioners
Hillsborough, N.0 27278
Dear Sirs:
PHONE: 919- 732 -7262
I am pastor of New Hope Church of the Nazarene. Our property
is eight acres on NC 86S next to the Duke Power Line right -of-
way.
Mr. Roger Dale Stephens has plans to develope THE WOODS mobile
home park in our vicinity. We are supportive of his endeavors.
First, I have viewed the plans and discussed with Mr. Stephens
the project. Secondly, having been in his present mobile home
park, WOODS EDGE, on numerous occasions I have found it to be
consistently clean and neat with good facilities for the residents
of the park. Based upon what he has done with WOODS EDGE we are
confident that THE WOODS will be just as good.
Because of previous commitments I am unable to be present for
this meeting. May this letter suffice to indicate our support
of Mr. Stephens and his planned development of THE WOODS.
Sin rely, f-
Paul E. Pearson, pastor
"Our Church Can Be Your Home"
6000 5vov)a& •
a.��ov.7,YlG� �R- S�e��"1eYi5
oultl ��rs� l�Ke -%a *lav,y 4),- $o"Lra -�Q%r J
i ro} able �o 6e-
-d rer�c� P Y e P Bore c� g}-�vn end • °a/"'
1 �r Ylee -�,Y1� V�
ve�,Age p-" a•no
M ,horn e � y Ske ve- i�e� \,�n anc\
y M and 1�ave
w►e po�rK , N�11�5aoro�oJln. y
po ku' ale 1s+o �a+' - 'k; s `Fact
�x ears . �
�D`r over 5 y ves +-
�VeS the (7.f1 ,,v1 ,\�Ue pry,5?ecYwe
ory ��S Y��
,le \norfneg or �v ati1e�5
have -eceW ed O-Y'
�ee� iina�' Tno6 iCa\ n \o�h�ry �e
` �,.�o.� o n a 5} eYeo+`t P 8
ur,�eServec� �,ad �eP }o ,eve apv,lvti. then yo�1.
-�hCL �s a \rhos} ��poss�b
o,r- �- ra.� \er park�� ,most" PeoP�e
ynevA%o`n 'r'n�b� \� \norvti2 1
�� b, \e hOV''125
'�rls�av,�` See do,,rk ,r,new,-la\
Y � t or,
In need o5 5�,�no� A
\ o a s e a-''''
� �O \e,.y1c�
AAn ON- 5 at. o
�, 3�ac-k ex -
_
4k Os
�n e c\ ev e\o ce
�
fed
1n o►
•I e
e r'► er,
�I ;image �s JAI�kt�
A-o o- os��1�e Or) 4Z
.-;X-
�e c". \\
c�,10.Y1
Re �\ a� aons o.\ oYae. �I• � ` n o� ,�,\ a�,� -a v �n g
� S ov�V.\A �'e °1
)Q '\GS ec o� -V
e�\ c�e5� ,nec� fro Je. c�C S pv�c� �"'
co ry\ba'n e.c�
Y,noba e_ ome_
,rnv,,na e,mera�" o �v7
Wa l n C�nav�R
�lnca r%
�5 °r
�ee1 �e l�,ev,s %cis �evelo�ec�
�.� -. �. µAc S p
eonee, F
-V oY\\ riee+s
Wk1G� rl b x N d I
� e b�� a \so �, es 'M 0.`n
\ace_ � 1�v� �ov'
a sa�e<, c\ ern aw,d e.ri Jo`��le �
reSN(Aev+5,
rem^ 'r'"' ber �rin0.�' �olQ� 1 e_ ho vole s,
�e 1 �,�o,� Q,�,�r oYe a.nd
off" Qre bec.o� „nc, vr►
�he��neY vie. \��,� ,� or �' � j �..�,1 �oY ��nose
mec ess' ' I
XYIO,C-e- O-�1 _- o �,.' CA` a sC
Q�� ,n OLYC � ��\ � }� 1 ', on e,
�eo�1e~ who row �-
�n�s C. c\aVe�s� P
CL hota5e.
�0.,rrt yes
�arne y ~T1rte�e are. r,'�vr``� r'ecisov"►S
'�r1C0'r'r12.5 av-aU re- �ar2e -S -
rr,ob�\e_ �no,rne b.��- rnos� peOple<
,�� because 1-hey axe .rk,
C) Y-\ ct home. o� neur o�'n•
' n� •res�"av� m�X-�u,re, o`� F eon \e,
re 5� c\ e_�'c 5 0.� e oavl
e °J
h,, e. Co co�Iav
A -here awe+ S�v��e��s�
ak��s �
�eac�ne,rs� ,nv,,,r5es, A11 0� v,Jh�e+h
5M�
ode ,-'n °
ro
Q,reas,
�pav ec\ s �Q�-e 5e,r v � e � � S�''rr' v� t � U
�aua,r,
�o
oAeA ��Oe 'r s, �oY a
�e,
�s� bas ke- -b ca Coo-,mss ' 1a,r�ew o Places
Gore C(5 �� sa.�
�e�
M w�e �
y
vv� ern, C)r, e
c�eve haS �ro�/rc�eci us
a e.A T vr� e►n`i' `�
°� ab1e er,V1YO�
Q 'S c�-Fe, cl e oLn
�-a1�e �'�► e lam'
A-o �-l� �s re V e5� s
i/ til'1 Gtt/L T O�vl'i, 11 es +,D
QW�n �e,� �orrie5 avIa
a+ic1
O i;6.T - a--� � a � VN3
`r2o..c� 1 ' ' S IGN e�iCi• I�a
J,
"IA- '5-
Air,Y SAL
AN 'COUNTY
�RAsr
M
PfOPL
PRESEpVATION•PPOOPESS•E
Impact ordinance
DRAFT Environmental
pmentlCommiss on Comments
Economic D May 29, 1990
I would like to present
esentative of the Economic Do�mitteent Commission on the
As one repr act Ordinance Review C
Environmental Imp
comments on behalf of EDC's representatives, John McKee and •environmental
orts the need to have
The Economic Development Commission "Ld ever needed impacts while not
regulations
to minimize environmental daace and realizes that it �s base
difficult to write an ordinance that will but still feel
appropriate economic develo henReviewnCommittee�,tia ti
inhibiting p laud the efforts of
expansion. We app
that some changes should be made to limit the -need for an additional ay
of governmental regulation.
into Orange county.
the EDC is concerned that tbuspne�sesncomingetal impact the job
Generally, will adversely affect
Ordinance (EIO) �s non - residential tax -base an
new and expanding businesses need to know
In ordefororesidents,Onew. County approval/denial decisions
supply what is required of them and when app
specifically
will be made. be
suggests that the requirements n °mentcordinanceshtoEavo d as b not
1) EDC local develop
incorporated into existing This would best serve our citizens the
additional level of rovallprocess. Delays cost money
lengthening the app o through the approval process necessary to
number of companies will
to g
locate in Orange County. requiring an Environmental
adjust ed so that Planning Department staff could inform
2) EDC suggests that t
he threshold for req well as approve projects within
Assessment (EA) a requirements as Staff have
builders /developers of EA EDc also suggests that the Planning
15 days of their submittal. approve /accept the EIS.
broad authority ecific as to what would
3) The Environmental Impact ordinance needs to be required federal
be required by or state
Orange County, in addition to any
permits. o this E10
1989 are still relevant t
Comments given by the EDC on March 22,
0 ilable from the EDC office.
review. A copy of these comments are ava
Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO N.C. 27278
ORANGE COUNT HILLSBOROUGH, 919) 227 -2031
712 � 110 N. CHURTON ST' ' SAWYER BUILDING
P.O. BOX (919) 968 4501 (919)688-7331.
(919) 732 -8181
II
ORANGE COUNTY
RRESEPV A'1OV.PROGRE55•PEOPIE
County Board of Commissioners
Memorandum to : Orange .-,
John McKee, Chair )-
From: Economic Development commission
March 22, 1989
Date:
Environmental Impact Ordinance
Subject:
The Economic Development Commission believes that the
T key p
following considerations can add a We
decision process about whether or not the proposed
act ordinance should be implemented. contain, or can
Environmental Imp ordinances already
believe that our existing in, sufficient another ordinance.
icient protection against
be amended to conta
environmental hazards without adding
of the County Environmental earlie$odraftss Of the
The Chair which consid
in an informal session ,� a of thing is for major
that this type We
proposed ardinanceederal, which impact on a local area."
projects, usually
believe this is true•
local
We believe that reasonable thresholds wouldeaddresstany e
W development ordinances which which are already
existing
ed at the state or federal level. This method would
concerns over and above those matters would be
address added protection needed, and Impact
give the County any than the proposed Environmental
easier to administer
Ordinance.
affected by
negatively
approval Process. Our efforts are
EDC recruitment efforts would e n companies, many
additional layers of theized, non - polluting an is
directed toward medium- a typical such Company
limited capital. A process which
of which will be research-based. ive y
young and has comp on time, and which is addressing a
makes excessive demands appear a most
moot problem, will make this county a
unattractive location.
. . . 2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C M O GHO, N C 27278
ORANGE COUNTY (919) 227.2031
• 110 N. CHURTON ST. • SAWYER BUI( DIIN�Gg_73I31L
P.O. SOX 712 (919) 968 -4501
(919) 732-8181
A'�,,
1
s.
Board of Commissioners
March 22, 1989
Page 2
An important criteria in site selection is the clarity of the
ordinances, and procedures for approval, and the speed by
which these processes can be accomplished. Often this factor
alone determines the feasibility of locating a facility in a
rapidly changing market, and is a primary reason why some
counties are more favored than others.
The EDC believes we need to streamline the process of
approval without sacrificing protection against environmental
damage. The EDC Strategic Plan has as one of its twelve
major challenge areas the need to streamline regulations. We
need to:
1. Shorten the review process, not lengthen it.
2. Ensure environmental protection through the
existing ordinances.
Regarding environmental impacts, we believe it is important
as a first step to agree on what hazards we want to protect
against that are not Already addressed in the existing local
or state or federal ordinances. The second step would then
be to prepare amendments, if needed, to the existing
ordinances. Our attached specific comments on the proposed
ordinance are themselves not entirely moot, because we
believe some of the language in the proposed ordinance may be
transferable into existing ordinances should the need for
such provisions be demonstrated.
We stand ready to cooperate with the Manager's Office, the
Planning Board, the Environmental Affairs Board, and other
groups which may be involved in addressing the need for
protection against negative environmental impacts of
development.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION COMMENTS
March 22, 1989
Genes 1 Points .
1. Pur ose. The overriding consideration is this question:
What does this proposed ordinance protect against that our
existing local ordinances and State laws do not cover? or
cannot cover? If certain minor amendments are necessary to
our local development ordinances, then those should be made
on their merit.
2. Costs. Implementing the ordinance will impose costs on
the County.for professional staff and costs on property
owners (which will be passed on to citizens) both for
preparing the statements and because of the delays built into
the process. The time delays as spelled out in the ordinance
only serve to prolong an already long and tedious process and
delays cost money.
Need for Timetable. Each step in the process requires a
3.
clear timetable for action by County Staff and /or elected
officials.
4. Is reall a "moor Lgj -ects ordinance "? The
this
i
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 2
ordinance is written as though most projects were of the
nature of a massive TVA project, yet it covers everything
over two acres or which grades 40,000 square feet or more.
These are ridiculously low thresholds for "major projects ".
5. This ordinance will have an entirely negative effect on
economic development in the county, adding yet another layer
of delay and hassle and uncertainly. Quality economic
development prospects acknowledge the benefits of good zoning
and planning and are ready to comply. An ordinance with no
clear purpose except delay, and which relies too often on
value judgments, serves only to obstruct development, both
good and bad.
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 3
DETAILED POINTS
Section 2. ARP licabilit
2.2.1 If a developer had a 100 acre (or a 2.1 acre) site
which he was splitting into lots of less than 2 acres, would
each individual lot be exempted? It seems to hang on what
constitutes a "project ", i.e. whether it is the parcel size
of the individual end product or the 11, arting size of the
parcel. The ordinance needs'to be clearer on this point.
2.1.2 and 2.1.3 What does "routine" mean?
Section 2.2. Environmental Assessment.
This layer is not needed. We believe most applications would
result in a FONSI. We will need extra professional staff to
review projects. (See point above regarding costs.)
Section 2.2 .3 Require SlAding in excess of 40,000 sn. feet,
etc. We believe 40,000 square feet is too small an area to
be the threshold.
Section 2.2.4 "and the like" - This is vague. Does it
include a farmer clearing land and grading for a pasture?
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 4
Section 2.2.7 (b). Sites listed in inventories. We question
the legal status of these inventories, especially when value
judgements are involved, and we question whether this could
or should apply to both public and private land.
Section 2.2.7 (c) "Land with slopes in excess of 25 %, etc."
What is the reason for this? Site plans and erosion control
measures are already required.
Section 2.2.7 (Last ParagraRh) "...the Planning Department
shall issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)."
When? Needs a deadline; we suggest two weeks is sufficient.
Section 2.3 Environmental Impact Statement.
Section 2.3.4: "Disturbs any site identified in an inventory
of sites, etc." We believe this should apply only to items in
the public domain. What does "disturb" mean? If an historic
site shows 150 acres on its deed and the adjacent site is 150
acres also, a development on the adjacent site is compelled
to have an Environmental Impact Statement even if it is 3/4
mile away from the historic focal point. It would be better
to specify a linear distance from the historic focal point.
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 5.
Section 3. Review of environmental documents
Section 3.1.1 "The County Planning Department shall transmit
to the state clearinghouse..." This section needs a time
table. The document should be transmitted within one week
of receipt.
Section 3.1.1 Third line frbm the end: "the Planning
Department shall transmit with the Environmental Impact
Statement any additional information..."
Replace "shall" with "may ", and delete "with the
Environmental Impact Statement."
The County Planning Department should transmit the document
to the state according to a timetable (immediately or within
one week) and if there are any other documents they wish to
transmit they should do that later, i.e. not hold up
transmission of the documents to the state while they
assemble various information they would like to include.
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 6
Section 4. Technical Requirements for an Environmental
Impact Statement
Section 4.1 "...should inform decision makers and the public
of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize
adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the environment."
This is the function of professional staff. It is an absurd
requirement for the applicant.
section 4.2 "preparer should use a format... and clear
presentation of all alternatives..." This is nonsense.
Section 4.2.1 Format and Content "Summary. An adequate and
accurate summary of the statement stressing the major
conclusions, areas of controversy, issues to be resolved.
The summary shall also list all federal, state, and local
permits, licenses, certifications, and other approvals which
must be obtained in implementing proposal..."
This is nonsense: there is no controversy until one arises.
This requires the preparer to read many people's minds.
"and other approvals" - it continues to be a question as to
what is required of a developer in Orange County. How can a
developer know this (what other approvals) at the beginning
of the process?
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 7
Section 4.2.1 (e) Alternatives including proposed activity.
The basic premise is wrong, subjective; there is no end to
it. Delete all of this section, i.e. 4.2.1 (e)(1) -
4.2.1(e)(9).
Section 5. Enforcement
5.2.1 "Construction or Installation of any major
development r�ct Shall Not be Commenced Until Sixty (60)
Days..."
If there is a FONSI, the project should be able to start
immediately.
5.2.3 "other governmental sanction ". what does this mean?
Reference to last word of the sentence: "adequate" Should be
replaced with "as complete ". Once the statement is a
complete statement, action should be permitted unless there
is to be a public hearing. (See Section 3.1.2.) The permit
process has its own separate timetable.
M
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 8
Section 6 - Definitions.
(10) Definition of "major development project" This
definition is inadequate. "Shall include but is not limited
to" leaves to someone's discretion what should be deemed a
"major development project" - and this could be any project
of 2 acres or more - a ridiculous threshold.
(11) Public Water Supply. Under this definition Orange
Alamance Water System is not a public water supply.
(16) Water Supply Watershed and Water Quality Control Areas.
'these definitions should reference the Land Use Plan, and the
definitions should be quoted verbatim from the Land Use Plan.
E.I. Ordinance, EDC Comments
March 22, 1989
Page 9
Application Forms
I. Site Information
I.D Existing traffic conditions including road name,
classification, current volume of traffic, future volume of
traffic. Comment: The Planning Department should know this
better than a developer.
I.E(1) Type of Resource - What does "resource" mean?
II.A.4 and 5. Square Footage to be Graded. Unattached
residential is excluded. Is this intended?
II.B.3 "Will the project involve a land application system
for treatment of waste water ?"
Does this include roof or parking lot run -off?
II.C.2 Traffic Impact We question whether these are
environmental impacts.
II.C.3 Visual Impacts These are not environmental impacts.
II.C.5(1)a. "Impact on Resource from Proposed Development"
What is meant by "resource "?