Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-12-2006-5lORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting. Date: December 12, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. ~j ~' _ ` . SUBJECT: Gilmour Zoning Atlas Amendment~(Rezoning) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Draft Minutes -Nov. 20, 2006 QPH 2. 'Application Materials 3. Notes from Dec. 6, 2006 PB Meeting INFORMATION CONTAGT: Michael Harvey, Planner II, 245-2607 Robert Davis, Planner III, 245-2580 PURPOSE: To consider approval of a petition by Brian and Lydia Gilmour to rezone a portion of their property from Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR). BACKGROUND: At the November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing, a petition by Brian and Lydia Gilmour to rezone a portion of their property from Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR) was presented. The Gilmour's own approximately 17 acres located at 6500 Yarborough Road (TMBL 3.54..2A, PIN 9833344614). The EC-5 portion of the. Gilmour's property contains 0.9 acres and is undeveloped. In reviewing the history of the property's use with the applicant, staff determined that there has never been a commercial land use on the property. According to the applicants, they have no intention or interest in developing a commercial use on their property and would like to have the EC-5 portion of their property rezoned to AR. No comments were received from the public on this item. The Planning Board considered this item at their meeting on December 6, 2006 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No County financial impact at this time with human resources being used from existing departmental staff. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning request. DRAFT MATES a 1 DRAFT 2 MINUTES 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 AND 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 7 November 20, 2006 8 7:30 p.m. 9 10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board 11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. 12 Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. 13 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie 15 Foushee, Moses Carey, Jr., and Alice M. Gordon 16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis 17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill 18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Rod Visser, and Deputy Clerk to 19 the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Crauford 21 Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, .Sam Lasris, Renee Price-Saunders, Judith Wegner, and Jeffrey 22 Schmitt 23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Dobyns, Bernadette Pelissier, Joel 24 Knight, Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Brian Crawford 25 26 27 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT 28 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE 29 30 31 , 32 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR 33 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. He asked Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan to 34 preside over the public hearing. 35 36 37 B. PUBLIC CHARGE 38 The Planning Board Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 39 40 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 41 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there will be six public hearing items on this 42 agenda. There are also four informational items. 43 ~ Craig Benedict introduced Planner Michael Harvey to address the first item. 44 45~ 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Request by Brian and Lydia Gilmour to rezone a portion of 46 their property at 6500 Yarborough Road (TMBL 3.54.2A) from Existing Commercial-V (EC- 47 5) to Agricultural Residential (AR). 48 49 Planner Michael Harvey introduced this item. He said that EC-5 was created at the advent 50 of comprehensive Countywide zoning in an effort to make existing. commercial operations conform 51 to ordinance requirements. Mr. Gilmour approached staff about the possibility of subdividing his 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Dl~:.AFT MINUTES 2 property, and it was discovered that a portion of the property was zoned EC-5. Mr. Gilmour expressed concern and shock since there is no commercial operation on the property. Staff did research and could not determine why a portion of this property was ever zoned EC-5, as there has never been a commercial operation to begin with. In talking with a neighbor, staff was informed today that she believes that the previous owner in the early `80's had requested to operate a gunsmith and gun shop operation on the property. Staff believes that an EC-5 was designed in order to allow that business to develop, and it was not developed. Staff recommended that Mr. Gilmour submit a zoning atlas amendment to correct the problem. Staff is recommending that this property be rezoned to AR. Chair Jacobs argued that a pasture is not vacant property. He suggested saying that it is undeveloped instead of vacant because "vacant" is a real estate term. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer the proposed rezoning request to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Hillsborough and Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Report: A Town of Hillsborough and Orange County Steering Committee has worked for the past year with the assistance of planning consultants to prepare the Strategic Growth Plan. The Plan is intended to clarify the most desirable rate, timing, and location for growth occurring. over the next 20 years within and around the Town of Hillsborough. Jay Bryan recognized Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mike Gering, who was in attendance. Craig Benedict recognized Clarion Associates, who will do a PowerPoint presentation. Also, Hillsborough Planning Director Margaret Hauth was in attendance. This is a joint project with the Town of Hillsborough that was partially funded by Orange County and Hillsborough about a year ago. A steering committee was formed to develop recommendations, which are included. The Town of Hillsborough will be having a public hearing a week from this meeting starting at 6:30 p.m. at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom. Roger Walden from Clarion Associates gave a PowerPoint presentation. HILLSBOROUGH-ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN Building on Past and Current Work - Orange and Hillsborough Land Use Plans - 2001 Water-Sewer Boundary Agreement - Hillsborough Vision 2010 - 2005 Urban Transition Task Force - Existing Interlocal Agreement - Churton Street Corridor Study - TDR Study Goals of the Plan - Preserve and Enhance Core Areas - Preserve Cultural and Natural Resources - Coordinate Growth with Water/Sewer - Grow in a Fiscally Responsible Way 3 DRAFT MINUTES ~ 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 - Keep Businesses Healthy - Assure Continuity in Public Services Maps -Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement, Planning Area, Regional Context Water Constraints - 3 MGD Now, Can Increase to 4.5 MGD - Current Demand, 1.9 MGD - Demand Will Reach 3.0 MGD in 2009 - With Expanded Capacity, Can Accommodate Additional Development Equivalent to 1,900 Dwellings and 1.65 Million Square Feet Non-Residential Transportation Constraints - Limited Opportunity for New Roads - Churton Street Over-Capacity - Destinations are South and East - Any Additional Residential Development North of Downtown Makes Problem Worse Map -Developable Land Alternative Scenarios - Status Quo - Planning Emphasis - Market Realities - Unconstrained Growth Public Comment There were informal opportunities for public comment at Hillsborough Hog Day and a Last Friday event. The two formal public hearings are tonight and next week. Main Conclusions - Focus Residential Growth to the South - Pull in Utility Service/Annexation Areas - Take Advantage of Interstate Access - Consider Growth Drivers to the South - Encourage Mixed-Use Development - Coordinate with Existing SE Rural Buffer Map -Chapel Hill/Carrboro Rural Buffer Roger Waldon said that one of the key things to make this happen is to rethink the interlocal agreements -how Hillsborough and Orange County .are sharing interests in jurisdiction in these areas. Craig Benedict took over the presentation at this point. He pointed out a map of the new annexation boundary (shown in purple). Hillsborough is considering either abandoning or exchanging some of the extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is in the Eno River Critical Area for new extraterritorial jurisdiction in various sections within its existing limits. The orange area is a Hillsborough transition area. He pointed out other parts of the map that would be part of the interlocal agreement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 DRAFT ML[~IT_TTES 4 Craig Benedict said that this plan is in two phases. The first phase is the master plan on jurisdictional issues. Phase two would be the different planning areas around Hillsborough and what would be the exact use. Summary - Stay Within Water Constraints - . Define a Firm Service Area/Annexation Line - Minimize Residential Growth to the North - Adjust Land Use Plans - Execute Interlocal Agreement 5 Commissioner Gordon asked if the Planning Board has looked at this and Craig Benedict said yes, that at every meeting of the Planning Board, there are reports on the various advisory boards. Commissioner Carey asked some clarifying .questions about the map with interlocal agreement recommendations and Craig Benedict answered. Judith Wegner asked about the characteristics of the land (could not hear her). Craig Benedict repeated her question: What is the rationale for the urban service line within which occurs the likelihood of public water and sewer and are there.characteristics of the central Orange rural buffer that would lead it not to be serviced by public water and sewer? He said that the urban service line is all that could be serviced by existing public water supplies that Hillsborough has at this point. There are a lot of critical watershed areas along the western portion -Upper Eno, Seven Mile Creek -and there are a lot of holdings of environmental lands to the south. These areas have less development potential and would be of lower density. Renee Price-Saunders asked about the possibility of increasing the capacity from 3 million gallons a day to 4.5 million gallons a day. Margaret Hauth said that the Town owns additional land around the existing West Fork reservoir, and if the spillway is raised, along with other improvements, the capacity can be increased. This is a capital expense that the Town has planned for. Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the urbanizing areas and Craig Benedict answered. In general, the areas that will be developed first are the ones closer in to the urban area. Michelle Kempinski asked for clarification on what is coming back to the Planning Board. Craig Benedict said that tonight's item is the booklet with statistics, etc. and boundary lines. What will not be part of the. determining factor in the next couple of months is land uses in the area. He said that the areas noted as Hillsborough Urbanizing and Orange County Urbanizing are also potential areas for transfer of development rights (TDR). Several other clarifying questions were asked by the Planning Board members and answered by Craig Benedict. Commissioner Gordon made reference to phase 1 and 2 and said that she did not see anything about phases in the materials. Craig Benedict said that the abstract has a disclaimer that it is packaged less any specific land uses within the area. Phase 1 will be.the boundaries of the different jurisdictions and who has planning authority over each one. Commissioner Gordon verified with Craig Benedict that the approval for this meeting is only conceptual approval of the boundaries. She would like the Planning Board to mull this over in a thorough way. Public Comment Chris Borst said that some of these boundary lines need tweaking, especially on the north side. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT MINUTES 5 Steve Yuhasz is a land surveyor and' attorney in Hillsborough. He asked about the overall density of development in the undeveloped parts of Hillsborough that will populate this area. He verified that the plan would be to use water from existing reservoirs. He asked if there would be any plan to develop additional water supply reservoirs. Craig Benedict said that this plan would support Hillsborough's interest to stay within its reservoir ideas. Part of the area has to do with Orange-Alamance Water System and he does not know what it will do in the future. Margaret Hauth said that the density will be different in different areas. This will be decided in the second phase. Commissioner Gordon said that if there is consideration given to going beyond the 4.5 million gallons per day, then this would be putting pressure on the rural buffer. John Macaulay lives on Queen St. in Hillsborough. He is thrilled with the cooperative planning between Hillsborough and Orange County. He is concerned about what appears to be a disconnect between the statement of common goals. He has seen very little information about goals one and two. The first goal is to preserve and enhance the. core area of Hillsborough. He said that one of the primary detriments to the quality of life in Hillsborough is the high volume of traffic on Churton Street. He found it interesting that one of the logical reasons for emphasizing residential growth to the south was the fact that this problem is not going to get solved. He said that the Town of Hillsborough and the County have the power to solve this problem and it is a shame that the strategic plan is being run on the inability to solve the problem. He is also concerned about residential development to the north because I-85 and I-40 are south of Hillsborough. If there is no residential in the north, industrial development will move up there and the traffic from there will have to drive through Hillsborough to get to the interstate. He said that this is a great deficiency in the plan. The second goal is to preserve significant cultural and natural resources. He said that he not seen a clear statement in the plan of a commitment to preservation of natural resources. He would like to see this plan aggressively set out natural resource areas. He said that this plan will sell Hillsborough out to suburbia and it will turn into Chapel Hill. Chair Jacobs said that part of the derivation of the interest in working together was halfway to preserve and the confusion that arose over where and how Hillsborough could serve the 50- year circle that surrounds it. He said that this is a good attempt to try and bring some order and predictability for the way in which Hillsborough will grow. Some of this, because it is in Hillsborough's jurisdictions, is not within the County's purview to discuss as part of the public hearing. He said that some of the items on the maps, such as the Durham Urban Growth Area, have been on the maps for 20 years, and some things are new, such as Carolina North. He said that he thinks that the plan is highly successful in preserving cultural and natural areas in ways that have not been done before. He said that this does mean that there are going to be no more water supply reservoirs built in Orange County. He said that this has been generally assumed without being explicitly stated. He said that he cannot see, as long as he is on the Board, that there will be any more water supply reservoirs. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the proposed Phase One (as defined above) recommendations be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than December 12, 2006. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Text Amendment to Section 6.23 entitled 'Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts' to align the text with the Zoning Atlas boundaries for the Upper Eno Watershed. DRAFT MTL~~[.TTES 6 ~l 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 Craig Benedict showed some maps. He said that this is being. brought forward due to some ambiguity in the existing zoning text regulations pertaining to watershed overlay.zoning districts. A question came forward from a property owner about 6-8 months ago regarding whether their lands were within a water quality critical area of the Upper Eno Watershed. The question went to the Board of Adjustment regarding the location of the boundaries. The Board of Adjustment ruled that, as staff interpreted the boundaries in the text, and as the 1994 maps depict, the property was in the critical area. The Board of Adjustment asked that further review of the critical watershed boundaries be forwarded to the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board saw presentations on this. He explained some areas of the map. Options 1, 2, and 3 were discussed with the Planning Board. Option 1 is to leave it the way it is now, which is that the text says something a little different from the zoning map in 1994, and fry to make interpretations or go to the Board of Adjustment on a case-by- case basis. Option 2 is to modify the text to explain the new flood pools and leave the zoning maps (Administration recommendation). Option 3 is to change the text and also change the zoning map. The Planning Board asked the staff to examine option 3. The recommendation is somewhere between option 2 and option 3, which is to change the text to as close as possible to what is known as fact in the short-term, and change the map as needed to address things such as the Hillsborough Strategic Growth Plan, Efland Small Area study, nature preserve area, etc. Michelle Kempinski said that in the Board's packet the minutes for the October meeting were missing. The October meeting included a motion recommending option 3. Jeff Schmitt said that this whole issue came up because of inconsistencies between the language and the existing map. He said that if the Planning Board were to adopt what is being recommended, a developer will still potentially have an inconsistency in the language and map. Craig Benedict said that changing the text would diminish the inconsistency. Option 3 would entail first class notifications to every property owner that would be affected by this. The preliminary numbers show that there would be thousands of mailings. The staff thought that the maps could be addressed on a small area-planning basis. Judith Wegner said that the Board should note that there is a disagreement between the staff and Planning Board. She said that many would say that the map is what people will look at. She thinks that it would be better to deal with the County as a whole as opposed to piece meal Jay Bryan said that one option would be for the Board to refer both options back to the Planning Board. Renee Price-Saunders said that the Planning Board was aware that option 3 would entail thousands of mailings, but it felt that this was the only way to make it right. Chair Jacobs asked Geof Gledihll, understanding what the Planning Board is recommending, why the administration is recommending option 2. Geof Gledhill said that he does not think the administration has made a recommendation of substance for this yet. His view is that there is an immediate problem that the text and the map do not match. He said that there needs to be a fix to this problem. He would recommend writing the text to give way to the 1994 adopted map, because the map created the overlay watershed protection districts that are in question. This would solve the immediate problem. He said that the Planning Board is doing what it should be doing by looking in the long-term to update the map. He does not disagree with this, but he is concerned that the purpose of the water supply protection regulations is to protect the water supply. Also, this problem exists with the County's entire protected water supply watershed and it is a fairly substantial undertaking to notify all of the property owners. He thinks the County should consider doing this eventually, but it is not an immediate fix that he would urge the Planning Director and County Commissioners to consider. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 DR;.AFT MINUTES 7 8 Public Comment Steve Yuhasz commented on this public hearing process. He said that the text .amendments are complicated and it is difficult to prepare comments when the amendments were not available until the Wednesday prior to the public hearing. He said that if this is the only opportunity for the public to comment, then that is not enough time. He said that he was involved with the question that arose with the text and the maps for this item. It seems to him that the real problem is which is given precedence -the text or the maps. He said that the text ought to hold rather than the maps regarding overlay districts where the district is well-defined by the text. He said that if the maps are viewed as illustrative rather than controlling, there is not a problem. He made reference to the definitions where it talks about "potential reservoirs" and then talks about "proposed reservoirs" in the same definition. He asked that this be consistent. In contributing watersheds, he pointed out that, included in this is a redefinition of the critical area for both Cane Creek and University Lakes. This definition is "one-half mile from the normal pool elevation or the contributing watershed divide, whichever is greater." He said that it is possible, with this definition, for a piece of property to be both in the Cane Creek Critical Area and in the Back Creek Protected Watershed. He does not think that this is intended. He urged the County Commissioners to look at the text rather than the maps because the text is specific. Geof Gledhill made reference to Mr. Yuhasz's comments about Cane Creek and said that the only thing in front of the Board tonight is the Upper Eno. Chair Jacobs encouraged Mr. Yuhasz to submit any additional comments in writing for the Planning Board to be able to consider as part of the record. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer this to the Planning Board to return a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. No option was specified. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Discussion ensued on the Planning Board's recommendations: Chair Jacobs assured the Planning Board that the Board takes the recommendations under advisement and reads the minutes, etc. Geof Gledhill said that his recommendations were in no way stiff-arming the Planning Board, but only a measured response to a measured problem. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the abstracts and said that it would be helpful to distinguish between what is being considered and what is not (i.e., Eno or Cane Creek). Also, she agrees that the text should be available when the ad goes out. 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Staff initiated amendments to Sections 6.23.7 through 6.24.3 -Stream Buffers - to include new regulations establishing formal stream buffer replacement standards and creation of new regulations allowing for minimal disturbance within an identified stream buffer for specific types of development. Michael Harvey made this presentation. He said that this is a modification of existing standards on the ordinance governing the protection of stream buffers. He read the definition of stream buffers. The County has had these regulations since 1982 and there have been several amendments. Most notably, in 1994, stream buffers were extended to cover the majority of the County. In the ordinance, there are references to standards that govern the reestablishment and the replanting of a buffer that has been illegally or accidentally disturbed. The staff, over the last several months, has identified several concerns within the existing ordinance. There is a lack of a uniform comprehensive and centralized planting standard within the ordinance that 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT MUTES 8 people are held to who have disturbed the stream buffer or for property that may have been in a forestry program or part of a bona fide farm that is seeking to develop into another use where stream buffers would be required. The present standards would require the planting of 436-681 trees per acre. Staff's concern is that this does not establish a viable or pertinent buffer within the required time to guarantee water quality. The second problem is that there is a lack of appropriate mitigation standards. Another problem is that there is no flexibility within the ordinance allowing for minor encroachment into the required stream buffer for non-invasive, passive uses of the property. Finally, staff is concerned that there is no effective way to work with a property owner to address changes in location and size of stream buffers resulting in a change. Staff is proposing that a comprehensive replanting standard be established in cases where the stream buffer has been disturbed. The proposal is that the standard be ten trees for every 1,000 square feet of disturbance and also that a property owner could install bushes on a ratio with the required trees in order to reestablish the buffer. Staff is also recommending that formal mitigation standards be established to regulate development 'of the stream buffer. Finally, the staff is recommending expanding on the types of uses allowed within a regulated stream buffer to include such uses as: archaeological activities, drainage ditches, water dependant accessory structures (i.e. decks, piers, etc.), accessory structures intended to allow properly owners to enjoy scenic views of a water feature (i.e. gazebos), trails and walkways, and other similar uses/activities consistent with current DWQ regulations. Planning staff submitted this proposed ordinance change to several internal departments and external agencies (Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough; OWASA; Commission for. the Environment). There has been some feedback from Erosion Control, Division of Water Quality, Environmental Health, and other County departments requesting clarification of revisions. The recommendation is for this to be forwarded to the Planning Board for consideration and also that the Planning Board solicit input from Commission for the Environment. Commissioner Gordon said that she was present at the Commission for the Environment meeting and there were several comments about wanting to provide input. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 9 and. the Table of Allowable and Allowable with Mitigation Uses/Activities, and he read, "Functionally dependent structures that are water dependent such as docks, piers, public and private boat ramps, boat houses over the water, walkway." He asked if boat ramps and boathouses are allowed with mitigation and it was answered yes. He said that he does not understand the statement on page 6, item b, "No matter the classification of the proposed activity, all uses/activities shall observe a 25-foot setback from the top of the banks of the stream of water feature. This setback area shall remain in a natural, vegetative state." He asked how a dock could be set back 25 feet. Michael Harvey said that the intention is that water dependent structures would -not have to meet the setback requirement. He said that the staff could provide an exemption on the activities and Chair Jacobs agreed. Chair Jacobs asked why there would not be a differentiation of mitigation based on illegal activity between mitigation on someone that has to do an activity that disturbs the stream buffer. Michael Harvey said that there would still be disturbance of the stream buffer and the interest is to reestablish it in the quickest time possible. Geof Gledhill said that the legal answer is that there can be a differentiation. Chair Jacobs encouraged discussion with Forestry. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 12, "Temporary roads intended to allow access to a property for development purposes." He asked who permits a temporary road and who makes sure that when the development is completed that the road no longer exists. Michael Harvey said that this was added because of a recommendation from the Division of Water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 DRAFT MT.NUTES 9 Quality. It would be permitted through the County's zoning permit process if it was a subdivision. The County would make sure that the road would no longer exist. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 20 where it says, "Proposal expands on the. number of uses allowed within a stream buffer to be consistent with DWQ requirements." He said that this makes it sound like the number of uses is being liberalized because that's what DWQ allows. Michael Harvey said that this is saying that DWQ allows for certain uses that the County sees are reasonable. Chair Jacobs said that sometimes DWQ's requirements seem to be watered down to fit the development community's interest. Michael Harvey assured Chair Jacobs that this is not the intention. Chair Jacobs suggested that the language include "low impact" as opposed to a passive building. Commissioner Gordon said that she would hope that the Planning. Board would look very carefully at all of these uses that are being allowed. She said that some of the uses are pretty intrusive. Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons for all of the uses is to see what the County Commissioners see as acceptable. Jay Bryan asked if there was a hurry with this and Michael Harvey said no, but the existing standards are lax. There is no immediate need, but the problem needs to be fixed. Public Comment Lynette Hartsell said that she owns property at Lake Orange and Cane Creek. She said that she thinks this is a very poor plan. She said that she has been listening to the comments tonight that the property owners are committing illegal acts on property that they somehow think they own. She said that it is because she paid money for the properly and she has a deed that says she owns it. She understands that there has to be a relationship with the Planning Board, County Commissioners, and people who are moving in that want water. She said that she wants clean water just as much as everyone else. She said that none of them are criminals, but they are property owners and taxpayers. She said that this is a stealth conservation easement and the common person cannot read it and understand how to get a mitigation plan through. She said that the plan is vague and gives staff power that the County Commissioners should not give. She said that, in the end of the document, it says that the agreement must be recorded as an easement deed and continues in perpetuity as an easement. She said that there is something wrong with her giving the County her land, if it lets her use the land. She understands the need for erosion control, but she is perplexed at the need for erosion police. She said that if the 25-foot buffer is allowed to go untended, there will be an enormous vermin control problem. She said that this plan should be pitched and tfie Planning Board should start over and work with the landowners in a more symbiotic relationship and create something synergistic rather than something antagonistic.. Pete'Wehr lives on Lake Orange. He asked if this affects Lake Orange and it was answered that it affects all of Orange County. He said that the landowners there should be consulted because they are great stewards of the lake. He said that he resents someone telling him how the landowners can better keep the lake clean. He feels insulted by the ordinance. He said that the landowners there should be exempt from the ordinance, and if not, then the County should buy the buffer and lower their taxes. John Macaulay lives on Queen Street. He suggested that the remediation include native plants. Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciates the public comments. She said that this would be a good time to try and work with the landowners and get feedback on this. Commissioner Carey agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the Stream Buffer Text Amendments be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. Jo DRAFT MT~TLTTES 10 1 Commissioner Gordon encouraged the Planning Board to incorporate landowner 2' comments. 3 Tom Eakes asked to make a comment. He lives on Lake Orange. He said that the 4 people on Lake Orange, as well as the people on the other lakes and streams around town, S would like to know how staff will police this and what kind of actions.will be taken. 6 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 Chair Jacobs pointed out that there have been two meetings of the Eno River 10 Confluence -and there was an effort to bring together people that had interest in the Upper 11 Eno, and there was, never representation from Lake Orange residents. There will be another 12 one in April. He encouraged the residents to leave information with the Clerk so that they can 13 be invited. 14 15 5. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments: Planning Board and staff initiated 16 amendments to Section IV-B, Conservation-Cluster Option, to modify the perimeter buffer 17 standards to distinguish and develop comparable dimensions between urban versus rural 18 design subdivisions. 19 20 Planning Supervisor Robert Davis introduced this item. Orange County has three flexible 21 development options -Estate Lot, Conservation Cluster, and Village. This amendment will only 22 affect the conservation cluster option and only the buffer standard and the types of ownership of 23 the buffers. There were modifications in 1999 that placed a 100-foot perimeter building setback 24 buffer on this development option. The original intent of the 100-foot setback was to lessen the 25 impact of higher density clusters of housing on the surrounding, lower density dwellings. The 26 setback has presented challenges in smaller acreage subdivision and also irregularly shaped 27 tracts. There was a situation in Ashwick where an accessory structure could not be built because 28 of the setback. The proposal is to go from the 100-foot setback to a 60-foot setback owned by the 29 homeowner's association. The 100-foot setback requirement will remain in rural areas along 30 roadways. The staff would like to get this back to the Planning Board to set up an Ordinance 31 Review Committee to review this more thoroughly. 32 Chair Jacobs said that his initial impression is.that in the urbanizing areas, it seems to 33 make more sense: He suggested putting the map in the abstract and giving the County 34 Commissioners more information on the buffer requirements. 3S Chair Jacobs questioned the faith that the Homeowner's Association will solve a problem. 36 He said that part of this is based on the assumption that if the Homeowner's Association 37 controlled the buffer, that it would be less likely to be disturbed. Based on his experience, it is just 38 as likely to be the other way around. 39 Robert Davis said that his experience is that people do less encroachment from a 40 structural standpoint when the homeowner's association owns it. 41 Jay Bryan said that he does not recall anything else asking for anything other than just 42 looking at how to prevent the immediate issue in Ashwick. He does not remember it being 43 expanded to a larger policy issue. 44 Robert Davis said that he recalls that the motion was to consider ways for this not to 45 happen again. 46 47 Public Comment 48 Steve Yuhasz said that he is not opposed to these buffers, but he thinks that this is 49 indicative of the need to review the entire flexible development process. He said that the proposal SO of 60 feet would not qualify for any credit as open space to meet the requirements. He thinks that S 1 the proposal can work, but it needs to be part of a larger evaluation of the buffer requirements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT MTL~TUTES 11 is He said that he is working with a subdivision now where he will have to provide less open space than he would want to in order to meet the requirement that the lots touch on open space. He said that the subdivision regulations have been written without any input from the practitioners, and this is bad practice. Mark O'Neal lives near Pleasant Green Road and works with Pickett-Sprouse Real Estate. He has a lot of experience with well and septic tank development. He echoed Steve Yuhasz's comments. He said that with wells and septic tanks, a lot more flexibility is needed. He said that he is very much against the requirement of the common ownership. He agreed with Chair Jacobs that this is not always the best solution. He also does not approve of discriminating against rural landowners and does not see why the buffers should be required in every. case. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer the proposed text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 6, 2007. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs pointed out that the Ordinance Review Committee is a great place to bring in people and have a conversation about an ordinance before it gets approved. 6. Cultural and Archaeological Survey Required for Special Use Permits: To add provisions to Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the requirement of a Cultural and Archaeological Survey as a submittal requirement of a Special Use Permit. Robert Davis said that the actual Cultural and Archaeological Survey Ordinance is not up for the public hearing, but the placeholder to be advertised to make the survey preliminary work a submittal requirement before an applicant comes forward with a special use permit or a planned development rezoning. He made reference to the memo in the packet from the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources about why the areas are to remain secret and private. Administration recommends that the proposed ordinance text, which is the portion that maintains a placeholder in the zoning ordinance that requires that there be a letter from ERCD indicating that there are no sites of any significant findings on a particular site, and the development application can be filed. Chair Jacobs made reference to the two samples at the County Commissioners' seats, which are two cultural and archaeological surveys done for the County -Fairview Park and Twin Creeks. He thinks the secrecy question is way overdone. He said that one issue is whether the surveys are necessary and another.is whether it is onerous. Also, he thinks that it should include a more in-depth environmental survey. He suggested having the Planning Board review it more thoroughly because of all of the additional information. In answer to a question from Judith Wegner, Craig Benedict said that the County has tried to set standards for smart growth and investigation of these types of resources on properties that it owns. With private property, there are not the same standards, but there could be some resources. Geof Gledhill said that he has a number of concerns with the way this is put together, and he will address them in a letter. Jeff Schmidt asked to have the Historical Preservation Commission involved. Public Comment Tom Magnuson said that the County should consult experts when .putting this together. He said that there are plenty of archaeologists in the area. He said archaeology is information and not just items for display. He said that archaeological theory says to leave it in the ground as long as possible because technology changes continuously and more information would be extracted in the future than now. He recommended finding good experts to help with this because DRAFT MINUTES 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 there are national and state standards for saying whether something is important enough. He said that there should be County standards. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC either along with or after the adoption of a Cultural and Archaeological Survey Ordinance; that the draft Cultural and Archaeological Survery Ordinance be referred to ERCD staff and to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and comment; and that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed Cultural and Archaeological Survey Ordinance after ERCD and the Historic Preservation Commission have made comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Items below were not covered. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group Update: The Focus Group has been identifying implementation measures to be pursued for each of the plan recommendations. Depending on the order of implementation, it is' possible that some regulations could be presented at the February 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing. 2. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance: The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Land Quality Section has completed a technical~audit of the County's Erosion Control program and suggested 15 amendments. A strategy and timeline for addressing the proposed amendments will be presented. 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: In support of the Churton Street Revitalization Project, Staff suggests general amendments to Article 9 (Signs) and Article 12 (Landscaping and Buffer Requirements) and a timeline for completion. 4. Traffic Impact Requirements: Text amendments to Zoning Ordinance (Article 13) and Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-3-e) to lower the threshold at which a traffic impact study is required (currently 80 lots or 800 trips per day) and possible transportation improvement standards. Possible presentation at February 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:53 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION Application For Orange County Planning & Inspections p~aIlIleC~ D8V810~11><leIIt ~I.St17.Ct P.O. Box 8181 Hitlsborough, NC 27278 Zoning~Atlas• Amendment 919 245-2575 FAX 919 644-3002 ~, ~ -~__~~~ ~ Owner CASE# 1. I (We) Street Address City State Zip Code Telephone do hereby petition to amend the Zoning Atlas of Orange County. to the Zoning District ~~___ 2. By reclassifying from the Zoning District J~ (`~-~ ~ : _ 3. The property located and having frontage(s) along bordering streets as follows ~ -~-~--~- 4. Containing ©r 9 acres. 5. TM$L(s) ~ ~` ~ r PIN #(s) .~~_~~~~~~~.-Yr--- 6. Intended use(s) of the property: f' ~.~ ~~f`~-- ' (Please attach on a separate sheet any additional information about the intended use or any spec~a] cbndthons to which the petrtroner wishes to be bound) 7. Owner(s) Signature(s):' We aclrnowledgethe provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for genera] ..__ .._a a.,.,.,e.r .ta„Pi~~„n,. Geed with a planned development caning petition. 8. If the petition is executed by property owner, but an attorney or an agent will handle public speaking, etc., please indicate: Attorney or Agent Street Address City State Zip Telephone 9. Notification signs will be prepared and posted by the Planning Staff when the rezoning application is scheduled for Fublic Hearing. The required legal advertising is also handled for you by the Planning Staff. PLEASE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR SUBMITTAL OF YOUR APPLICATION IMPORTANT: Only Applications with on final signatures are considered complete. Faxed Applications NOT accepted. ~, LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING CAGE CHEEK TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF YARBOROUGH ROAD(NCSR-1138 A 60' WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) AND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CAUDELL WA~'NE CLARK(DEED BOOK 244, PAGE 1094, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTRY), THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF YARBOROUGH ROAD N65°36' 12"E A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE LEAVIlVG THE CENTERLINE OF ~YARBOROUGH ROAD AND RUNNING THROUGH THE INTERIOR OF BR]iAN P. GILMOUR(DEED BOOK 282, PAGE 913, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTRY) THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; S24°03'08"E A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE RUNNING S65°36' 12"W A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERN LINE OF CAUDELL WAYNE CLARK, ''T'HENCE RI:INNING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF CATJDELL WAYNE CLARK AND BRIAN P. GILMOUR~N24°03'08"W A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING AN AREA OF 40,000 S.F., AND BEING COMMERCIALLY ZONED EC-5, A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 18.793 ACRE LOT, BRIAN P. GILMOUR. is . ,.. O N O N L N (U O z Q 0 ~ Q U~ W ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~ N N N C .~ O N (U O I~ LLp wo N ~ 'C o 1p .M Q c a ~ o > E $.2 c O c N ~ ,~ (S 10 L ~ M ~ ~ d rn= c c ms a~ c'~ o~g 0 ve rn n zc ~~ o~ y~~ •4 d ~~~ :'J ~,^) Y i i N L V O L y-- Lt's V W t6 ~U L 0 U .. ~~ e X W a ~ P ^_j®~~ T N -~ .® Ste. Q O N N O Q. a 0 ~~ PAGE 1 OF 1 10/312006 TMBL OWNER OWNER2 OLDPIN ADDRESS CITY STATE 'ZIP 4 54 3 BENDER BRIAN CHRISTOPHER CA~ACE FAY & NC 27302 .. . 9833540192 2505 BUCKHORN RD ME 3.54..17 BUCKHORN RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB 1NC HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 98334.31441 1929 US 70E 3.54..21 CLARK CAUDELL WAYNE 4881 WESTLAKE DR SE CONYERS GA 30208 9833228553 3.54..2 9833247702 CLARK SUE F 4881 WESTLAKE DR CONYER~ GA 30094 3.54..3 DEFRIESS RAYMOND D 2409 BUCKHORN RD IvIEBANE NC 27302 9833446631 . 3.54..4A GILLAND JEANNIE T 2501 BUCKHORN RD MEBANE NC 27302 9833540331 3.54..2A GILMOUR BRIAN P 6500 YARBOROUGH RD & LYDIA M MEBANE NC 27302 9833344614 3.54..1G JACKSON MARK H• & ROBIN G MEBANE NC 27302-8258 9833365183 6315 YARBOROUGH RD 3.54.:1F JACKSON MARK H & ROBIN G MEBANE NC 27302-8258 9833351814. 6315 YARBOROUGH RD 3.54..1 H JACKSON MARK H 6315 YARBOROUGH RD & ROBIN G MEBANE NC • 27302-8258 9833359475 3.54..1R JACKSON MARK H 6315 YARBOROUGH RD & ROBIN G MEBANE NC 27302-8258 9833358360 3.54.. lA JACKSON MARK H & ROBIN G MEBANE NC 27302-8258 9833259340 6315 YARBOROUGH RD 3.54..1P JACKSON MARIG H & ROBIN G MEBANE NC 27302-8258 9833258130 6315 yARBOROUGH RD 3.54..1E JACKSON WILLIAM L 6400 YARBOROUGH RD & JUDY MEBANE NC 27302-8259 9833354113 3.54..1 C 9833452294 ROGERS KEVIN LEE 6214 YARBOROUGH RD MEBANE NC 27302 3.54..30 SHAMBLEY MORRIS LEE 2609 MT WILLING RD EFLAND NC 27243-9125 9833457577 3.54..1) STERN ALAN J 1201 DAMASCUS CH RD & MAXINE S CHAPEL HILL NC 27516-8324 9833254290 3.54..1 9$33143146 SYKES BETTY J 3214 SOUTH JIM MINOR RD HAW RIVER NC . 27258-9793 3.54..16D TIME WA.RNERNY CABLE LLC STANFORD CT 06902 9833436858 290 HARBOR DR ~: e )' ,/ , ~, ~, ~, ~ .~. /~ // /~ f3.~4..iti '~ 3' 3.54..1 // // / / / / • / / / / / / / / / / ,~ 3.54..iA 3.54..1E ~~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~J \i l 3.54..3D . --~. . 3.54..y ~ ~ ~ 3.54..ZA ' ~ ~ ~ ,.- ~ ~ 3.54..21 --------3:54: F7------ 3.54..16D Botfm 1 of Parcals stn,em Porceic Major Rondc 0aakgmuad. Bunn Tari TovmsFepTeet ~ TawnsMPc Text Gy Teri This map contains parcels prepared for the inventory of real propety within Orange County, and is compiled tram recorded deed, plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are hereby notified that the aForementioned public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the informaton contained on this map. The county and its mapping companies assume no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. (lrannP_ C~Ol1C1~V G~~ - N '{ :4800 ao ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting -December 6, 2006 Summary of Discussion and Action Prepared by: Gene Bell, AICP, Planning Systems Coordinator Members Present: Jay Bryan, Chair, Brian Crawford, Brian Dobyns, Craufurd Goodwin, Joel Knight Forrest, Sam ~asris, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee A. Price- Saunders, Sandra Johnson Quinn, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, and Judith Wegner. Members Absent or Excused: Michelle Kempinski Agenda Item #9a. Gilmour Rezoning - EC-5 to AR Presented at November 20, 2006 Quarterly Public Hearing -DRAFT minutes attached. Summary: Planner Michael Harvey made a brief presentation on the nature of the request and summarized points covered at the public hearing. There were no questions or comments from the Planning Board. Motion.: Sam Lasris recommended approval of the rezoning request. Second: Jeff Schmitt. Vote: Unanimous.