HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 0109131
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2013
3.
3-4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for January and February
4.
5-14
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 5, 2012 Regular Meeting
5. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
6. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks
its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any resident 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.
7. CHAIR COMMENTS
1
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
8.
15-20 Kennel Processes and Regulations: To continue discussion on
BOCC-requested input into the processes and regulations for kennels.
This item was continued from the November 7, 2012 Planning Board
meeting.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
9. 21-86 Implementation Bridge Priorities – To discuss Planning Board
priorities for work to be started and/or accomplished in 2013. At the
November 7, 2012 regular meeting when the work plan was acted upon,
the Planning Board Chair and Vice-Chair asked that this be a discussion
item for the January 9, 2013 agenda.
Presenter: None – discussion item
10.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
b. Orange Unified Transportation
11. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578).
2
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
January 2013
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
February 2013January 2013
De
c
3
0
-
J
a
n
5
Dec 30 31 Jan 1, 13 2 3 4 5
HOLIDAY
Ja
n
6
-
1
2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
7:00pm
* PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West Campus
Office Bldg )
Ja
n
1
3
-
1
9
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
7:30pm
Board of
Adjustment
(West Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West Campus
Office Bldg)
Ja
n
2
0
-
2
6
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
HOLIDAY 7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Dept of
Social Services)
Ja
n
2
7
-
F
e
b
2
27 28 29 30 31 Feb 1 2
7:00pm 7:30pm
BOCC Work
Session
(Southern
Human
Services)
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
1* Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
February 2013
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
March 2013February 2013
Ja
n
2
7
-
F
e
b
2
Jan 27 28 29 30 31 Feb 1 2
BOCC Retreat
Fe
b
3
-
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Department
of Social
Services)
7:00pm
* PLANNING
BOARD MEETING
(West Campus
Office Bldg )
Fe
b
1
0
-
1
6
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
7:30pm
Board of
Adjustment
(West Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm BOCC
Budget Work
Session
(Southern
Human
Services)
Fe
b
1
7
-
2
3
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
BOCC/Town
of Hillsborough
Joint Meeting
(Link Government
Services Cent
Fe
b
2
4
-
M
a
r
2
24 25 26 27 28 Mar 1 2
7:00pm
* Quarterly
Public Hearing
(Department
of Social Services)
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
D R A F T
1
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 DECEMBER 5, 2012 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township 7
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill 8
Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Andrea 9
Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-10
Large Cedar Grove Township; 11 12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large 14
Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; 15
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz; 18
Special Projects Coordinator; Marabeth Carr, DEAPR; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 19
20
21 HANDOUTS GIVEN AT MEETING Planning Board Rules of Procedure; Memo from DEAPR regarding outdoor lighting 22
23
24 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 25
26
Larry Wright introduced a new member, Herman Staats. He also reminded the Board of the attendance policy. 27
28
29 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 30
a) Planning Calendar for December and January 31
b) BOCC-adopted General Advisory Board Policy and specific Planning Board Policies and 32
Procedures 33
c) 2013 Planning Board Meeting Schedule 34
d) Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Meeting for January 2013 35
e) Elections Reminder for January 2013 36
37
38 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39
NOVEMBER 7, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 40
41
Lisa Stuckey: On page 12, line 329 should read, “I would be pretty upset if they were really loud”. 42
43 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the October 3, 2012 minutes with changes. Seconded by Alan Campbell. 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 45
46
47 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 48
49
50
51
52
53
5
D R A F T
2
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 54
55 Introduction to the Public Charge 56
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 57
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 58
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 59
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 60
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 61
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 62
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 63
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 64
65 PUBLIC CHARGE 66
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 67
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 68
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 69
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 70
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 71
until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 72
73
74 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 75
76
77 Agenda Item 7: 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text 78
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments. – To make a recommendation to the BOCC 79
on government-initiated amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to 80
the Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. 81
This item was heard at the November 19, 2013 quarterly public hearing 82
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 83
84
Perdita Holtz: I did a presentation at the Quarterly Public Hearing and there were comments and questions about 85
the material. On pages 18-20 of your agenda packet the comments are summarized with the staff’s response. 86
There are two comments that the Board should weigh in on how it should be handled. The first is on page 19, 87
number four about the “tick” mark in the 20 Year Transition and the second issue is about the internal pedestrian 88
circulation system, comment number five. 89
90
Larry Wright: Could you tell us about the Efland community and how they met and how long they have met. 91
92
Perdita Holtz: The Efland Mebane Small Area Plan is available online in electronic format. This was adopted in 93
June 2006 after 2 ½ years of community meetings. That board was made up of folks who live in the area and a 94
representative from the Planning Board. After the plan was adopted the BOCC appointed an Implementation Focus 95
Group which contained a few folks from the original group and a Planning Board liaison. Since then, this group has 96
met as needed. A lot of the recommendations have been implemented. 97
98
Larry Wright: Many of these changes did come from that grass roots level from 2006 through the Focus Group and 99
is reflected here? 100
101
Perdita Holtz: Correct. The changes that are part of this takes the desires of the plan and puts it into a regulatory 102
language. 103
104
Larry Wright: This is a good example of an area that underscores grass roots run involvement within Orange 105
County where local interest groups meet over time, codify results of their meetings, something comes of it. 106
6
D R A F T
3
107
Lisa Stuckey: I don’t understand the “tick”, whether we should have it or not. 108
109
Perdita Holtz: The matrix on page 43, in order to zone something to a classification that is along the upper row, you 110
have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Some examples of how to read the charts were given). 111
112
Craig Benedict: In addition, on recommendations to the plan there was a 10 year transition and a 20 year 113
transition. A 10 year transition we were to develop in the first 10 years of the plan. That was 1981 through 1991. 114
The 20 year area would be 1991 to 2001. Our plan was we really don’t think we should be that specific and we are 115
thinking on getting rid of those categories. 116
117
Perdita Holtz: We are trying to be proactive in potentially allowing that type of zoning district in these areas. 118
119
Alan Campbell: My understanding is that staff is trying to address something that they will have to do in the future. 120
My reaction is we should do it while we have the opportunity. I would do as staff as proposed. 121
122
Tony Blake: Is the concern that the notion that this is more broadly applicable and may not be popular in certain 123
areas like a rural buffer? Or are they trying to be that cautious. 124
125
Perdita Holtz: My read is that a Commissioner is passionate about maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive 126
Plan. I would guess she does not see a need for this at this time to go into 20 year transition areas. 127
128
Tony Blake: If you were looking at that line saying “transition area” rather than separate 10 and 20 year transition 129
areas, making it into one then you would essentially have the special zoning overlay in there. 130
131
Lisa Stuckey: In the village section, are there drive-thru restaurants now? 132
133
Perdita Holtz: No. There are only very limited commercial uses currently in the interstate overlay district. 134
135
Larry Wright: I have an allegiance to small business. I have a concern about that with the other existing 136
businesses in the area. 137
138
Perdita Holtz: There is no one banging down our door to put a drive-thru in this area. 139
140
Larry Wright: On page 35, Commissioner Jacobs talked about pedestrian systems. Does item 10 address his 141
comments? 142
143
Perdita Holtz: The Pedestrian Circulation System was only proposed for the Efland interstate district. He was 144
talking about requiring a Pedestrian Circulation System in the Efland Village Overlay District. At this time, the 145
standard is not written to require that. 146
147
Tony Blake: Regarding transit oriented development, it seems to me that in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not well 148
defined. 149
150
Perdita Holtz: One of the reasons these changes have taken so long to come forward is because we did need to 151
have some decision from the BOCC on what we were calling “the sidewalk issue”. In October 2011, I did take this 152
issue to the BOCC for a decision but because of county’s inabilities to have funding the way cities do to maintain 153
and construct sidewalks, and because DOT’s resistance to not have sidewalks in non-municipal areas. At that 154
time, the BOCC said we need to move forward thinking there will not be a comprehensive sidewalk program in 155
public right-of-way. 156
157
Larry Wright: This would not be classified as a municipality? 158
159
7
D R A F T
4
Perdita Holtz: This is an unincorporated area. 160
161
Craig Benedict: That was the difficulty with a public pedestrian system. I would be interested in coming up with 162
language on how, internally to a site plan, can we promote connectivity between adjacent parcels. We could work 163
on a way to put some language in there. 164
165
Johnny Randall: Sidewalks are sometimes an afterthought. I am in complete favor of that. 166
167
Larry Wright: I think Pete is as well. Do we need to make a recommendation? 168
169
Craig Benedict: What I have heard, staff can put some language in to promote private, internal pedestrian 170
circulation systems during the site plan process. 171
172
Herman Staats: Do you have any examples of how something like that has been done in the past? 173
174
Craig Benedict: The same situations have occurred within the subdivisions of Efland. 175
176
Herman Staats: Funding? 177
178
Craig Benedict: The developer funded it. 179
180
Alan Campbell: Paths, not sidewalks. 181
182
Johnny Randall: In addition, if you are doing a pathway or connectivity you need to also do it for bicycle and 183
alternative transportation. 184
185
Lisa Stuckey: One point to be made is it is a safety issue, people are going to walk around and if you can’t do it 186
safely in a dense area, you are doing a disservice to the public. 187
188
Buddy Hartley: What happened with the Habitat development? 189
190
Michael Harvey: Tinnin Woods had a agreement that areas would be left but there was no requirement for 191
sidewalks to be installed. Tinnin Woods installed POSA trails at the rear of the property. They are not obligated to 192
put in sidewalks. 193
194
Tony Blake: Could there be an obligation to link? 195
196
Craig Benedict: If we don’t have it clear that we want pedestrian connectivity, we can amend the plan. Once we 197
get it in there, that will be used as a reference guide for someone else. 198
199
Tony Blake: Another concern is the railroad track that runs in the middle of that so there may be safety concerns 200
there but the opportunity there is to link that area with the new Hillsborough Railroad station. 201
202
Larry Wright: I would like to show the BOCC that we do have support to ask staff to put language in about this. 203
204 Motion made by Tony Blake to ask staff to consider transit oriented development and walkability or pedestrian and 205
bicycle paths. Seconded by Alan Campbell. 206
Vote: Unanimous 207
208
Craig Benedict: Regarding transit, now that the ½ cent sales tax has been passed we are working on an east/west 209
route Mebane/Efland/Hillsborough/Durham and we are going to find out where in Efland would be a good place to 210
have an express bus place. 211
212
8
D R A F T
5
Alan Campbell: Do we need a motion that we approve it? 213
214
Perdita Holtz: It can come back in January or you can instruct us to come up with language and I can email it to 215
everyone. 216
217
Larry Wright: On page 38, item 5, does that imply that they are permissible on residential uses? 218
219
Perdita Holtz: The wording was taken from ECOD to be consistent throughout the UDO. 220
221
Larry Wright: Hillsborough has been around since there was a well in the middle of Churton Street and turned into 222
a very commercial street and they had to make it so the large trucks could not pass through. Highway 70 is of the 223
same nature. We are having a municipality that is not a municipality coming in so what will happen when you have 224
commercial districts around 70 and where would be alternative route for these heavy vehicles which leads you to 225
consider more the pressure of sidewalks. 226
227
Buddy Hartley: The heavy truck traffic should not be there unless they have a delivery. 228
229
Larry Wright: We have two issues before us; the Efland Village Overlay District and the Efland Interstate Overlay 230
District with staff proposals to address items four and five. 231
232
Perdita Holtz: It would be good for direction on how you want to recommend to the BOCC. There needs to be a 233
formal motion for four and a motion on the amendments on Attachment 2. 234
235 Motion from Lisa Stuckey to retain the “ticks” as recommended by the staff. Seconded by Alan Campbell. 236 Vote: Unanimous 237
238 Motion from Alan Campbell to approve this as presented by staff with the further changes to be developed and 239
circulated through email for item five. Seconded by Tony Blake. 240 Vote: Unanimous 241
242
Pete Hallenbeck submitted the following comments for the record: 243
Item 7: 244
Quarterly Public Hearing comments: 245
Chain/franchise business building standards 246
South of the railroad tracks “chain restaurants” are permitted. The Small Area Plan and the Implementation groups in 247
general realized the value of being able to identify a business from it’s signature style of building. They also wanted 248
to take advantage of the proximity to the interstate and have these businesses in order to generate more jobs and tax 249
revenue. There was a desire to have an opportunity for citizen input during the permitting process where minor 250
changes in the building presentation could be proposed. No one had problems with drive throughs. While it is true 251
that this introduces a small subjective component into the permitting process, it was deemed that this was the lessor 252
of two evils where the other option was to blanket permit any and all chain restaurants no matter what the style. 253
254
As I commented during the hearing, there would be no chain restaurants north of the railroad tracks. The rational is 255
as simple as this: Imagine a McDonalds somewhere in downtown Hillsborough, say by King street or across from the 256
Weaver Street Market. 257
258
I suspect the franchise rules are also not a problem for chain restaurants. I would imagine they would prefer to be 259
close to the interstate, not up north of the railroad tracks. 260
261
During the Small Area Planning and the Implementation phase of these proposed UDO changes, the topic of 262
sidewalks seemed to always come down to keeping people from walking on the road. There are many people that 263
walk along US70 day and night. At night, it is very hard to see many of these people as they don’t wear anything 264
reflective. I suspect that any higher density project would increase this potential for this pedestrian traffic, and that 265
9
D R A F T
6
you would see more people walking on what are now less traveled side streets. The ordinance changes attempt to 266
deal with this problem, but does not do so as clearly as it does for the Interstate overlay area. 267
268
Perhaps the answer is to require sidewalks that will keep people off the streets, but not require sidewalks internal to 269
the project. This will allow for a slow development of a sidewalk system in the area as development occurs. 270
271
In the Interstate overlay, the goal of (10) in section 6.6.3 is to avoid the problems that currently exists with people 272
walking on US70 on other roads, such as Mt. Willing, as the area grows. The wording assure a review of these 273
concerns, but also allows for project specific discretion. 274
275
Note that as always there is the conflict of wanting sidewalks for safety and aesthetics being in conflict with the desire 276
for affordable housing. Even the comprehensive plan wrestles with this one. 277
278
Citizen Comment on the Changes: 279
280
A citizen from Efland commented that most people in Efland would not understand the changes, and that they did not 281
understand what had been going on. I remember the early community meetings, and 30+ people showed up. Most 282
were interested in getting sewer into the area. They were told that with sewer comes increased development and 283
business, which was welcomed by most. They were also told that there would be zoning changes due to the pending 284
development. Once the sewer project was on track, many citizens stopped showing up at the meetings. 285
286
Most residents also wanted to see opportunities for more businesses in the area, and commented that no new 287
businesses had been allowed for years. The proposed changes allow for more bushiness in the area. 288
289
The small area plan and subsequent small area implementation group has been an 8+ year process that was always 290
open to the public. There have been many opportunities for community feedback. I have personally discussed the 291
changes with many at the Fire Department. I sympathize with the average citizen reading zoning ordinance text and 292
trying to understand it, but I feel there has been plenty of opportunity for citizens to ask and receive a “plain English” 293
description of what the overall goals are. It should also be noted that only 10 citizens showed up at the meeting to go 294
over the changes. The opportunity was there. 295
296
The citizen made the comment that these changes will not be of much benefit to the community (or words to that 297
effect) and I disagree. These changes allow for new businesses, small professional businesses, and large scale 298
development near the interstate. While there may be some style issues, such as monument style signs for a 299
business instead of pole signs, the overall goals are consistent with the wishes of the community. 300
301
All that said, I would be delighted to schedule a meeting with any concerned group and talk to them about these 302
changes. 303
304
305 Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – To make a recommendation 306
to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to modify 307
and clarify existing regulations and definitions associated with the erection and use of 308
outdoor lighting facilities. This item was heard at the November 19, 2013 quarterly public 309
hearing 310
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning 311
312
Pete Hallenbeck submitted the following comments for the record: 313
314
Item 8: Outdoor Lighting 315
316
My only comment here is that perhaps the best description of the term “Initial Lumens” would be the lumens of output 317
for a bulb as printed on the packaging for the bulb. 318
10
D R A F T
7
319
I would also note that I worked with Michael Harvey on these changes, and think they are acceptable. 320
321
Michael Harvey: Presented abstract for review. 322
323
Herman Staats: In this example was there light trespassing that could have been alleviated by aiming the lights or 324
shielding them, etc. 325
326
Michael Harvey: The lights were shielded because the permit was issued in compliance with this code and they 327
met all the applicable standards. If you are asking if the lights were taller, would it have addressed some of the 328
trespass issues, maybe. 329
330
Lisa Stuckey: If we recommend no height limit, would the language you have developed about trespass, etc. be 331
sufficient? 332
333
Michael Harvey: I would not have to amend this proposal other than to say the Planning Board is recommending 334
deletion of height limit standards beginning on page 61, B2B in its entirety. I honestly have a little discomfort with 335
that but you have the ability to recommend deletion of the existing height limits to the BOCC. 336
337
Lisa Stuckey: It doesn’t seem the height is the issue. The issue is the spread of the light. 338
339
Michael Harvey: Height can be an issue for lots of reasons. The overall height and angel of a light source 340
contributes to trespass. 341
342
Buddy Hartley: Would the 100 foot comply with the North Carolina High School Association. 343
344
Michael Harvey: 100 would be in line for what they recommend. Is it required, no. 345
346
Alan Campbell: The context with these heights in general, would this be typical with the special use permit at all or 347
permitted by right? 348
349
Michael Harvey: If you have a use requiring a special use permit and you choose or propose to erect outdoor lights 350
as part of the project, the light plan is reviewed and discussed at the time of permit review. In approving the 351
request the appropriate board would be, in effect, approving the erection of the lights as part of the overall 352
application. If the proposed land use is permitted by right then staff will be reviewing the request. There is no 353
standard in the ordinance, and I am certainly not advocating for this, requiring a special use permit solely for the 354
purpose of erecting outdoor lights or athletic field lights. It has been discussed previously at the elected official 355
level the need to examine land uses from the standpoint of urban versus rural intensities in an effort to identify the 356
appropriateness of a given land use for different areas of the County. There may be a need to investigate land 357
uses as a whole, as well as the accessory components of these various land uses, that would cause for a level of 358
intensity representing a more urbanesque amenity changing the overall impact of the land use on adjoining 359
properties. 360
361
Larry Wright: I would like to make a comment for Pete “My only comment here is that perhaps the best description of 362
the term “Initial Lumens” would be the lumens of output for a bulb as printed on the packaging for the bulb.” What is 363
he saying? 364
365
Michael Harvey: There was a comment by Lisa during the public hearing concerning the definition of lumens. Staff 366
indicated we basically used industry standard definitions focusing on initial lumens, which is what Pete is referring to. 367
I think what we have in the definition is adequate. 368
369
Larry Wright: What do we need to do? 370
371
11
D R A F T
8
Michael Harvey: I would like to make a recommendation on the package. There are two areas we have discussed. 372
We have added some language to clarify when you have to make improvements to light fixtures, 6.11.2c. We also 373
need comments on the athletic field light issue and if the motion is to approve staff’s recommendation we need you to 374
explain your rationale on why increasing the height of athletic field is reasonable or make a motion to modify what 375
staff has written to propose your own height limit or even delete it in its entirety. 376
377
Larry Wright: What are the feelings regarding height? 378
379
Alan Campbell: I didn’t pick up that much negative sentiment from the BOCC at the meeting. I like what is being 380
proposed because it needs to address things we already have in place that aren’t meeting the requirements. Also, I 381
believe in and agree that the notion of having a higher pole with more direct light will decrease trespass. 382
383
Lisa Stuckey: I would suggest we delete on page 61, c2b, the whole maximum height issue because I think it is 384
addressing the wrong issue. 385
386
Alan Campbell: I don’t think you will get that approved. I’m all about getting something approved. 387
388
Lisa Stuckey: Should we do what we think they will do or what we think is right? 389
390
Alan Campbell: I don’t want to see it bounced around for another year. 391
392
Tony Blake: 100 or 90 feet from ground? 393
394
Michael Harvey: It is intended to be from grade…. 395
396
Johnny Randall: Is 100 feet high enough? 397
398
Michael Harvey: I believe so. We haven’t had a height limit until two years ago so you aren’t going to see anything 399
consistent with this height limit. 400
401
Tony Blake: It’s not really 100 feet in relation to the grade of the person that might complain. It is 100 feet from 402
whatever the topography of the land is. I don’t see how this is a consistent application. 403
404
Larry Wright: I would like to ask the question regarding Lisa’s statement. I would like to hear the argument that the 405
100 feet does not address the issue. Let’s say you have the 100 feet limit. What do we have that addresses the 406
question? 407
408
Lisa Stuckey: The issue is light trespass. 409
410
Larry Wright: What in here takes care of the issue? 411
412
Michael Harvey: You still have to comply with the minimum foot candle at property line which we reduced three 413
years ago. You still have other standards in here. 414
415
Larry Wright: Can I have a motion? 416
417
Herman Staats: I also agree that if the light trespass is addressed by the lumens, height is a separate issue that may 418
or may not be related but I also agree that since this is there that the height is increased that is somewhat of a 419
compromise. 420
421
Michael Harvey: This talks about outdoor sports fields, outdoor performance lighting. 422
423
Buddy Hartley: I agree that the 100 foot is for that purpose. 424
12
D R A F T
9
425
Alan Campbell: I know we didn’t have a height restriction until a few years ago but during the daytime, I don’t want to 426
see a 200 foot whatever you could do right down the road from my house so I factor that in. 427
428
Johnny Randall: The number of lumens, the brightness of the bulb, has to be greater with a higher pole, right? 429
430
Michael Harvey: Not necessarily. The problem is that when you have a smaller pole, the light has to be at a much 431
greater angle to spread on the property or you have to install potentially a higher spread. 432
433 MOTION by Alan Campbell to approve the height recommended by staff. 434
Seconded by Buddy Hartley 435 VOTE: Passed (7-2; Stuckey, Blake opposed) 436
437
Larry Wright: Dissenting opinions please. 438
439
Lisa Stuckey: I would have no limit. I think other language concerning the spread of light is sufficient and I can 440
foresee the same issues arising but I get what Alan is saying as well. It seems the spread issue is more of a problem 441
that the height issue. I think the real issue is whether the use would be permitted in the areas at all. 442
443
Tony Blake: I agree with Lisa and given the topography differences, 100 feet isn’t necessarily 100 feet given where it 444
might be located. I think it is a solution in search of a problem. 445
446
Larry Wright: Dissenting opinions are very important and I thank each of you very much. 447
448 MOTION by Johnny Randall to approve as submitted. 449
Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 450 VOTE: Unanimous 451
452
453 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s) - To make a 454
recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in 455
order to make minor changes that have been suggested by the County’s code vendor 456
(MuniCode) as a result of MuniCode’s legal review. This item was heard at the November 19, 457
2013 quarterly public hearing 458
Presenter: Supervisor Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 459
460
Perdita Holtz: Reviewed Abstract 461
462 Motion made by Lisa Stuckey to approve staff’s recommendation to approve the UDO amendments contained in the 463
attachment. 464
Seconded by Alan Campbell 465 Vote: Unanimous 466
467
468 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 469
470
a) Board of Adjustment 471
472
Dawn Brezina: We had a meeting last month that went very smoothly. 473
474
Larry Wright: It was a very difficult meeting. It was essentially that UNC has an animal facility in the Bingham 475
Township and the waste treatment failed and they were pumping it out so we heard the case it was complicated but 476
13
D R A F T
10
we had to go by state statute so it was cut and dry but getting there was pretty difficult. There were issues of 477
standing and practicing law legally. 478
479
b) Orange Unified Transportation 480
481
482 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 483
484 MOTION: made by Tony Blake to adjourn. Lisa Stuckey seconded. 485 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 486
14
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 9, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Continued Discussion of Kennel Regulations
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Excerpt of Approved November 7,
2012 Minutes
2. E-mail Comments from Tony Blake
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575
PURPOSE: To continue discussion on BOCC-requested input into the processes and
regulations for kennels.
BACKGROUND: At the November 7, 2012 regular meeting there was discussion over existing
regulations governing the development of Class I and II Kennels. Minutes from the November
7, 2012 meeting are contained within Attachment 1. At this meeting staff was asked to
investigate how surrounding counties/municipalities regulate kennels. The following table
summarizes our findings:
COUNTY/
MUNICIPALITY LAND USE DESIGNATION: REVIEW PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CHATHAM
COUNTY
2 separate land use
categories for a ‘boarding
kennel’ and a ‘breeding
kennel’.
Both are reviewed through
the Conditional Use permit
process (i.e. acted upon
by the Chatham County
BOCC is a quasi-judicial
setting).
1. Allowed in residential districts
with a 3 acre minimum lot.
2. Double minimum setbacks for
the district where the facility
is located (NOTE our 150
foot setback is more
restrictive).
DURHAM
CITY/COUNTY
Grouped into the ‘Veterinary
Clinics, Animal Hospitals,
and Kennels’ land use
category. Boarding and
breeding are allowed.
Staff review and approval 1. Allowed in residential/non-
residential districts.
2. No outdoor runs or storage
allowed in certain districts.
3. 300 foot separation between
outdoor areas where animals
are kept and adjacent
residential uses in a
residential district. Minimum
6 foot tall wall when adjacent
to a residential use in a non-
residential district
15
COUNTY/
MUNICIPALITY LAND USE DESIGNATION: REVIEW PROCESS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CHAPEL HILL Independent land use
category
Staff review and approval 1. Allowed in non-residential
districts only.
2. Specifically prohibited in
certain mixed use zoning
districts.
3. Setbacks can vary based on
adjacent land use/zoning.
Handled on a case by case
basis.
CARRBORO Grouped into the ‘Services
and Enterprises Related to
Animals’ land use category
with vet clinics. Boarding
and breeding are allowed.
Approved through the
special use permit process
by the Carrboro Board of
Adjustment
1. Allowed in residential and
non-residential districts.
2. Soundproofing is required.
Board members were also asked to e-mail additional comments, concerns, and feedback on
potential modifications by December 5, 2012 for staff review. We received comments from Mr.
Tony Blake, which are contained in Attachment 2.
Staff is scheduled to meet again with Orange County Animal Services Director, Mr. Bob Marotto,
to continue discussion on possible modification of kennel regulations. Staff will provide an
update at a future regular meeting as new information becomes available.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration of this item, and the processing of any amendments
generated as a result of this discussion, will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Existing Planning will accomplish any work associated with the
development of text amendments arising out of this discussion.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board receive the update
and provide additional feedback as necessary.
16
Approved 12/5/12
1
MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 7, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks
Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;
Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowles,
Planner II; Perdita Holtz; Special Projects Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love,
Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Edward Yahner, Pat Yahner, Timothy McAvinney, Tom Heffner
HANDOUTS GIVEN AT MEETING: PowerPoint Presentation for Item 7; Email from NCDOT District Engineer
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a) Planning Calendar for November and December
b) November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing Legal Ad
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OCTOBER 3, 2012 REGULAR MEETING
MOTION by Maxecine Mitchell to approve the October 3, 2012 minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ************************************
Agenda Item 9: Kennel Processes and Regulations: To provide BOCC-requested input into the processes
and regulations for kennels.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract.
Rachel Hawkins: Aren’t there already a couple of kennels that were already approved?
Michael Harvey: The kennel on Alexander Drive has been in existence since 1979. That kennel is considered to
be a conforming use of property. There is a kennel off New Hope that was approved four years ago by the Board of
Adjustment. There was a kennel off Millhouse that was recently approved. There are approximately six kennels
throughout the county
Tony Blake: What brought this up?
Michael Harvey: Complaints from neighbors of the New Hope Road Kennel who thought that the Board of
Adjustment would not give them a fair shake and the County Commissioners would deny it. They complained
about noise, inappropriate land use for the area, traffic, etc. I would remind the Board that no matter which Board
reviews a special use permit, the standards for review and approval are still the same. Second, with the New Hope
Attachment 1
Excerpt of Approved
November 7, 2012 Planning
Board Minutes
17
Approved 12/5/12
2
Kennel operatioin specifically, there was a lot of testimony by experts that the noise issue would be addressed and
abated because he would install noise buffers, which he did.
Peter Hallenbeck: Even though the kennel has a list of animals you could have, I bet all the problems are when you
have dogs. Is there anything in the ordinances that draw a distinction between a kennel that keeps dogs outside at
night versus a kennel that might have them inside a building at night. This is also a rough one since we have a
noise ordinance.
Michael Harvey: Animal Services has regulations that govern nuisance barking. They have regulations for
nuisance barking but they will not be around at 2:00am in the morning. Our current regulations do provide a limited
distinction between outdoor and indoor kennel runs, specifically the 150 foot setback.
Lisa Stuckey: Does animal control decide if outdoor facilities are required for humane treatment of the animals?
Michael Harvey: You should consider the kennel process a dual process because Animal Service is a partner with
us. They will review all our kennel applications. If Animal Services do not issue a permit, the special use permit is
void.
Lisa Stuckey: I think it would be helpful to have a grid to compare Class I and Class II. Does Class II require any
setback at this point?
Michael Harvey: Class I does not technically have any setback requirement and that is discussed in here.
Tony Blake: The primary difference is between a ‘for profit’ and someone who is breeding their own dogs.
Michael Harvey: Structures would be set back the 40 foot, 20 foot, 20 foot, fences could go right to the property
line.
Maxecine Mitchell: On page 63, you have a minimum lot size, is that including acreage?
Michael Harvey: There is currently no regulation in zoning that establishes the minimum acreage requirement
specifically for a kennel.
Maxecine Mitchell: What is a “pretty large size” lot?
Michael Harvey: The kennel off New Hope is seven and one half acres. The parcel off Millhouse is 15 acres. One
other issue is we do need to fine tune the definition. Any discussion we have will need to involve Animal Services.
Larry Wright: We need to look at the Legend Road Animal Hospital and Kennel in Chapel Hill. They do not have
any buffers and no noise and they have an outdoor area where they walk dogs. You should look at Cornwallis
Animal Hospital. They would be Class II. They have a grass area where they walk their dogs. There are no
setbacks. If we want to have Economic Development Districts with diversity the commercial aspect, we should
consider these structures as we develop and diversify the commercial aspect that we should consider that type of
structure and we develop the county, people are looking for high quality clinics.
Tony Blake: The animal clinic in Carrboro is much the same.
Craig Benedict: Part of what got this started was the New Hope Kennel in the rural buffer. The comments were,
are these types of commercial uses allowed in the rural areas of Orange County. As Michael put in the abstract
there was some thought that is the rural buffer any different than the rest of agricultural residential in the county.
Larry Wright: My major point is that you have various types of these kennel operations. Some are just day/play
areas and others are for boarding and others for boarding/therapy.
18
Approved 12/5/12
3
Peter Hallenbeck: You can say there are almost two kinds of kennels. One being plopped down in a rural area and
another type of kennel which is not much different than having a business inside a building. The distinguishing
factor is where it is.
Lisa Stuckey: If I were in a rural area that was residential and someone had 18 dogs living next door to me, I would
be pretty upset if they were really loud.
Tony Blake: Using the Carrboro Animal Hospital, behind there is a residential neighborhood and they have a small
grassy area to walk their dogs.
Larry Wright: I think a lot of this is runs and how they are set up.
Michael Harvey: My suggestion would be that the BOCC are looking for your input, I would suggest that you take
until the January meeting and provide comments to staff copying the rest of the Planning Board.
Rachel Hawkins: Is the Orange County Animal Control in the same realm as kennels?
Michael Harvey: I am not sure how they are classified since they are in Chapel Hill.
Craig Benedict: Kennel SUP.
Larry Wright: What I would suggest is to try and find out what some other municipalities and counties might do if
you have time.
Michael Harvey: Maybe if we could get comments by December 5 so we can discuss those with Mr. Moratto of
Orange County Animal Services.
Larry Wright: Reminder that dinner meeting is on November 19. I want to encourage you to have comments to the
BOCC.
************************************
19
1
Michael Harvey
From:Tony Blake <tonyblake@nc.rr.com>
Sent:Monday, December 03, 2012 5:57 PM
To:'Wright Larry'; Tina Love; Michael Harvey
Cc:'dawn brezina'; bstuckey@nc.rr.com; max_02@msn.com; rachel.hawkins@pemc.org;
pete@eflandfd.org; alan@jalancampbelllaw.com; andrea.rohrbacher@duke.edu;
Hartley_2004@yahoo.com; jrandall@unc.edu; 'Herman Staats'; Perdita Holtz; Debra
Graham
Subject:RE: December Planning Board Agenda
Michael, Larry & Pete, based on my conversations with Bingham residents; I have the following comments for the record
on the proposed Kennel Ordinance changes:
Most of the proposed changes seem to be an effort to limit nuisance to neighbors. I think that concerns like that
would be better addressed through an enhanced nuisance ordinance rather than a new burden on those
businesses that are interested in compliance.
Aligning county requirements with the state regulations/inspections might also be advisable to avoid duplication
of effort and confusion.
I do not know what impact we have on the fee structure, but one person in the business I spoke to said that the
fees probably do not cover the county’s costs and that that a fee increase might do as much to dissuade casual
and non‐conforming kennels as the proposed ordinance changes would. That said, folks that are not interested
in compliance would not be affected by either effort because enforcement either has no teeth or is not a
priority.
From: Wright Larry [mailto:wright7020@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:34 AM
To: Tina Love
Cc: dawn brezina; bstuckey@nc.rr.com; max_02@msn.com; rachel.hawkins@pemc.org; pete@eflandfd.org;
alan@jalancampbelllaw.com; tonyblake; andrea.rohrbacher@duke.edu; Hartley_2004@yahoo.com;
jrandall@unc.edu; Herman Staats; Perdita Holtz; Debra Graham
Subject: Re: December Planning Board Agenda
Good morning Tina (With Ccs to others)
I respectfully submit proposed changes to the draft of the minutes as distributed electronically on 11/28.
In Chair's remarks, several sentences are missing here. It should go something like this.....
Page 6 (of the packet), after line 38, please insert: "For some time now, this Board has worked through ordinances in Phase I
and others in Phase II. Continuing to work within Phase II and The Implementation Bridge into the future, we strive to
prioritize the list. It's important to keep copies the Implementation Bridge as we move forward. Again, please contact Tina if
you cannot locate your copy of the Implementation Bridge. Our Vice Chair is leading prioritization of ordinances for action. "
Page 8, line 138. Strike: "your" Should read: "acres per lot"
Page 10, Line 244 strike: "does have a" Should read: "When this comes up for discussion...."
Page 11, Line 310 should read: "...and they have an outdoor area where they walk dogs..."
Page 11, Line 312 should read: "If we want to have Economic Development Districts with diversity the commercial aspect, we
should should consider these these of structures as we develop...."
20
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 9, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Proposed Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and Prioritization
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. November 2012 Letter from Pete
Hallenbeck
2. Planning Department – Planning Board
Projects for Late 2012 and 2013
3. Implementation Bridge Document
4. Implementation Bridge Status Matrix
5. Small Area Plan Status Matrix
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 919-245-2592
Perdita Holtz, 919-245-2578
PURPOSE: To discuss amendments the Planning Board would like to make to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) and the prioritization of such amendments.
BACKGROUND: As a result of discussions of the annual report and work plan in October and
November 2012, the Planning Board Chair and Vice-Chair asked staff to place an item on the
January 2013 Planning Board agenda to discuss UDO amendments the Planning Board would
like to bring forward for consideration. The letter in Attachment 1 was briefly discussed at the
November 19 dinner meeting between the BOCC and Planning Board. All other attachments
were part of the discussions in October and November.
The BOCC’s annual planning retreat will be held on February 1, 2013. As a result of the retreat,
new projects the Planning Department and Planning Board need to focus on may come
forward. However, there is likely some capacity among Planning staff to work on some
Planning Board priorities as well. All Planning Board priorities would have to be presented to
the BOCC, prior to significant staff time being spent on them, to obtain BOCC approval to
proceed with any specific project.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning staff recommends the Planning Board:
1. Discuss individual members’ ideas for UDO amendments.
2. Prioritize the list of ideas.
3. Ask staff to take the list forward to the BOCC for approval consideration to begin
work.
21
Nov 18, 2012
Ordinance Changes- What to do first?
As has been discussed, the UDO was originally planned to be two phases: The
first phase merged all the existing ordinances into a single document with coherent
layout and format. Changes were to be limited to only those that facilitated this
consolidation effort. The second phase is where “other” changes would happen.
What was not clear then, but is clear now, is that the “Second Phase” goes on
forever. There are always changes and adaptations to be made in the ordinances since
they are for use in an ever changing world.
The Implementation Bridge document is the repository for ideas on things to
change in the UDO. It is a list of changes that came out of the first phase. Other
changes continue to come up as the Planning Department interacts with citizens and
the BOCC. Various areas of focus in the county, such as fostering economic
development, have also produced some changes that need to be examined.
So the Planning Board and the Planning Department need to figure out how to
prioritize the list of UDO changes. Driving this process are:
1) Use the Planning Department’s knowledge of what needs to be changed based on
prior experiences, anticipated projects, and county goals.
2) Utilize individual Planning Board members skills and areas of interest.
3) Respond to suggestions and guidance from the BOCC.
I would like Planning Board members to read the Implementation Bridge and
think about their skills and interest and generate their own prioritized list of areas that
might benefit from some attention. The time and expertise of Planning Board members
is valued and appreciated- it would be foolish to not take advantage of it.
The Planning Board and Planning Department can then create a prioritized list of
areas in the UDO that need attention. The list should be a living, changing document.
As such, the process for managing the list is as important as the content of the list itself.
Focusing on this list will be our “background task” when we are not dealing with
specific zoning applications from the public. We may also have brief focused meetings
at 6:30 before the Planning Board Meeting to give members an opportunity to share
their knowledge, information and passion about their areas of interest.
So read, think and create your list. This is a great opportunity to make your time
on the board productive and interesting. I look forward to your feedback.
Pete
Attachment 1 22
October 30, 2012
minor revision: December 31, 2012
Planning Department – Planning Board
Projects for Late 2012 and 2013
QPH DATE MAJOR INITIATIVE
Special
Projects
Division
• Efland Overlay Nov 2012 • SAPFO-TAC Report
(Nov 2012 – Mar 2013)
• Muni-code (UDO Codification) Nov 2012 • Master Parks Plan (DEAPR – Lead;
Planning – Liaison)
Comprehensive
Planning /
Transportation
Division
• Town of Hillsborough Joint Land
Use Plan Changes (ETJ Swap)
May, August/
Sept, Nov 2013
• Annual Comprehensive Plan Report
• UDO/Zoning • Railroad Closings (3)
• Functional Road Classification Map
• County Profile Element (2010
Census Update)
• Specific Access Management Areas
(Buckhorn Road)
• OPT/CHT Consolidation (Liaison)
• CTP Amendment • Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane EDD
Initiatives
• MPOs
Current
Planning
Division
• Lighting Nov 2012 QPH
• Solar Nov 2012
• Bona fide farms (State Law
Impacts) (Ag Services Related)
• Kennels May-Aug-Sept
• Subdivisions (JPA Rural Buffer
Density)
Attachment 2 23
• Outdoor Events-Mass Gatherings
• EC-5 Boundary Fixes 2013
• Stormwater Rules Feb 2013
• Code Enforcement – Economic
Development Areas(??)
Primary DATE MAJOR INITIATIVE
Director’s
Office
• Intergovernmental Agreements • Capital Improvement Planning
(Water, Sewer, etc.)
• ½ cent Public Transit Sales Tax • School Siting Collaboration
• Economic Development Planning
• Water Supply Planning
• BOCC/Manager/Multi-Department
Planning Goals
ADVISORY BOARDS
QPH Topic DATE Ongoing Non-QPH Initiatives
Planning Board
BOA
OUTBoard
UDO Phase II • Private Road Standards
24
Orange County, NC
Code of Ordinances
Unified Development Ordinance
Implementation
Bridge
March 24, 2011
Prepared by
Clarion Associates
25
Implementation Bridge Report - 1 -
Contents
A. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE...........................................................2
What is an Implementation Bridge?..................................................................2
How Should This Document be Used?...............................................................3
B. RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN..........................................4
Overarching Goals of the Comprehensive Plan..................................................4
Specific Goals of the Comprehensive Plan.........................................................5
How the New UDO Implements the Plan...........................................................9
C. IDEAS RAISED DURING THE UDO PROCESS.........................................10
Economic Development Ideas..........................................................................10
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions.................................................10
Incentives..................................................................................................11
Economic Development Districts..............................................................11
Permitted Uses and Standards Ideas...............................................................11
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions.................................................11
Suburban‐Rural Edge Differentiation.......................................................12
Uses...........................................................................................................12
Standards..................................................................................................12
Environmental Ideas........................................................................................13
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions.................................................13
Stormwater Management and Groundwater...........................................13
Transportation..........................................................................................13
Procedural Ideas..............................................................................................14
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions.................................................14
Streamlining..............................................................................................14
Communication.........................................................................................14
Formatting / Clarification..........................................................................14
D. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................15
Recommended Phased Consideration of Amendments...................................15
1. Issues Repeatedly Raised During Consideration of the UDO...............15
2. Issues That Are Particularly Compelling or Time‐Sensitive..................16
Recommended Next Steps...............................................................................17
Appendix................................................................................................18
26
Implementation Bridge Report - 2 -
A. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
What is an Implementation Bridge?
Orange County has been working to develop a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
This project was initiated in fall, 2009, to consolidate existing County land use
regulations into a central document where all regulations governing the development
and use of property would be located. This new UDO includes regulations currently
contained within the following documents:
• Zoning Ordinance
• Subdivision Ordinance
• Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
• Environmental Impact Ordinance
• Stormwater Ordinance for Neuse River Lands
Benefits of placing all development regulations into one central document include
making existing land use regulations more user‐friendly, and eliminating existing
contradictions and inconsistencies. The County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan supports
the development of a UDO.
On August 24, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners authorized County planning
and zoning staff to:
Incorporate land use development regulations into a central document;
Correct identified inconsistencies;
Begin modification/updating of existing development standards (i.e. signage,
parking, landscaping, lighting, stream buffers, etc);
Update graphics/tables; and
Develop Conditional Use/Rezoning regulations.
The process of creating the UDO was intended to be incremental. Work to initially
create the document would be Phase I, focusing on structure, organization, and the
specified adjustments noted above. It was anticipated at the beginning of this initiative
that ideas for other substantive changes to the County’s land use regulations would be
offered during the process of creating the UDO. Accordingly, the concept of an
“Implementation Bridge” was introduced: An inventory of these ideas would be
maintained, and at the end of Phase I a report would be prepared documenting public
comments and providing a synopsis of possible future UDO amendments that would
follow in Phase II and beyond. This Implementation Bridge is that report. It is intended
27
Implementation Bridge Report - 3 -
to be a summary of issues, comments, suggestions, and concerns, along with strategies
for addressing these.
How Should This Document be Used?
This Implementation Bridge is intended to be a reference and repository of ideas.
During public review of the initial drafts of the Unified Development Ordinance, many
comments and suggestions were offered by citizens, stakeholders, and Board members.
The substantive comments that suggest future ordinance amendments as part of Phase
II of this initiative and beyond have been collected, and appear as an Appendix to this
report. This document also includes recommendations for priorities and strategies in
pursuing subsequent amendments to the UDO as Phase II and beyond. The comments
that have been received are summarized here, grouped into the following categories:
economic development ideas, use and design ideas, environmental ideas, and
procedural ideas.
Orange County’s main policy document addressing land use issues is its 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals and objectives for the
future of Orange County, and serves as a blueprint and guide for decision‐making.
Development of the Unified Development Ordinance is called for in the Comprehensive
Plan, and the UDO has been drafted within the context of the goals and objectives
articulated in the Plan. Consideration of Comprehensive Plan principles and guidance is
paramount in the development and subsequent adjustment of the new Unified
Development Ordinance. Accordingly, the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are
reiterated below, for reference and consideration as work proceeds on the UDO.
This Implementation Bridge concludes with recommendations for proceeding into Phase
II and beyond ‐ ‐ suggestions for priorities in considering a sequence of amendments to
the new UDO.
28
Implementation Bridge Report - 4 -
B. RELATIONSHIP TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Overarching Goals of the Comprehensive Plan
Orange County’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November, 2008, following an
extensive process of discussion and citizen engagement. The Plan was written and
adopted with the intent of being a blueprint document to guide future policy decisions
for the County through the year 2030. Eight Lead Advisory Boards provided leadership
and direction for the Plan:
Planning Board
Economic Development Commission
Affordable Housing Advisory Board
Commission for the Environment
Agricultural Preservation Board
Historic Preservation Commission
Parks and Recreation Advisory Council
Orange Unified Transportation
A point of consensus in Orange County that emerged during preparation of the Plan is
that the County needs to move toward becoming a sustainable community. The
Comprehensive Plan includes a focus on implementation that is designed to link the
economy, the environment, and social equity.
There are seven Overarching Goals highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan, as follows:
1. Economic Development: Viable and sustainable economic development that
contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances high‐
quality employment opportunities for County residents.
2. Housing: Opportunity for all citizens for Orange County to rent or purchase
safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing.
3. Land Use: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of
future land uses, with the availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and economy
consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
29
Implementation Bridge Report - 5 -
4. Natural and Cultural Systems: A sustainable balance and appreciation of
natural, cultural, and agricultural resources.
5. Parks and Recreation: Regionally coordinated park facilities that provide
healthy opportunities for recreation and exercise for all citizens of Orange
County, and that preserve important cultural and natural resources.
6. Services and Facilities: Growth consistent with the provision of adequate and
sustainable County services and facilities while managing the impacts upon
the environmental infrastructure and effectively protecting the County’s
natural and cultural resources.
7. Transportation: An efficient and balanced transportation system that uses
multiple motorized and non‐motorized modes of transportation and for
which the planning, design, and implementation will be guided by the
following overarching qualities:
A. Protects air quality, water quality and quantity, soil quality, and
biological resources.
B. Promotes public health and safety.
C. Encourages sustainable economic development.
D. Provides equal access to all users.
E. Is highly modally and inter‐modally integrated and connected.
F. Fosters sustainable and efficient use of resources, including
financial and natural resources.
G. Protects the County’s natural and cultural heritage.
H. Uses creative and well‐designed infrastructure.
I. Is attractive, user‐friendly, and easy to understand because of
factors such as signage, brochures, and web pages.
J. Respects privacy and citizen rights.
These overarching goals form the foundation and structure for the Comprehensive Plan.
Each of these topics has its own Element in the Plan, each of which includes specific
goals and objectives.
Specific Goals of the Comprehensive Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan then goes on to build on these seven overarching goals
and identifies individual specific goals as points of focus and direction for the future.
These individual goals are policy directives; as implementation strategies are brought
forward as ordinance amendments in future phases of the UDO process, these
individual goals will offer guidance on proposed regulatory changes. Following are the
specific goals included in the Plan:
30
Implementation Bridge Report - 6 -
Economic Development Goals
Economic Development–1: Public‐private sector partnerships that create a stronger
business climate.
Economic Development–2: Infrastructure that supports desired development.
Economic Development–3: Effective systems to train and support residents and those
who work in Orange County.
Economic Development–4: Partnerships that ensure the County remains a great place
in which to live and work.
Housing Goals
Housing–1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all
parts of the County.
Housing–2: Housing that is usable by as many people as possible regardless of age,
ability, or circumstance.
Housing–3: The preservation, repair, and replacement of existing housing supply.
Housing–4: Development ordinances and incentives that promote inclusionary practices
and housing options for all income levels.
Land Use Goals
Land Use–1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent
with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life.
Land Use –2: Land uses that are appropriate to on‐site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character.
Land Use–3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern
that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use
conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
Land Use–4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and /or incentives
that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
31
Implementation Bridge Report - 7 -
Land Use–5: Life, health, and property safe from hazards.
Land Use–6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
Natural and Cultural Systems Goals
Natural and Cultural Systems–1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of non‐polluting
renewable energy resources, efficient use of non‐renewable energy resources, and
clean air.
Natural and Cultural Systems–2: Economic viability of agriculture, forestry, and
horticulture and their respective lands.
Natural and Cultural Systems–3: Infrastructure and support systems for local and
regional agriculture.
Natural and Cultural Systems–4: Preservation of historic, cultural, architectural and
archaeological resources, and their associated landscapes.
Natural and Cultural Systems–5: Awareness and appreciation of the diverse cultural
history and heritage of Orange county and its residents.
Natural and Cultural Systems–6: Sustainable quality and quantity of ground and surface
water resources.
Natural and Cultural Systems–7: A balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and
animal populations.
Natural and Cultural Systems–8: Networks of protected natural, cultural, and
agricultural lands.
Parks and Recreation Goals
Parks and Recreation–1: Adequate parks and recreational facilities for all citizens within
the County, regardless of age, gender, race, or disability.
Parks and Recreation–2: A partnership among regional recreational providers and
facility owners/managers, including the appropriate co‐location and sharing of school
facilities, that meets the County’s recreation needs.
32
Implementation Bridge Report - 8 -
Parks and Recreation–3: Recreational facilities available for the public use in a manner
that is multi‐generational and accessible to all County citizens at both the countywide
and community levels.
Parks and Recreation–4: Healthy lifestyles, quality of life and community building
through the provision of a variety of affordable recreational facilities and choice of
leisure activities, while responding to the changing needs and interests of County
residents.
Parks and Recreation–5: Park and recreational facilities that are environmentally
responsible, and where cultural and natural resources and open space within these sites
are protected.
Services and Facilities Goals
Services and Facilities‐1: Efficient provision of public water and sewer service systems
which are consistent with the Land Use Plan and which abide by the current Water and
Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement, the existing Orange County‐
Chapel Hill‐Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan, and future
agreements to be negotiated among the County and public and private service
providers.
Services and Facilities‐2: Adequate, safe, and healthy groundwater withdrawal and
wastewater disposal systems with minimal impacts upon water and land resources.
Services and Facilities‐3: High quality educational facilities that support our diverse and
growing population and present opportunities for life‐long learning.
Services and Facilities–4: High quality library facilities that support our diverse and
growing population and present opportunities for life‐long learning.
Services and Facilities‐5: Efficient and effective drainage, stormwater, floodplain
management, and erosion control systems.
Services and Facilities‐6: Less solid waste per capita with cost effective and
environmentally responsible disposal and management.
Services and Facilities‐7: Efficient and effective public safety including police, fire,
telecommunications, emergency services, and animal services.
33
Implementation Bridge Report - 9 -
Transportation Goals
Transportation–1: An efficient and integrated multi‐modal transportation system that
protects the natural environment and community character.
Transportation–2: A multi‐modal transportation system that is affordable, available,
and accessible to all users and that promotes public health and safety.
Transportation–3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves
existing development, supports future development, and is consistent with the County’s
land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and
community character.
Transportation–4: A countywide and regionally‐integrated, multi‐modal transportation
planning process that is comprehensive, creative and effective.
How the New UDO Implements the Plan
One of the main mechanisms available to Orange County to pursue achievement of
these goals is enactment and enforcement of County Ordinances. It is in pursuit of the
implementation of these Comprehensive Plan goals that the Unified Development
Ordinance initiative was undertaken. The Comprehensive Plan is and should be
referenced throughout the UDO. Decision making procedures articulated in the UDO
specifically include, wherever legally authorized, determination of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan as one of the criteria for approval of land development proposals.
34
Implementation Bridge Report - 10 -
C. IDEAS RAISED DURING THE
UDO PROCESS
When the Orange County Board of Commissioners initiated this UDO process, it was
made clear that the intent was to first coordinate, combine, and re‐structure the array
of existing ordinances. The objective was to eliminate redundancy, make the
ordinances more user‐friendly, incorporate recent changes in State enabling legislation,
and make minor adjustments. It was clear from the outset that there were many
objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that warranted consideration in the form of
ordinance changes. It was also expected that in the public review of a new draft UDO
there would be many ideas and suggestions for substantive changes offered by citizens
and advisory boards. Accordingly, arrangements were made early on to collect these
comments and ideas, and organize them into an “Implementation Bridge” at the end of
the UDO process. The key point was to not lose any of the ideas that would be offered.
That, as stated earlier, is the reason for preparation of this document: to organize the
collected comments that suggest UDO revisions so that the comments can be carefully
considered, with suggested priorities and an assessment of time‐sensitivity.
Following is a summary of the comments that were offered and presented during public
events and in individual correspondence, as communicated to the County by the public,
advisory board members, and Board of County Commissioners. This summary
categorizes and organizes comments by topic not in any priority order, and prefaced by
references to Comprehensive Plan goals. Ideas are summarized here. A fuller
description of the ideas and comments received is included in the Appendix to this
report, presented in the same order as appears here. There is no attempt in presenting
this list to evaluate the comments.
Economic Development Ideas
Ideas were offered during the UDO review process that suggest adjustments to better
encourage economic development‐related activity.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions
General Economic Development Goal: The County seeks to attract and promote the
types of businesses suited to Orange County, businesses that will provide jobs to local
residents and provide a more balanced revenue structure that relies less on the
generation of private property taxes.
35
Implementation Bridge Report - 11 -
There was strong support during the process for consideration of incentives to
encourage economic activity and job creation of the type envisioned for Orange County,
and for increased attention to provisions relating to the County’s Economic
Development Districts.
Incentives
• Streamline procedures for Economic Development Districts and commercial
development applications. Consider expedited processing for such
applications.
• Study what local private businesses need in order to expand and thrive, and
consider what regulatory changes could contribute to that objective.
Economic Development Districts
• Consider different standards for application within Economic
Development Districts to encourage commercial development.
• Create a predictable process for consideration of development
applications within Economic Development Districts.
• Develop regulations for Rural Economic Development Areas.
Permitted Uses and Standards Ideas
Ideas were offered during the UDO review process that suggest further attention to
what land uses are permitted where, to design standards.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions
General Land Use Goal: Mixed‐use is actively encouraged, and locations for new mixed‐
use centers are being identified, providing live‐work‐shop opportunities that minimize
travel needs.
Housing Goal–1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all
in all parts of the County.
Housing Goal–4: Development ordinances and incentives that promote inclusionary
practices and housing options for all income levels.
Land Use Goal–2: Land uses that are appropriate to on‐site environmental conditions
and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character.
36
Implementation Bridge Report - 12 -
Land Use Goal–3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and
pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use
conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
Services and Facilities Goal‐1: Efficient provision of public water and sewer service
systems which are consistent with the Land Use Plan and which abide by the current
Water and Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement, the existing Orange
county‐Chapel Hill‐Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan, and future
agreements to be negotiated among the County and public and private service
providers.
There was strong support during the process for further consideration of the
differentiation between suburban and rural areas, for review of what land uses are
permitted where, and consideration of design standards that are applied to new
development.
Suburban‐Rural Edge Differentiation
• Differentiate between suburban and rural character, and adjust regulations
relating to required features such as signing and transportation
improvements.
• Review and adjust notification requirements to make more appropriate to
rural vs. suburban areas. (E.g., rural rezonings may require larger areas of
notification.)
Uses
• Revisit Conditional District provisions to consider restricting locations in
which they can be applied.
• Revisit home occupation rules.
• Exclude government or municipal uses from residential zoning.
Standards
• Add back language about required findings that was formerly included for
Planned Developments in the existing Zoning Ordinance.
• Differentiate between urban and rural character for regulations such as
signage and subdivision standards.
• Review the full range of design standards that are currently included in the
UDO, to determine if adjustments would help to promote County goals and
objectives. (Note: the Appendix contains 22 specific suggestions for review
of standards such as building height, lighting, signs, adult entertainment
uses, road and driveway requirements, hours of operation, and airport
zoning.
37
Implementation Bridge Report - 13 -
Environmental Ideas
Ideas were offered during the UDO review process that suggest additional attention to
regulatory provisions aimed at environmental protection and preservation.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions
General Natural and Cultural Systems Goal: The goal is to provide a network of
protection for natural, cultural, and agricultural lands, protecting natural areas, prime
forests, and wildlife habitats. Preservation of working farms is a key theme, along with
protection of historical character. Energy efficiency and use of alternative fuel and
power generation options are encouraged.
Land Use Goal–2: Land uses that are appropriate to on‐site environmental conditions
and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community
character.
Natural and Cultural Systems Goal–4: Preservation of historic, cultural, architectural
and archaeological resources, and their associated landscapes.
There was strong support during the process particularly for consideration of regulatory
provisions related to stormwater management, water quality, and transportation.
Stormwater Management and Groundwater
• Revise definitions and references to wastewater treatment systems to
avoid opening possibilities for extension of sewer service into areas where
the Land Use Plan contemplates no public sewer service.
• Consider criteria for locations of sampling stations under the Pollutant
Monitoring Program.
• Consider establishing a mechanism for nutrient trading.
Transportation
• Adjust Section 7.8.2 to encourage roads to be laid out in a manner that
avoids significant natural features.
• Develop guidelines for Transit Oriented Development.
38
Implementation Bridge Report - 14 -
Procedural Ideas
Ideas were offered during the UDO review process that suggest additional attention to
the procedures that are spelled out in the ordinance, to further enhance the
effectiveness of the UDO.
Relevant Comprehensive Plan Provisions
Land Use–6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
There was strong support during the process for consideration of changes that would
streamline processes and enhance communication with citizens. There were also
suggestions related to formatting in the UDO, and requests for clarification of certain
provisions.
Streamlining
• Explore ways to shorten review and approval processes.
• Include metrics for approval time for each process.
• Review telecommunication towers process.
• Revisit roles and responsibilities of Planning Board vs. Board of
Commissioners for approval decisions.
Communication
• Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add
those as required notification mechanisms.
• Reconsider public notification requirements for differences between
rural versus suburban locations (in terms of distance for notice
requirements).
• Consider new ideas for public notification.
Formatting / Clarification
• Include more cross‐references, on‐line search mechanisms.
• Mention the Orange County / Town of Hillsborough Interlocal
Agreement.
• Develop more guidelines for selection of school sites.
• Mention the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary
Agreement.
• Incorporate references to Animal Control Ordinance, align definitions.
• Include language to better differentiate between the different types of
residential zoning districts.
• Reconsider treating withdrawal of an application as a denial.
39
Implementation Bridge Report - 15 -
D. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Phased Consideration of Amendments
All of these ideas cannot be considered or pursued at once. Since both the
Comprehensive Plan and this Implementation Bridge offer numerous ideas, Orange
County needs a framework that will allow the County to take action in a dynamic,
orderly, and timely fashion. Orange County has a strong culture and tradition of
carefully and purposefully examining public policy proposals. Accordingly, this
Implementation Bridge concludes with suggestions for priorities and phasing for next
steps. All the ideas should be considered; but since all cannot be considered
simultaneously in an effective and time‐efficient manner, identification of priority topics
would be useful.
There are two categories of topics to highlight: (1) Issues that repeatedly were raised in
public comments about Orange County’s development regulations; and (2) Issues that
are particularly compelling or time‐sensitive.
It would be reasonable to construct a phased approach to pursuing amendments to the
new UDO, once it is adopted, based upon the two priority categories described above.
A preliminary list of priority topics follows, and it would be reasonable to schedule work
and consideration of these as amendments to the new UDO as soon as possible
following adoption. Consideration of the balance of issues that have been raised should
take place as time and workloads permit.
1. Issues Repeatedly Raised During Consideration of the UDO
Adjust Proposed Conditional Districts: The most common issue brought forward during
Board and citizen comments, and by the jurisdictions of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, was
concern about potential widespread use of Conditional Districts throughout the rural
portions of Orange County. Concerns were both about lack of restrictions on locations
for use of these districts, and about Planned Development language in the existing
Zoning Ordinance that was not carried over explicitly into the new UDO. Orange County
staff and Planning Board each responded to these concerns by proposing adjustments to
the UDO to be included prior to final adoption. The Planning Board’s recommendation
for approval of the UDO includes these adjustments. If the Board of Commissioners
makes these recommended adjustments in the UDO that is enacted, the issue is
addressed. If the Board of Commissioners decides that this issue needs further study
and adopts the UDO without these adjustments, consideration of the adjustments
should lead the list of next steps.
40
Implementation Bridge Report - 16 -
Promote Economic Development: Orange County has had Economic Development
Districts in place for 20 years, with only small amounts of activity. Citizens and Boards
repeatedly mentioned need for further adjustments to the UDO to help in promoting
needed economic development activity. In addition, there were non‐UDO issues raised,
such as attention to extension of water‐sewer service in strategic locations, and
technology improvements such as increased areas of available internet access.
Streamline the Process: Numerous comments focused on procedures, and on
opportunities to streamline regulation. Opinions were offered suggesting shorter
review processes and an efficient system for review of proposals by advisory boards,
commissions, and elected officials.
Adjust Location‐Specific Standards: Concerns about preservation of rural character
were expressed, along with requests for further refinement of standards promoting
targeted density and mixed use patterns. “Edge” issues were raised, focusing on the
relationships between low‐density, protected areas and activity centers. It would be
helpful to further study the locational components of density and mixed use standards,
with particular reference to existing and forthcoming Small Area Plans, to determine if
further refinement or calibration is warranted.
2. Issues That Are Particularly Compelling or Time‐Sensitive
Review Procedures: There were many comments offered about procedures that are
included in the new UDO, summarized above and listed in the Appendix to this
document. It would be prudent in any case to schedule a review and potential
adjustment to procedures 3‐6 months following enactment of the new UDO, with the
benefit of drawing from initial experience in administering the regulations to highlight
adjustments that would improve usability. During that review process, it would be
desirable to consider each procedural suggestion that has been made and compare
suggestions with the early experiences of using the UDO to decide if adjustments are
warranted.
Consider Design Standards that may further Comprehensive Plan Goals: Revisit the
standards included in the new UDO, with particular attention to locational differences in
character between rural and suburban areas, and how standards might be adjusted or
developed to reflect those differences.
41
Implementation Bridge Report - 17 -
Recommended Next Steps
As always, and as is appropriate, guidance from the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners is needed to provide direction for next steps. As the new UDO
approaches the point of adoption, it is desirable for the Board of Commissioners to set
priorities for staff and Planning Board work on Phase II of this initiative ‐ ‐ the first set of
amendments/adjustments to the new UDO ‐ ‐ and also to identify topics for
consideration in subsequent phases following Phase II.
The priority areas suggested above can serve as the starting point for this discussion of
phased work on amendments. If the Board of Commissioners finds this suggested list
(or adjustments to this list as decided by the Board) to be an acceptable “game plan,”
the Board may choose to refer the list to staff to come back with a specific process and
schedule for consideration of these amendments. The Board of Commissioners could
also decide to refer this list to the Planning Board for recommendation prior to giving
direction to staff, to seek the Planning Board’s advice regarding priorities for Phase II
work and additional issues that should be given early attention.
42
Implementation Bridge Report - 18 -
Appendix
This Appendix consists of three components, all suggesting areas for further/additional
consideration of UDO provisions. This compendium of suggestions for future ordinance
amendments was compiled from input received during public review of the new Unified
Development Ordinance.
The first section is entitled “Future Phase Suggestions,” and is a collection of comments
that have been collected and grouped by topic. The second section offers two
resolutions that were adopted and forwarded by the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
The third section is “Excerpt Alice Gordon’s Comments (Pages 1‐3 of 24‐page Fax).”
These materials follow, beginning on the next page.
43
A-1
APPENDIX: FUTURE PHASE SUGGESTIONS RECEIVED TO DATE
March 2, 2011
Listed below are ideas that the Orange County Planning staff received as part of the 2009-2010
Unified Development Ordinance review process, or are aware of because the idea was raised
during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan process. At this time, these ideas are not being
incorporated into the UDO as they exceed the scope of work with which staff was approved to
proceed. They are collected and listed here as a resource for consideration of future
amendments to the UDO.
The comments are listed as submitted by citizens, stakeholders, and Board members, without
evaluation. They appear below grouped by category of comment. The ideas are numbered
sequentially and continuously throughout this Appendix for ease of reference.
COMMENTS RELATED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
NEED FOR INCENTIVES
1. The size of a farm should be considered. Organic farmers, which seem to be the trend,
10 acres in order to be called a farm is a bit large for an organic farm. Considering farm
income as a requirement to be a farm is difficult because prices can vary so much from
year to year that one year a farmer can produce 300 bushels of corn and hardly break
even because prices are low and the next year the same farmer can produce 120
bushels and make a lot because prices have gone up substantially.
2. Agricultural Support Enterprises regulations need to be written.
3. Incentives for commercial development (expedited processes, etc.).
4. Focus on the greatest value for the greater good of the entire county with purposeful
philosophy and policies to achieve the economic resiliency and community diversity we
desperately need and require at this time.
5. Examine what our local private businesses need in order to expand and thrive.
6. Examine why successful businesses left Orange County, such as Smith Breeden, Rho,
Contact and BlueCross BlueShield’s expansion, and determine what we need to do to
have helped them grow here.
7. Economic development projects in the Economic Development Districts should have a
predictable and expeditious approval process. Economic development projects in other
appropriate areas should have a similar approval process.
8. Economic development approval processes and standards should be revised by local
business and planning professionals in conjunction with UNC’s Planning, Business and
Law Schools.
44
A-2
9. An Economic Development Workgroup consisting of the BOCC, Planning Board and
Economic Development Commission should meet Spring/Summer 2011 to examine
expediting approval, targeting industries, permitted uses, specialized zoning district by
SAP subarea and revised standards.
10. Agricultural Support Enterprises/Rural Economic Development Area, Speedway Small
Area Plan and Transit Oriented Development are important initiatives using Conditional
Use District structures should be important 2011 BOCC goals.
11. Examine Durham’s American Tobacco Campus and American Underground to create an
Orange County campus that is walk-able, diverse and attractive for mixed use including
affordable space for Incubation and Startup businesses.
TARGETING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
12. Different landscaping standards may be needed for EDDs.
13. Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) regulations need to be written.
COMMENTS RELATED TO USES AND STANDARDS
SUBURBAN-RURAL EDGE AND DIFFERENTIATION
14. Differentiate between urban and rural character -- applicable to signage and subdivision
impacts on transportation.
15. Public notification requirements for public hearings and other procedures that are more
appropriate rural versus suburban uses/districts (i.e., rural rezonings may require larger
area of notification).
16. Cluster development standards for suburban versus rural developments.
PERMITTED LAND USES
17. Need updated Airport Regulations.
18. Regulating adult entertainment uses and nuisance related events at these uses.
19. Airport zoning, possibly as conditional zoning district.
20. Review telecommunications towers process.
DESIGN OF DEVELOPMENT
21. Section 2.5.3, No mention of lighting, natural areas inventory, solid waste, or centralized
recycling in requirements for information as applications are submitted. Should be
added.
22. Include hours of operation. Lighting comes to mind -- Section 5.14.2 (A) (1)
23. Add no fault well repair to requirements.
45
A-3
24. Need to revisit private road standards.
25. There's a lack of land use criteria for reserving school sites. Need some general
guidelines (i.e. not in wetlands or on slopes greater than X). Consult County School
Joint Construction Standards.
26. Relation to adjacent properties is not addressed -- Section 7.13.3 (C) (1)
27. Is there any limit to building height? Flag for future.
28. Are there provisions for shared driveways? It may be useful in certain cases (i.e. along
highways/major roadways).
29. Many places in the UDO have a restriction on the height of a building. While residential
structures tend to have 9 to 12 feet per floor, commercial structures can have as much
as 15 feet per floor. As the structure covers more area, the roof can have a substantial
amount of height to it if it is not a flat roof. Architectural details such as facades and
cupolas can affect the height.
30. My comment is this: Would it make more sense to specify the number of occupied
stories as a limit on the structure? An occupied story would not include attic space or
utility rooms- it would be space occupied by people working in the structure. Page 3-44
and page 4-18 are examples of where this specification occurs. Note that the height
limitations that change with additional setback could be used as a maximum height such
that either a (for example) 3 story limit _OR_ the maximum height based on setback
would be the height limit for the building. An example of this setback based number is
found at the top of page 6-2. I would also add in (not sure where) than any building
whose height exceeds the apparatus or ladder height restrictions of the fire departments
which would respond to a structure fire would be required to be sprinklered.
31. There are various metal vapor lights, the most common being Mercury and Sodium
vapor. It would be nice to know why Mercury is being singled out. In particular, is it the
presence of Mercury (i.e. environmental) or is it the use of a specific type of fixture such
as the yard lights utilities sell that is the concern. If the concern is environmental, then
would it not also apply to all fluorescent lights which use mercury?
32. We have incandescent, metal vapor, fluorescent (which is mercury and a phosphorous),
and LED. Each has a different lumens per watt rating. If light is being regulated, lumens
should be the standard. Also, be aware that any light with a reflector will put out more
light in a certain direction than a light with no reflector. As such, lumens is still a weak
measure of light output but it is what is on the packaging for all lights and is easier to
work with than getting into the amount of light energy per unit area type measurements
(candles). As a rule of thumb, incandescent runs 5 to 30 lumens/watt, and LEDs run 60
to 110 lumens/watt.
33. The limits under section (c) "General Operations" and (e) "Use of Accessory Structures"
severely limit what a home occupation can do.
34. Somewhere in the Standards for Residential Uses or Development Standards there
should be a section that specifies minimum residential driveway sizes of 12 feet wide by
14 feet vertical clearance (already stated in 7.8.5 (B) (15) on page 7-32) for fire
apparatus. This is the cleared width of the driveway, not the width of gravel or paving.
35. The travel-way width for Class B with 2 lots should be specified as 12 feet of cleared
space, no standard for width of gravel or hard surface.
46
A-4
36. Under (5) (b): 16 feet should be 18 feet so that a passenger car can be passed by fire
apparatus. For Class B roads with 3 or more lots, there should be an area 20 feet wide
by 50 feet long every 1500 feed to that fire apparatus can pass each other.
37. On (I), remove the word “incandescent” since LED lights are now often used for holiday
decorations. Low wattage is not defined, but a typical nightlight/big Christmas tree bulb
is 7 watts so you could say any wattage under 10 watts. It would make more sense to
use a lumen rating, such as less than 150 lumens. On (J), first off this should be a lumen
limit, not watts. As the limit reads, this looks like a total lumens for any given motion
activated switch. The lumens looks like it was derived from two incandescent 75 watt
bulbs, probably flood lights. Note that if this is the case, the maxim lumens should be
2400. There are many motion activated systems where a sensor can turn on multiple
light fixtures. So I would re-word this to have a 2400 lumen limit per light fixture
controlled by the sensor. Finally, on this max lumens per fixture, there are standard
outdoor floodlight fixtures that take 3 bulbs. For those fixtures, a reasonable max
lumens would be around 3600. You could also add a limit of no one bulb can exceed a
rating of 2100 lumens (a 120 watt equivalent) if the intent is to avoid the larger single
bulb fixtures -- Section 6.11.3. This is where a definition of “mercury vapor luminaries” is
needed. As written, this could mean that any standard fluorescent or compact
fluorescent light could not be used, since they are a mercury-phosphorous based light.
38. (C)(1) Some floodlight fixtures do not cover the bulb, the stop just after the threaded
base. I’d just stick with the 45 degree from vertical. (c) (2) the “it will shine” is vague.
Perhaps something like “no more than 5% of the luminous energy shall shine towards
roadways, onto adjacent residential property or into the night sky”. (C) (3) Same
vagueness- what is the “main beam”? Do you really want to say that no portion of the
bulb shall be visible from adjacent properties or the public street right-of-way? From an
enforcement point of view, a “Can’t see the bulb” is easy to verify for both the owner and
the inspector. Note that this is the approach taken on page 6-97, 6.117 (3).
39. All existing and proposed public transportation services and facilities within A RADIUS of
one mile of the site shall be documented ( leave out “also”) -- Section 6.17(B) #(4).
40. This whole section should be looked at with respect to goals and objectives in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Commissioners’ goals and
objectives. County policies do not always support the land development ordinances,
particularly with transportation issues. This is too vast a task to address at this time, but
I wanted to “tag” this Section for future study -- Section 7.8
41. Move towards intense use of sites to save more of the site in open space - cluster
subdivisions. Cluster subdivisions require community wastewater systems. Falls apart
on political side. Commissioners very wary due to system failures 20 years ago. Is
there a way to put this in the Ordinance ‘by right" if designed to specific criteria? Take
political part out.
42. Need to update Lighting Standards. Height requirements for outdoor light poles and
potential impacts on County recreational facilities is one of the areas that should be
revisited.
47
A-5
COMMENTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND GROUNDWATER
43. In the section concerning golf courses, Pollutant Monitoring Program, I would suggest
some thought be given to the locations of the sampling stations for surface water,
groundwater and sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient sampling
locations as well as sampling locations down-gradient of some potentially contaminating
source or specific location?? I think this section needs a bit of discussion as to what the
objective is. In addition, under (3) Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that some
description of approved analytical methods and minimum detection limits would be
helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA HAL thresholds described in this section but I
would be willing to look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater
limits that may be worth considering for this section.
44. 5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring- I would recommend
that the responsible party also be required to contact appropriate state regulatory
officials if thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also recommend that the
phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence -- Section 5.5.
45. Compare Durham’s ordinance requirements for environmental review of subdivisions
with Orange County’s environmental review process.
46. Nutrient trading.
47. Low Impact Design (LID).
48. Review thresholds and processes associated with the permitting of wastewater
treatment facilities.
TRANSPORTATION
49. Section 7.8.2, Public roads need to be laid out in a manner that avoids significant natural
and cultural features.
50. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations need to be written.
COMMENTS RELATED TO PROCEDURES
STREAMLINING
51. Will staff be making recommendations to shorten any of the processes?
52. There is an unusual threshold requirement in the Subdivision Regulations – the 21st lot
of a subdivision kicks you into an Special Use Permit (SUP) process. Needs to be
looked at again – make part of future changes. Planning Board should be able to
approve 20 lots or less (without BOCC involvement).
53. Are there metrics and stats for approval time for each approval process?
54. After staff and advisory board review, project went through County Attorney review.
48
A-6
Lengthened the process. Why didn’t County Attorney review occur concurrent with staff
review? Streamline.
55. A time-line chart for each land-use review process (re-zoning, subdivision, permits,
landuse amendments etc.) should be made showing who reviews each step and when.
56. Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review board’s schedules.
57. Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and short.
58. Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham’s Development Advisory
Committee (DAC) and Design District Review Team (DDRT) which are efficient and
streamlined.
59. The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange County’s
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules of Procedure, meetings,
minutes and quorum requirements consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our
current review approval processes when a rezoning application meets all applicable
standards.
COMMUNICATION
60. Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should add this as an
expectation or requirement.
61. As people become accustomed to this new document it will be important to provide
different kinds of helpful guidance for users to find the sections of the document that are
pertinent to their needs. The “Comparative Table” is quite helpful, and is an example of
the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having some kind of on-line
search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps that is already under development.
62. At what point in time will we define metrics of whether the UDO is succeeding?
63. It would be really nice if the final document could be accessed and indexed electronically
rather than printed, a hyperlink format. For instance, clicking on a term and the definition
pops up.
64. Identifying Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to UDO updates
FORMATTING / CLARIFICATION
65. No mention of Town of Hillsborough interlocal agreement. Add a footnote or a new
section. [Note: references to the Orange County-Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement
should be added when Zoning/UDO-related items are formally adopted. At this point,
neither a joint land use plan nor joint development regulations have been adopted].
66. Section 1.6.2 (A), Is a 1-year hiatus long enough?
67. Section 1.7.2, "Agriculture" should be mentioned somewhere within the discussion of
elements.
68. Section 2.2.7 (C), Why treat withdrawal of an application as denial?
69. Section 2.2.8 (A), Shouldn't have to wait a year if withdrawn. 6-months for withdrawal
and 1-year for denial?
49
A-7
70. Section 2.15.3 (C) (4).- There is no deadline for agencies to respond.
71. Section 2.15.2 (C) (5) - Not applicable if flexible development option used.
72. Section 2.17, Need a process other than that of a major subdivision for recombining
existing lots.
73. Need language that will differentiate between the different types of residential zoning
districts.
74. Regarding Impervious Surface Ratios and Sliding Scales, the two tables should be
combined into one. Need to understand ramifications of any proposed changes --
Section 4.2.5.
75. Some home occupations are permitted but not associated storage? This needs
clarification.
76. Kennels and Riding Stables should be addressed separately. Should they require a
Class A or Class B Special Use Permit?
77. Clarify how open space areas of golf courses are counted towards meeting ordinance
requirements.
78. Change to require a to Class "A" Special Use Permit, which would require BOCC
approval rather than Board of Adjustment -- Section 5.9.5
79. Mention Water and Sewer Management and Planning Boundary Agreement. Any
system should be designed, planned, constructed and maintained by the responsible
entity as assigned through the Agreement -- Section 7.13.4 (C) (1) (b)
80. As I suspect you know, the County’s Animal Control Ordinance includes kennel
definitions and a permitting process for Class I and Class II Kennels. The County’s
Zoning Ordinance also includes kennel definitions and process for a kennel (or stable) to
obtain a special use permit (which requires one or possibly both of the permits issued
Animal Control).
81. There is a need to better coordinate (and dare I say, unify) these ordinances. Some of
the issues in regard to kennels include:
82. Different definitions of Class I and Class II permits
83. A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I as well as
Class II kennel
84. A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I under the
Animal Control as well as the Zoning Ordinance
85. Possible process improvements in the permitting process for kennels requiring a
special use permit.
86. Also, I think we should consider whether site plans for “riding stables/academies” should
be subject to review by Animal Control. One concern is the availability of staff expertise
in this area. Another concern is that there are no specific stable standards in the
County’s Animal Control Ordinances. By contrast, there are such standards for kennels
which require permitting.
87. Clarify provisions for Outdoor events/activities, festivals, etc.
88. Review language regarding Principal Uses and Principal Structures (Arti
50
A-8
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
1
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
Economic Development Ideas
page 11
Streamline procedures for Economic Development Districts and
commercial development applications. Consider expedited
processing for such applications.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
page 11
Study what local private businesses need in order to expand and
thrive, and consider what regulatory changes could contribute to
that objective.
page 11 Consider different standards for application within Economic
Development Districts to encourage commercial development.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations. Standards in the EDDs are still more rigorous than standards
in the Commercial and Commercial-Industrial Transition Nodes. It may
be desirable to review whether the standards should be different.
page 11 Create a predictable process for consideration of development
applications within Economic Development Districts.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
page 11 Develop regulations for Rural Economic Development Areas.
A REDA conditional zoning district was adopted for the NC57/Speedway
area on June 5, 2012. Additional rural economic development areas are
not being contemplated at this time and are not supported by existing
small area plans.
Permitted Uses and Standards Ideas
page 12
Differentiate between suburban and rural character, and adjust
regulations relating to required features such as signing and
transportation improvements.
Note: The ideas in the main body of the Implementation Bridge also appear in the Appendix, although they may be worded differently or
may combine several separate comments into one idea.
59
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
2
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 12
Review and adjust notification requirements to make more
appropriate to rural vs. suburban areas. (E.g., rural rezonings may
require larger areas of notification.
Staff recommends that notification requirements remain as written as
rural rezonings do not have a greater area of immediate impact when
compared to suburban/urban rezonings. The County's notification
procedures comply with State statutes and include sign posting(s) and
newspaper advertisements in addition to mailed letters to property
owners within 500 feet of a parcel proposed for rezoning.
page 12 Revisit Conditional District provisions to consider restricting
locations in which they can be applied.
Because of adjustments made to conditional districts near the end of the
adoption process, this item is DONE.
page 12 Revisit home occupation rules.
page 12 Exclude government or municipal uses from residential zoning.
It is common zoning practice to allow public uses in residential zoning
districts. Staff does not recommend that government uses be excluded
from the residential zoning districts. Several years ago some government
uses required issuance of an SUP but due to case law that discouraged
governments from issuing themselves SUPs, the requirement was
removed.
page 12
Add back language about required findings that was formerly
included for Planned Developments in the existing Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff believes the language is properly referenced within the Conditional
Use, Conditional Zoning, and Special Use Permitting processes and there
is no need to add repetitive language back into the UDO.
page 12 Differentiate between urban and rural character for regulations
such as signage and subdivision standards.
page 12
Review the full range of design standards that are currently
included in the UDO, to determine if adjustments would help to
promote County goals and objectives. (Note: the Appendix
contains 22 specific suggestions for review of standards such as
building height, lighting, signs, adult entertainment uses, road and
driveway requirements, hours of operation, and airport zoning.)
Environmental Ideas
60
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
3
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 13
Revise definitions and references to wastewater treatment
systems to avoid opening possibilities for extension of sewer
service into areas where the Land Use Plan contemplates no public
sewer service.
page 13
Consider criteria for locations of sampling stations under the
Pollutant Monitoring Program. [Staff Note: this is synopsis the
consultant wrote in response to #43 and 44 below]
There could be a policy or separate criteria governing locations but staff
does not recommend that it become part of the UDO. One main issue is
that the criteria could change from watershed to watershed, issue to
issue. There really is no universal governing standard.
page 13 Consider establishing a mechanism for nutrient trading.
The State is examining the viability of a 'nutrient trading bank' where this
could occur. As of this date there is still no consensus at the State level
on the legality of such a program and, as a result, it is not currently
recognized. This should be viewed as a long term goal and we need to
wait and see what the State does in terms of establishing rules governing
such a transfer.
page 13 Adjust Section 7.8.2 to encourage roads to be laid out in a manner
that avoids significant natural features.
page 13 Develop guidelines for Transit Oriented Development.
Because mass transit facilities do not currently exist in Orange County's
jurisdiction and are not foreseen in the immediate future, staff
recommends that developing guidelines/standards for TOD not be
pursued at this time.
Procedural Ideas
61
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
4
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 14 Explore ways to shorten review and approval processes.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations. One way to shorten approval processes that require a public
hearing would be to dismantle the quarterly public hearings and allow
public hearings to occur at any regular BOCC meeting. This would also
necessitate a change in having joint public hearings with the Planning
Board. In some jurisdictions, the Planning Board makes its
recommendation before the public hearing (e.g., the recommendation is
based on planning principles only). Additionally, the timeframe could be
minorly shortened by changing current policies like having the BOCC
approve the legal ad. BOCC approval of the legal ad adds approximately
1 month to the front-end of the process.
page 14 Include metrics for approval time for each process.
page 14 Review telecommunication towers process.Staff considers this to be COMPLETED with the Telecom amendments
that were adopted on May 1, 2012.
page 14 Revisit roles and responsibilities of Planning Board vs. Board of
Commissioners for approval decisions.
page 14 Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should
add those as required notification mechanisms.
Rather than adding this to the UDO, staff would recommend that this
become a policy instead of part of an ordinance. The County maintains
electronic notification lists, which includes the ability to be notified when
BOCC agendas are posted to the County website.
page 14
Reconsider public notification requirements for differences
between rural versus suburban locations (in terms of distance for
notice requirements).
Staff recommends that notification requirements remain as written as
rural rezonings do not have a greater area of immediate impact when
compared to suburban/urban rezonings. The County's notification
procedures comply with State statutes and include sign posting(s) and
newspaper advertisements in addition to mailed letters to property
owners within 500 feet of a parcel proposed for rezoning.
62
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
5
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 14 Consider new ideas for public notification.
Rather than adding new requirements to the UDO, staff would
recommend that any new ideas become a policy instead of part of an
ordinance. The County maintains electronic notification lists, which
includes the ability to be notified when BOCC agendas are posted to the
County website.
page 14 Include more cross-references, on-line search mechanisms.The UDO will soon begin to be maintained by MuniCode using their
standard protocol
page 14 Mention the Orange County / Town of Hillsborough Interlocal
Agreement.
Work on a joint land use plan was initiated in September 2012. Text will
be added to the UDO as necessary as items move through the adoption
process.
page 14 Develop more guidelines for selection of school sites.
page 14 Mention the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and
Boundary Agreement.
page 14 Incorporate references to Animal Control Ordinance, align
definitions.
This was COMPLETED with recent amendments approved by the BOCC in
January 2012. Definitions are now the same with respect to a Class I and
Class II kennel from a Zoning and Animal Control Ordinance standpoint.
page 14 Include language to better differentiate between the different
types of residential zoning districts.
This is the purpose of the "Purpose", "Applicability" and "Dimensional
and Ratio Standards" sections of each of the zoning charts contained in
Article 3.
page 14 Reconsider treating withdrawal of an application as a denial.
APPENDIX LIST
63
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
6
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
1.
The size of a farm should be considered. Organic farmers, which
seem to be the trend, 10 acres in order to be called a farm is a bit
large for an organic farm. Considering farm income as a
requirement to be a farm is difficult because prices can vary so
much from income as a requirement to be a farm is difficult
because prices can vary so much from year to year that one year a
farmer can produce 300 bushels of corn and hardly breakeven
because prices are low and the next year the same farmer can
produce 120 bushels and make a lot because prices have gone up
substantially.
State legislation defines "bonafide farm" and the definition is based on
more than just size and/or single year income.
2.Agricultural Support Enterprises regulations need to be written.Research needs to be done given "bonafide farm" statutes that we
passed by the State after these comments were made.
3.Incentives for commercial development (expedited processes,
etc.).
The Economic Development Department has been working on an
incentive program. In regards to actual approval processes, Significant
amendments pertaining economic development were adopted on
February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate the process
until after a project has been processed under the revised regulations.
4.
Focus on the greatest value for the greater good of the entire
county with purposeful philosophy and policies to achieve the
economic resiliency and community diversity we desperately need
and require at this time.
5.Examine what our local private businesses need in order to expand
and thrive.
6.
Examine why successful businesses left Orange County, such as
Smith Breeden, Rho, Contact and BlueCross BlueShield’s
expansion, and determine what we need to do to have helped
them grow here.
64
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
7
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
7.
Economic development projects in the Economic Development
Districts should have a predictable and expeditious approval
process. Economic development projects in other appropriate
areas should have a similar approval process.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
8.
Economic development approval processes and standards should
be revised by local business and planning professionals in
conjunction with UNC’s Planning, Business and Law Schools.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
9.
An Economic Development Workgroup consisting of the BOCC,
Planning Board and Economic Development Commission should
meet Spring/Summer 2011 to examine expediting approval,
targeting industries, permitted uses, specialized zoning district by
SAP subarea and revised standards.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
10.
Agricultural Support Enterprises/Rural Economic Development
Area, Speedway Small Area Plan and Transit Oriented
Development are important initiatives using Conditional Use
District structures should be important 2011 BOCC goals.
As noted in #2, research regarding the need for Agricultural Support
Enterprises needs to be done. It is possible that changes of State
legislation regarding "bonafide farms" may have negated the need for a
special program. A REDA conditional district was adopted on June 5,
2012. TOD will need to be looked at in the future (see "Environmental
Ideas" above).
11.
Examine Durham’s American Tobacco Campus and American
Underground to create an Orange County campus that is walk-
able, diverse and attractive for mixed use including affordable
space for Incubation and Startup businesses.
12.Different landscaping standards may be needed for EDDs.
Some changes were made as part of the amendments adopted on
February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate the
standards until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
65
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
8
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
13.Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) regulations need to be
written.
A REDA conditional zoning district was adopted for the NC57/Speedway
area on June 5, 2012. Additional rural economic development areas are
not being contemplated at this time and are not supported by existing
small area plans.
14.Differentiate between urban and rural character -- applicable to
signage and subdivision impacts on transportation.
15.
Public notification requirements for public hearings and other
procedures that are more appropriate rural versus suburban
uses/districts (i.e., rural rezonings may require larger area of
notification).
Staff recommends that notification requirements remain as written as
rural rezonings do not have a greater area of immediate impact when
compared to suburban/urban rezonings. The County's notification
procedures comply with State statutes and include sign posting(s) and
newspaper advertisements in addition to mailed letters to property
owners within 500 feet of a parcel proposed for rezoning.
16.Cluster development standards for suburban versus rural
developments.
Users should keep in mind that it is difficult to cluster development that
is not located on public water and sewer systems (or community well and
package treatment systems; package treatment systems are not
currently permitted in rural areas of the county).
17.Need updated Airport Regulations.
18.Regulating adult entertainment uses and nuisance related events
at these uses.
19.Airport zoning, possibly as conditional zoning district.
20.Review telecommunications towers process.Staff considers this to be COMPLETED with the Telecom amendments
that were adopted on May 1, 2012.
21.
Section 2.5.3, No mention of lighting, natural areas inventory, solid
waste, or centralized recycling in requirements for information as
applications are submitted. Should be added.
22.Include hours of operation. Lighting comes to mind -- Section
5.14.2 (A) (1)
23.Add no fault well repair to requirements.
66
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
9
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
24.Need to revisit private road standards.
25.
There's a lack of land use criteria for reserving school sites. Need
some general guidelines (i.e. not in wetlands or on slopes greater
than X). Consult County School Joint Construction Standards.
26.Relation to adjacent properties is not addressed -- Section 7.13.3
(C) (1)
27.Is there any limit to building height? Flag for future.
The amendments pertaining to economic development that were
adopted on February 7, 2012 set a maximum height limit (see Section
6.2.2)
28.Are there provisions for shared driveways? It may be useful in
certain cases (i.e. along highways/major roadways).
The Efland-Cheeks Overlay District (ECOD) has provisions for shared
driveways. Additionally, the two new Efland area zoning overlay districts
(on the November 2012 QPH) have provisions for shared driveways.
67
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
10
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
29. & 30.
Many places in the UDO have a restriction on the height of a
building. While residential structures tend to have 9 to 12 feet per
floor, commercial structures can have as much as 15 feet per floor.
As the structure covers more area, the roof can have a substantial
amount of height to it if it is not a flat roof. Architectural details
such as facades and cupolas can affect the height. My comment is
this: Would it make more sense to specify the number of occupied
stories as a limit on the structure? An occupied story would not
include attic space or utility rooms- it would be space occupied by
people working in the structure. Page 3-44 and page 4-18 are
examples of where this specification occurs. Note that the height
limitations that change with additional setback could be used as a
maximum height such that either a (for example) 3 story limit
_OR_ the maximum height based on setback would be the height
limit for the building. An example of this setback based number is
found at the top of page 6-2. I would also add in (not sure where)
than any building whose height exceeds the apparatus or ladder
height restrictions of the fire departments which would respond to
a structure fire would be required to be sprinklered.
Building height is measured from the mean elevation to the mean height
between the eaves and roof ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs (e.g.,
height is not from the ground to the roof peak). As mentioned in #27
above, a maximum building height has been set since these comments
were made, regardless of how much additional setback is provided. The
maximum height is 75-feet unless the Board of Adjustment modifies the
height. Sprinkling of buildings is governed by the use of the building and
building codes. It should be noted that the same ISO rating system is
used for both the fire departments and building codes.
31.
There are various metal vapor lights, the most common being
Mercury and Sodium vapor. It would be nice to know why Mercury
is being singled out. In particular, is it the presence of Mercury (i.e.
environmental) or is it the use of a specific type of fixture such as
the yard lights utilities sell that is the concern. If the concern is
environmental, then would it not also apply to all fluorescent
lights which use mercury?
This issue is being addressed in a UDO text amendment slated for
presentation at the November 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
68
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
11
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
32.
We have incandescent, metal vapor, fluorescent (which is mercury
and a phosphorous), and LED. Each has a different lumens per watt
rating. If light is being regulated, lumens should be the standard.
Also, be aware that any light with a reflector will put out more
light in a certain direction than a light with no reflector. As such,
lumens is still a weak measure of light output but it is what is on
the packaging for all lights and is easier to work with than getting
into the amount of light energy per unit area type measurements
(candles). As a rule of thumb, incandescent runs 5 to 30
lumens/watt, and LEDs run 60 to 110 lumens/watt.
This issue is being addressed in a UDO text amendment slated for
presentation at the November 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
33.
The limits under section (c) "General Operations" and (e) "Use of
Accessory Structures" severely limit what a home occupation can
do.
34.
Somewhere in the Standards for Residential Uses or Development
Standards there should be a section that specifies minimum
residential driveway sizes of 12 feet wide by 14 feet vertical
clearance (already stated in 7.8.5 (B) (15) on page 7-32) for fire
apparatus. This is the cleared width of the driveway, not the width
of gravel or paving.
There needs to be a comprehensive re-assessment of existing
development standards with respect to roadway development (i.e.
private road justification) and access management. This review should
not be limited to ensuring access for emergency vehicles.
35.
The travel-way width for Class B with 2 lots should be specified as
12 feet of cleared space, no standard for width of gravel or hard
surface.
Section 7.8.5 (D) of the UDO requires an improved travel width of 12 feet
for a Class B road (i.e. subdivisions between 3 and 5 lots) and an
improved travel width of 18 feet for a Class A road (i.e. between 6 and 12
lots). Anything over 12 lots needs to be developed to the NC DOT public
road standard.
36.
Under (5) (b): 16 feet should be 18 feet so that a passenger car can
be passed by fire apparatus. For Class B roads with 3 or more lots,
there should be an area 20 feet wide by 50 feet long every 1500
feet to that fire apparatus can pass each other.
69
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
12
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
37.
On (I), remove the word “incandescent” since LED lights are now
often used for holiday decorations. Low wattage is not defined,
but a typical nightlight/big Christmas tree bulb is 7 watts so you
could say any wattage under 10 watts. It would make more sense
to use a lumen rating, such as less than 150 lumens. On (J), first off
this should be a lumen limit, not watts. As the limit reads, this
looks like a total lumens for any given motion activated switch.
The lumens looks like it was derived from two incandescent 75
watt bulbs, probably flood lights. Note that if this is the case, the
maxim lumens should be 2400. There are many motion activated
systems where a sensor can turn on multiple light fixtures. So I
would re-word this to have a 2400 lumen limit per light fixture
controlled by the sensor. Finally, on this max lumens per fixture,
there are standard outdoor floodlight fixtures that take 3 bulbs.
For those fixtures, a reasonable max lumens would be around
3600. You could also add a limit of no one bulb can exceed a rating
of 2100 lumens (a 120 watt equivalent) if the intent is to avoid the
larger single bulb fixtures -- Section 6.11.3. This is where a
definition of “mercury vapor luminaries” is needed. As written,
this could mean that any standard fluorescent or compact
fluorescent light could not be used, since they are a mercury-
phosphorous based light.
This issue is being addressed in a UDO text amendment slated for
presentation at the November 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
70
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
13
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
38.
(C)(1) Some floodlight fixtures do not cover the bulb, the stop just
after the threaded base. I’d just stick with the 45 degree from
vertical. (c) (2) the “it will shine” is vague. Perhaps something like
“no more than 5% of the luminous energy shall shine towards
roadways, onto adjacent residential property or into the night
sky”. (C) (3) Same vagueness- what is the “main beam”? Do you
really want to say that no portion of the bulb shall be visible from
adjacent properties or the public street right-of-way? From an
enforcement point of view, a “Can’t see the bulb” is easy to verify
for both the owner and the inspector. Note that this is the
approach taken on page 6-97, 6.117 (3).
This issue is being addressed in a UDO text amendment slated for
presentation at the November 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
39.
All existing and proposed public transportation services and
facilities within A RADIUS of one mile of the site shall be
documented ( leave out “also”) -- Section 6.17(B) #(4).
40.
This whole section should be looked at with respect to goals and
objectives in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and Commissioners’ goals and objectives. County policies do
not always support the land development ordinances, particularly
with transportation issues. This is too vast a task to address at this
time, but I wanted to “tag” this Section for future study -- Section
7.8
41.
Move towards intense use of sites to save more of the site in open
space - cluster subdivisions. Cluster subdivisions require
community wastewater systems. Falls apart on political side.
Commissioners very wary due to system failures 20 years ago. Is
there a way to put this in the Ordinance ‘by right" if designed to
specific criteria? Take political part out.
The BOCC would have to make a policy decision on whether community
wastewater systems will be allowed.
71
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
14
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
42.
Need to update Lighting Standards. Height requirements for
outdoor light poles and potential impacts on County recreational
facilities is one of the areas that should be revisited.
This issue is being addressed in a UDO text amendment slated for
presentation at the November 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
43.
In the section concerning golf courses, Pollutant Monitoring
Program, I would suggest some thought be given to the locations
of the sampling stations for surface water, groundwater and
sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient sampling
locations as well as sampling locations down-gradient of some
potentially contaminating source or specific location?? I think this
section needs a bit of discussion as to what the objective is. In
addition, under (3) Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that
some description of approved analytical methods and minimum
detection limits would be helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA
HAL thresholds described in this section but I would be willing to
look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater
limits that may be worth considering for this section. [staff note:
this is in 5.7.3(G)]
There could be a policy or separate criteria governing locations. It should
not become part of the UDO. One main issue is that the criteria could
change from watershed to watershed, issue to issue. There really is no
universal governing standard.
44.
5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant
Monitoring- I would recommend that the responsible party also be
required to contact appropriate state regulatory officials if
thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also recommend that
the phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence --
Section 5.5. [staff note: this is now Section 5.7.3(G)(5)(b)]
45.
Compare Durham’s ordinance requirements for environmental
review of subdivisions with Orange County’s environmental review
process.
72
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
15
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
46.Nutrient trading.
The State is examining the viability of a 'nutrient trading bank' where this
could occur. As of this date there is still no consensus at the State level
on the legality of such a program and, as a result, it is not currently
recognized. This should be viewed as a long term goal and we need to
wait and see what the State does in terms of establishing rules governing
such a transfer.
47.Low Impact Design (LID).
The State is examining the viability of a 'nutrient trading bank' where this
could occur. As of this date there is still no consensus at the State level
on the legality of such a program and, as a result, it is not currently
recognized. This should be viewed as a long term goal and we need to
wait and see what the State does in terms of establishing rules governing
such a transfer.
48.Review thresholds and processes associated with the permitting of
wastewater treatment facilities.
49.Section 7.8.2, Public roads need to be laid out in a manner that
avoids significant natural and cultural features.
50.Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations need to be
written.
Because mass transit facilities do not currently exist in Orange County's
jurisdiction and are not foreseen in the immediate future, staff
recommends that developing guidelines/standards for TOD not be
pursued at this time.
73
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
16
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
51.Will staff be making recommendations to shorten any of the
processes?
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations. One way to shorten approval processes that require a public
hearing would be to dismantle the quarterly public hearings and allow
public hearings to occur at any regular BOCC meeting (or specify
allowable meetings each year). This would also necessitate a change in
having joint public hearings with the Planning Board. In some
jurisdictions, the Planning Board makes its recommendation before the
public hearing (e.g., the recommendation is based on planning principles
only). Additionally, the timeframe could be minorly shortened by
changing current policies like having the BOCC approve the legal ad.
BOCC approval of the legal ad adds approximately 1 month to the front-
end of the process.
52.
There is an unusual threshold requirement in the Subdivision
Regulations – the 21st lot of a subdivision kicks you into an Special
Use Permit (SUP) process. Needs to be looked at again – make part
of future changes. Planning Board should be able to approve 20
lots or less (without BOCC involvement).
These thresholds were debated at the time they were adopted (early
2000's). The BOCC will have to decide if it would like to change the
current process which requires BOCC approval of subdivisions containing
5 or more lots (generally; there are other criteria that also define
subdivisions).
53.Are there metrics and stats for approval time for each approval
process?
54.
After staff and advisory board review, project went through
County Attorney review. Lengthened the process. Why didn’t
County Attorney review occur concurrent with staff review?
Streamline.
This process has been streamlined via internal processes.
55.
A time-line chart for each land-use review process (re-zoning,
subdivision, permits, land use amendments etc.) should be made
showing who reviews each step and when.
A process chart was included in Article 2 of the UDO for many of the
processes.
74
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
17
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
56.Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review
board’s schedules.see #51 above
57.Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and
short.see #51 above
58.
Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham’s
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and Design District
Review Team (DDRT) which are efficient and streamlined.
59.
The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange
County’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules
of Procedure, meetings, minutes and quorum requirements
consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our current
review approval processes when a rezoning application meets all
applicable standards.
Because a rezoning must be approved by the local elected officials, staff
believes that perhaps this commenter was referring to subdivision
approvals, not rezoning applications.
60.Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should
add this as an expectation or requirement.
Rather than adding this to the UDO, staff would recommend that this
become a policy instead of part of an ordinance. The County maintains
electronic notification lists, which includes the ability to be notified when
BOCC agendas are posted to the County website.
61.
As people become accustomed to this new document it will be
important to provide different kinds of helpful guidance for users
to find the sections of the document that are pertinent to their
needs. The “Comparative Table” is quite helpful, and is an example
of the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having
some kind of on-line search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps
that is already under development.
The UDO has been in use (and on-line) since April 2011 and staff has not
received complaints about the document. The County has made the
decision to begin to use MuniCode to maintain its ordinances so the UDO
will soon be converted to MuniCode's format.
62.At what point in time will we define metrics of whether the UDO is
succeeding?
75
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
18
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
63.
It would be really nice if the final document could be accessed and
indexed electronically rather than printed, a hyperlink format. For
instance, clicking on a term and the definition pops up.
The UDO has been available on-line in a PDF bookmarked format since
shortly after its adoption. The County recently made the decision to
begin to use MuniCode to maintain its ordinances so the UDO will soon
be converted to MuniCode's format. It is staff's understanding that some
hyperlinking may be part of MuniCode's format.
64.Identifying Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to UDO
updates.
All amendments that have been made to the UDO have included specific
Comprehensive Plan policies that support the amendment.
65.
No mention of Town of Hillsborough interlocal agreement. Add a
footnote or a new section. [Note: references to the Orange County-
Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement should be added when
Zoning/UDO-related items are formally adopted. At this point,
neither a joint land use plan nor joint development regulations
have been adopted].
Work on a joint land use plan was initiated in September 2012. Text will
be added to the UDO as necessary as items move through the adoption
process.
66.Section 1.6.2 (A), Is a 1-year hiatus long enough?
67.Section 1.7.2, "Agriculture" should be mentioned somewhere
within the discussion of elements.
68.Section 2.2.7 (C), Why treat withdrawal of an application as
denial?
69.Section 2.2.8 (A), Shouldn't have to wait a year if withdrawn. 6-
months for withdrawal and 1-year for denial?
70.Section 2.15.3 (C) (4).- There is no deadline for agencies to
respond.
71.Section 2.15.2 (C) (5) - Not applicable if flexible development
option used.
72.Section 2.17, Need a process other than that of a major
subdivision for recombining existing lots.
76
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
19
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
73.Need language that will differentiate between the different types
of residential zoning districts.
This is the purpose of the "Purpose", "Applicability" and "Dimensional
and Ratio Standards" sections of each of the zoning charts contained in
Article 3.
74.
Regarding Impervious Surface Ratios and Sliding Scales, the two
tables should be combined into one. Need to understand
ramifications of any proposed changes --Section 4.2.5.
COMPLETED as part of UDO adoption process.
75.Some home occupations are permitted but not associated
storage? This needs clarification.
76.Kennels and Riding Stables should be addressed separately. Should
they require a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit?
These two uses were uncoupled as a use category with an amendment
adopted on October 18, 2011. The question regarding which approval
process to use has not been resolved.
77.Clarify how open space areas of golf courses are counted towards
meeting ordinance requirements.
78.
Change to require a to Class "A" Special Use Permit, which would
require BOCC approval rather than Board of Adjustment -- Section
5.9.5
This is in reference to Electric, Gas and Liquid Fuel Transmission Lines
which currently require a Class B SUP (approved by the Board of
Adjustment). A Class A SUP would have to be approved by the BOCC
(with a recommendation made by the Planning Board). The Class A
process is usually longer since it requires review at a quarterly public
hearing and then a meeting of the Planning Board whereas a public
hearing by the Board of Adjustment can be scheduled can occur any
month. The BOCC would have to make a decision on whether it would
like to change the approval process for this type of use froma Class B SUP
to a Class A SUP. Staff's opinion is, given the findings of fact are the
same, if an applicant demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the
UDO a permit must be issued, regardless of which decision-making body
issues the permit.
77
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
20
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
79.
Mention Water and Sewer Management and Planning Boundary
Agreement. Any system should be designed, planned, constructed
and maintained by the responsible entity as assigned through the
Agreement -- Section 7.13.4 (C) (1) (b)
80.
[Staff note: the comments in sage-colored boxes were made by
Animal Services staff] As I suspect you know, the
County’s Animal Control Ordinance includes kennel definitions and
a permitting process for Class I and Class II Kennels. The County’s
Zoning Ordinance also includes kennel definitions and process for
a kennel (or stable) to obtain a special use permit (which requires
one or possibly both of the permits issued Animal Control).
Planning staff believes the processes have been 'better coordinated' with
the approval of a UDO text amendment package in January of 2012. A
kennel is now a separate land use category from a stable.
81.There is a need to better coordinate (and dare I say, unify) these
ordinances. Some of the issues in regard to kennels include:
Planning staff believes the processes have been 'better coordinated' with
the approval of a UDO text amendment package in January of 2012. The
inherant problem is that one process is a land use management process
(Planning) and the other is focused on the care of the animal (Animal
Services). While we have addressed the majority of identified
contradictions, most notably the definitions, our processes will always be
somewhat unique given our different roles and responsibilities.
82.Different definitions of Class I and Class II permits Addressed by previous UDO text amendment approved in January of
2012 - Staff considers this item COMPLETE.
83.A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for
Class I as well as Class II kennel
Addressed by previous UDO text amendment approved in January of
2012 - Staff considers this item COMPLETE.
78
Attachment 4
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
21
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
84.A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for
Class I under the Animal Control as well as the Zoning Ordinance
A Special Use Permit is not required for a Class I kennel under the
County's land management program. The Special Use Permit (which is a
specific legal term related to land use planning) process is only a land use
development process and is not required by other County
departments/agencies. Animal Services requires permits for Class I and II
kennels, which they handle administratively; they have never required a
'Special Use Permit' for a kennel.
85.Possible process improvements in the permitting process for
kennels requiring a special use permit.
86.
Also, I think we should consider whether site plans for “riding
stables/academies” should be subject to review by Animal Control.
One concern is the availability of staff expertise in this area.
Another concern is that there are no specific stable standards in
the County’s Animal Control Ordinances. By contrast, there are
such standards for kennels which require permitting.
Addressed by previous UDO text amendment approved in January of
2012 - Staff considers this item COMPLETE.
87.Clarify provisions for Outdoor events/activities, festivals, etc.
88.Review language regarding Principal Uses and Principal Structures
(Arti [sic]
Staff believes this is in reference to Sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6. Changes to
these sections we made as part of the economic development related
amendments adopted on February 12, 2012.
79
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Water (Public or
Private)/Sewer
Update 1984 Efland sewer plan -
HIGH priority - sewer planning is
proceeding on a phase-by-phase
basis with a focus on areas non-
residential development is being
encouraged
Need Utility Service Agreement
with Durham - COMPLETE
Educate all residents living near
stone quarry of available well
testing services
Complete OAWS engineering
study - HIGH priority - there has
been insuffient funding and interest
in completing a comprehensive
study
Complete preliminary engineering
study for future master plan -
County and Durham staff are
working together on water and
sewer issues
Establish well monitoring program
Complete water and sewer master
plan for area - HIGH priority - see
two explantions above.
Encourage stone quarry to bring
their property into compliance with
zoning ordinance
Extend public water and sewer
throughout area - water and sewer
work in the area is proceeding with
a focus on areas non-residential
development is being encouraged.
Additionally, communications with
the City of Mebane are taking
place to have the City take over
the County's sewer system.
WSMPBA Map amendment to expand
Primary Service Area - MEDIUM
HIGH priority - COMPLETE
NOTE: Staff to
gauge interest in
implementing
WSMPBA related
items at Sept. AOG
Mtg. - COMPLETE
Add partners (Mebane & OAWS) -
Ongoing communications with
Mebane.
Map amendment if Watershed
Critical Area is adjusted (See
below) - MEDIUM HIGH priority -
COMPLETE
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
80
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Land Use Plan Text To allow mixed uses along US 70 -
- COMPLETE
Add Eno Mixed Use land use
category - staff is recommending
this measure not be pursued as
the existing categories fit the
needs of the area. There is no
advantage in adding additional
land use categories.
Add Rural Economic Development
Area (REDA) - A REDA conditional
zoning district was adopted on
June 5, 2012. A Land Use Plan
text and map amendment was not
necessary due to the way
conditional zoning districts work.
Amend Economic Development
land use category to include multi-
family - the purpose of this was to
allow multi-family uses in an area
that has since been changed to a
CITAN land use category (which
does allow residential uses
through zoning). Staff
recommends that this measure not
be pursued.
Combine 10 & 20-yr Transition to
form Efland Transition Area - staff
is recommending this measure not
be pursued as the existing
categories fit the needs of the
area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Add Efland Transition Area
Reserve and Mixed Use land use
categories - staff is recommending
this measure not be pursued as
the existing categories fit the
needs of the area. There is no
advantage in adding additional
land use categories.
Land Use Plan Map Apply Mixed Use land use
category (more than one instance) -
staff is recommending this
measure not be pursued as the
existing categories fit the needs of
the area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Change Commercial Node to Eno
Mixed Use - staff is recommending
this measure not be pursued as
the existing categories fit the
needs of the area. There is no
advantage in adding additional
land use categories.
Add Rural Economic Development
Area (REDA) - A REDA conditional
zoning district was adopted on
June 5, 2012. A Land Use Plan
text and map amendment was not
necessary due to the way
conditional zoning districts work.
81
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Combine 10 & 20-yr Transition to
form Efland Transition Area - staff
is recommending this measure not
be pursued as the existing
categories fit the needs of the
area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Change portions of Economic
Development to Mixed Use - staff
is recommending this measure not
be pursued as the existing
categories fit the needs of the
area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Apply Efland Transition Area
RReevaluate Watershed Critical
Area (Seven Mile Creek) and
amend if required - COMPLETE
Change Commercial/Industrial
Node to Economic Development -
staff is not recommending this
measure be pursued and the
requirements for the Economic
Development category are more
restrictive than the requirements
for CTAN/CITAN. Since the SAP
was adopted, additional CITAN
areas have been designated in the
planning area.
Delete Rural Neighborhood Node -
this had not been pursued
because of a focus on economic
development issues, but it can be
pursued in the future if desired.
Zoning Map and/or
text
Develop overlay plan and zoning
district to allow mixed uses along
US 70 - PART COMPLETE and
additional work has been
completed and will be on the
November 2012 QPH agenda.
Amend permitted use tables for
Eno EDD - This is a project that
could be pursued if review of the
existing zoning classifications
determines amendments area
necessary.
Create REDA conditional zoning
district and guidelines -
COMPLETE
Add Mixed Use land use category -
staff is recommending this
measure not be pursued as the
existing categories fit the needs of
the area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use or
zoning categories.
Coordinate zoning text changes
with the City of Durham - This will
be done if changes are pursued.
Amend ordinances to prescribe
sustainable sustainable
groundwater use standards -
groundwater concerns are
addressed/included in the REDA
conditional zoning district.
82
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Develop design standards for
Efland Core Mixed Use area -
HIGH priority - work has been
done and is scheduled for the
November 2012 QPH agenda
Require new development or
rezoning approvals to limit
groundwater withdrawls to that of a
single-family dwelling (480 gpd) -
COMPLETE (included in REDA
conditional zoning district)
Reevaluate Watershed Critical
Area (Seven Mile Creek) and
amend if required - HIGH priority -
COMPLETE
Review the need to develop
regulations governing air quality
and requiring local air quality
permits
Ordinance amendments to
address parking lot design,
circulation, and access. - These
concerns in relation to
speedways/go cart tracks were
included in the amendments made
to Section 5.7.5 as part of the
REDA conditional zoning district
amendments.
Transportation Study road volumes and capacities
- County to communicate to DOT
Limit access near I-85/US70
interchange
Complete an entry corridor design
manual
NOTE:
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
currently being
prepared for OC,
which may provide
initial steps towards
implementing some
of these items.
Realign Efland-Cedar
Grove/Forrest Ave./Mt. Willing
road corridor - County to
communicate to DOT - the
proposed zoning overlay district in
this area (November 2012 QPH)
takes this into account
Acquire property and develop a
welcome sign with landscaping
Connection from Hwy 70E to
Interstate connector identified and
constructed - County to
communicate to DOT - the
proposed zoning overlay district in
this area (November 2012 QPH)
takes this into account
Add park-n-ride lot - MEDIUM
HIGH priority
Bike lanes - County to
communicate to DOT
Evaluate feasibility of bike lanes
along Old NC10 and US70
83
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Sidewalk plan and sidewalks in
new developments - HIGH priority -
the BOCC considered "the
sidewalk issue" at a work session
in October 2011 and decided that
the County will not be "in the
sidewalk business" unless existing
limitations in funding and
maintenance in DOT
Rules/Procedures are revised
Complete a streetscape plan
(trees) - HIGH priority - while not a
formal plan, provision for trees in
buffers and landscaping is
included in the zoning overlay
districts scheduled for the
November 2012 QPH
Preserve possibility for a
commuter train station - County to
communicate to DOT
Preserve possibility for a
commuter train station
Provide bus service to area Provide bus service to area
Mace Rd planned to connect
through Lebanon - County to
communicate to DOT
Plan an Interstate pedestrian
overpass - County to communicate
to DOT
Complete a Buckhorn Rd Access
Management Plan - MEDIUM
HIGH priority - Tom, what is
status? Wasn't something
done???
Adopt access management
program for US70 & Old NC10 -
Tom, what is status? Wasn't
something done???
Complete an Access Management
Plan for NC57 corridor
Housing Consider expedited review or
density bonuses for developments
offering smaller homes
Consider expedited review or
density bonuses for developments
offering smaller homes
Require a percentage of new
homes within a subdivision to be
affordable
Require a percentage of new
homes within a subdivision to be
affordable
Examine strategies to preserve
affordablity through neighborhood
preservation.
Existing residential dwellings shall
not be made non-conforming
under any new zoning designation
84
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Determine a percentage or
acreage limit on residential uses
within Eno Mixed Use area -
COMPLETE
Parks, Rec. & Open
Space
Require dedication of small
neighborhood parks - it is unlikely
that public parks will be required
due to maintenance requirements
and funding limitations to maintain.
However, this is something that
can be considered on a case-by-
case basis as a HOA amenity
when subdivision pland are
approved.
Preserve stream corridors and
create public accessible trails
among developed areas and Eno
River State Park and Duke Forest
Initiate dialogue with quarry
operator, Durham City/County, and
State to ensure proper end use of
property
Plan and implement a trail system
along McGowan Creek
When Seven Mile Creek Nature
Preserve opens, provide a
pedestrian/bicycle connection from
Efland
Monitor space at Efland-Cheeks
community center and expand
accordingly - Currently being done
by Parks & Rec. Dept.
Consider branch library at
community center
Communications Complete a Telecommunications
Plan and achieve cellular wireless
coverage countywide - MEDIUM
priority - the County has worked on
this issue and maintains a MTP
(Master Telecommunications Plan)
Complete a Telecommunications
Plan and achieve cellular wireless
coverage countywide - the County
has worked on this issue and
maintains a MTP (Master
Telecommunications Plan)
Work with service providers to
establish DSL and/or cable
Internet service in growth areas -
MEDIUM priority
Work with service providers to
establish DSL and/or cable
Internet service in growth areas
85
Attachment 5
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Consider asking service providers
to install generator backup instead
of battery at cellular switch sites -
MEDIUM priority
Consider asking service providers
to install generator backup instead
of battery at cellular switch sites
Intergovernmental Joint Planning Understanding or
Agreement with Mebane - Ongoing
communications with Mebane
Interlocal Agreement with City of
Durham for water/sewer service
and annexation process -
COMPLETE (annexation will be
voluntary only)
See also water/sewer above
86