The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCPB agenda 0605131 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, June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 3-4 5-8 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for June and July b. Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting 3. 9-12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. 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. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS 1 2 No. Page(s) Agenda Item 7. 13-18 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a property owner-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a 3.36 acre parcel of property along US Highway 70 (PIN 9893-81- 7503) from EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) to EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity). This item was heard at the May 28, 2013 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 8. 19-32 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and to the Zoning Atlas to assign land use category classifications and to establish zoning for properties that will now be within Orange County’s planning jurisdiction as the result of the re- alignment of the Orange/Alamance County Line. This item was heard at the May 28, 2013 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 9. 33-34 PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - To nominate a Planning Board member to fill the position on the Board of Adjustment designated for a Planning Board member. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 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 MICHAEL HARVEY (919-245-2597). 2 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 June 2013 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 July 2013June 2013 Ma y 2 6 - J u n 1 May 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jun 1 Ju n 2 - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Department of Social Services) 7:00pm *PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) 7:00pm BOCC Budget Work Session (Southern Human Services) Ju n 9 - 1 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:30pm Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm BOCC Budget Work Session (Southern Human Services) 7:00pm BOCC Budget Work Session (Southern Human Services) Ju n 1 6 - 2 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Southern Human Services) 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting (West Campus Office Bldg) Ju n 2 3 - 2 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Ju n 3 0 - J u l 6 30 Jul 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 3 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 July 2013 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 August 2013July 2013 Ju n 3 0 - J u l 6 Jun 30 Jul 1 2 3 4 5 6 HOLIDAY Ju l 7 - 1 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7:30pm Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm *PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) Ju l 1 4 - 2 0 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ju l 2 1 - 2 7 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ju l 2 8 - A u g 3 28 29 30 31 Aug 1 2 3 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 4 Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting Pete 1. Parts of UDO that deal with emergency services delivery a. Drainage pipes under driveways should be 16-feet, not 10-feet as fire trucks have a 12-foot wheelbase. cul-du-sac widths, pull-overs on 1 lane private roads, tree clearance. 2. Home Occupations. Current ordinance is too restrictive (max of 2 people) Larry 1. Adult Entertainment 2. Gaming 3. Nuisance ordinance to protect EDDs Tony 1. Definition of Transit Oriented Development 2. Regulations in rural economic development areas (doesn’t think they’re viable without some re-write of regulations) Andrea 1. Supports looking a home occupations (especially traffic impacts) 2. Outdoor events and mass gatherings (enhance understanding. People need to know they might need a permit) Johnny 1. Protection of natural resources. (what does it mean?) 2. Ways to produce less solid waste per capita and dispose and manage waste in an environmentally responsible way. Somehow change waste stream paradigm. a. Education needs to be done Lisa 1. Supports looking at home occupations Alan 1. Streamline approval processes, especially for “no brainer” projects. a. Determine what the hurdle is for people. Buddy 1. Expand Efland interstate district to include areas around the US70 connector and parcels north and south of Ben Johnson Rd. 5 1 March 14, 2013 Pete Hallenbeck emergency services items- the detailed list a) Drain pipes under driveways: Drain pipes should be 16’ wide so that trucks can pull into driveways without getting “hung up” with a wheel in a ditch. Note that in addition to avoiding a catastrophic problem with the entranced to a residence blocked, this change also improves response time by a few seconds and avoids having the responding unit have to get way over into the opposing lane going very slowly in order to insure it can cross the drain pipe, making every day operations safer for all. b) Cull-du-Sac diameters: Some of the larger apparatus that responds to rural areas can be as long as 35 feet. With private roads, cull-du-sacs tend to slowly loose diameter as vegetation grows in. When bring water in for a house fire, often the only means for turning tankers around is to continue down to the end of a private road and use the cull-du-sac. A minimum cleared diameter of 50 feet for new developments would insure that the fire service would operate at peak efficiency. c) Pull-over areas on 1 lane private roads: When a house is on fire, water often has to be brought in with tankers. These tankers go back and forth from a water point to the house that is on fire. If there is a long one lane road, tankers have to wait at the end of the road until there are no other vehicles on the road. An ordinance requiring a 50 foot long pull-over area of at least 22 feet every 500 feet would insure that fire suppression operations could occur with best efficiency. Note also that such a pull over would be of benefit to the residents on the private road. d) Tree Clearance on Driveways: Emergency apparatus is a tight fit with a 10’ wide bay door. Heights for some department can be as much as 12 feet tall. Tree branches can droop when wet or when they have snow on them. An ordinance requiring a 14’ wide by 14’ tall clearance for driveways would insure that apparatus could negotiate the driveway with modest turns in it. If the ordinance would also read with something along the lines of “...and must be able to pass a vehicle 35’ in length” that would be good too. Note that this would also be beneficial for the residents for both UPS delivery trucks and other vehicles such as gravel trucks or grading equipment trucks. In California, there are rules that require an area sufficient to turn a fire truck around for each house. I think the cull-du-sac, pull-over requirements and this driveway clearance requirements are sufficient for our area (we are not prone to the wildfire situations that California has). e) Gates: Many people have either locked gates or electronically controlled gates at their driveways. This slows down emergency services personnel because they have to dis-assemble the gate when they arrive at the house. There is always a dilemma faced by responders as to how much force should be used. If a house is visibly on fire, then an aggressive approach is not questioned. But for medical or fire alarms, if the emergency was not sufficiently life threatening or if the property in jeopardy was not of sufficient value the gate is carefully disassembled or responders wait for someone to come and open the gate. 6 2 The purpose of an ordinance here is two fold- to establish liability for gate damage when responders damage a gate, and to require that there be some means whereby responders can have access to a code, lock-box, or some other mechanism that allows them to open the gate. The benefit to the responders is no more conversations about who is going to replace that bolt on the gate. The benefit to the public is they don’t die from a heart attack while responders take the gate apart. f) Bridges on Roads and Driveways: Private bridges must have a capacity of 40,000 pounds, be 12” wide, and use steel for the main beams of the bridge. The deck of the bridge should be above the 100 year flood plain. This allows a tanker with 2200 gallons of water cross the bridge. The benefit to the fire departments is apparatus won’t fall through a bridge. The benefit to the homeowner is no access problems and their insurance company can write a policy. Most insurance companies, if they do an on site inspection, require a letter from the Fire Chief or Fire Marshal stating that the bridge is adequate for fire apparatus. Mortgages require that houses be above the 100 or 500 year flood plain, that often requires a surveyors' statement, so adding the bridge deck to that is a small incremental cost. Home Occupations Comments: The current ordinance limits the number of people who can work from a house to 2 people. The ordinance work for urban and suburban areas, but might limit small businesses or start-ups in less dense areas. The Efland small area plan group wrestled with this, and those discussions are relevant county wide. For the purpose of those discussions, the following exemplary businesses where discussed: Professional Services such as surveyor, engineering, software Professional Services such as accountant Professional Services such as medical services Service industry such as a hair stylist Service industry such as an electrician Service Industry such as landscaping The impact of a home business can be measured in the following ways: 1) Parking for people working at the home. 2) Parking for people visiting the business 3) Number of people coming and going each day 4) Noise impact 5) Visual impact of the parking area, equipment or buildings 6) Signage for the business Looking at the example businesses, you can see where they have different impacts. The electrician and landscaper may have virtually no visitors, and may require no signage. The hair stylist would have many visitors and probably want to have a sign. The accountant would have less visitors than the hair stylist, and may want a sign. The engineering or software company would have few visitors due to the contract nature of the work, and may not need any sign. The landscaper would need to have big pieces of equipment whereas the electrician would just need 7 3 a vehicle and maybe a small outbuilding for parts. Medical services might be reviewing images and only have a visitor once a week, but might have a staff of 3 to deal with help, insurance paperwork, etc. An ordinance calling out specific businesses would be constantly challenged based on a variety of subjective opinions regarding impact and “worthiness” of the business. An ordinance dealing with the impacts would be more consistent with how the UDO is written. Note also that existing areas of the county could ban businesses entirely. The UDO has a number of activities that are explicitly banned in the rural buffer. Note also that municipalities have their own ordinances regarding businesses. So it may be possible to make these changes such that they apply to county only areas and are not allowed in the rural buffer. Based on Efland small area group meetings, this topic can be discussed at great length. And I look forward to the planning board discussing this! By way of example, here are some “too simple” illustrative rules for the above impacts: 1) Parking for people working at the home. Limit parking to 3 non-residents. 2) Parking for people visiting the business Limit parking to 2 visitors at a time- enough for someone who currently has an appointment and would have the next appointment waiting. 3) Number of people coming and going each day Limit number of visits to 8 per day (one per hour). 4) Noise impact Existing ordinance should be OK here. 5) Visual impact of the parking area, equipment or buildings Parking area must be at least 300’ from the nearest residence. One building up to 40 x 60 allowed for the business. No outside storage of business related items allowed (expect for vehicles and “big equipment” like backhoe, etc). 6) Signage for the business One sign, not to exceed four square feet, unlighted. I hope this brief discussion help people think about this problem and results in a informed discussion. - pete 8 D R A F T 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 APRIL 3, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 6 Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 7 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; 8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township 11 Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township 12 Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative 13 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22 a) Planning Calendar for March and April 23 b) Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 MARCH 6, 2013 28 29 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the March 6, 2013 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 34 35 36 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 37 38 Introduction to the Public Charge 39 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 40 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 41 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 42 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 43 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 44 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 45 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 46 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 47 48 PUBLIC CHARGE 49 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 50 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 51 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 52 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 53 9 D R A F T 2 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 54 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 58 59 Pete Hallenbeck: In your packet we had the summary of things people had talked about regarding directions to go 60 for the UDO and the Planning Board and I also enclosed 3 pages on what I have been thinking about with regard to 61 emergency services and home occupations. I don’t really want to discuss those tonight. I put those in there so 62 you could see an example of what I’d like to see from members. We have the first step, things we’re interested in, 63 I’d like as a second step to get more specific things. What I am purposing is that I’ll take all that and condense it in 64 and then we can all read it and when it’s time to discuss it, we have input from everyone and we’ve read it in 65 advance. It should be a wonderful discussion. 66 67 Lisa Stuckey: Are you going to send an email asking for us to submit it. 68 69 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I’ll do that. 70 71 72 Agenda Item 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation to 73 the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing 74 language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater 75 management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public 76 hearing and was discussed by the Planning Board at its March 6 meeting. 77 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 78 79 80 Michael Harvey: As you will recall last month we began looking at a purposed UDO text amendment where we 81 were wrestling with the notion of providing appropriate reference to recently approved stormwater management 82 guidelines. In doing this we identified several options and we were directed by the elected officials to get input from 83 OWASA. At last month’s meeting there was a unanimous consensus amongst the Planning Board that option C 84 was the preferred method. This option has been incorporated into the proposed amendment package you are 85 reviewing this evening and has staff approval as well. What will happen now when you develop your property for a 86 residential use, the way this now reads, is if you reach the stormwater land disturbance thresholds that we have 87 provided on page 18 of your packet, you will have to produce a site specific development plan. The Ordinance also 88 now contains language indicating you are going to show us everything on that one site specific development plan 89 so that erosion control and current planning are looking at the same document. What we’re hoping also is that 90 health is going to be looking at that same document so the three agencies that are clearly concerned about land 91 development and environmental protection are all going to be working from the same central document. We have 92 eliminated the 6% requirement, with respect to serving as a trigger for the submission of a professionally prepared 93 site plan, all together. Our opinion on the validity of this recommendation is bolstered by the fact that in attachment 94 3 of your packet, we have a letter from OWASA basically saying we don’t care. 95 96 Michael Harvey: A couple of clarifying points, as you will recall this doesn’t change impervious surface limits. One 97 of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Gordon at the quarterly public hearing is that we are going to be 98 lessening the protections for the University Lake both Critical and Protected overlay districts. This is simply not 99 true. 6% is still the impervious surface limit for this area of the County. There was a question at the last Planning 100 Board Meeting, what happens if you get your plot plan from an applicant and you think it’s over its impervious 101 surface allotment. Staff can still require, per the UDO, a formally prepared site plan. We have done that on a few 102 occasions in Orange County even in the less protected watersheds. From our standpoint this is a reasonable 103 compromise, it provides the link we were looking for in terms of referring people to the stormwater thresholds. We 104 are asking the Board to complete its review, you have OWASA’s statement and the ordinance amendment has 105 been rewritten to incorporate option c as suggested by the Board. 106 107 10 D R A F T 3 108 Maxecine Mitchell: So you’re saying that the cutting of trees is part of the impervious surface? 109 110 Michael Harvey: That would be part of land disturbance, as we discussed at the quarterly public hearing when 111 Commissioner Dorosin asked the same question but the simple act of cutting a tree does not mean you are adding 112 impervious surface area to your property. Once you built a house, you build a driveway (gravel), these actions 113 represent the placement of impervious surface area on your property which for the majority of the County is limited 114 based on your location within a Watershed Protection Overlay District. Say you have a wooded area and you clear 115 that for your septic field, you clear additional area for view shed, to support the development of your house, that is 116 land disturbance activities. What this ordinance amendment does is make reference to existing standards that if 117 you exceed this level of land disturbance, you have to do the formal stormwater plan and we will require the site 118 specific development plan with it. 119 120 Pete Hallenbeck: So what we’re looking at here is these disturbance limits that we’re reviewing on page 18 is that 121 disturbance defined as both the impervious surface and ground that you tear up for some reason. 122 123 Herman Staats: So that I understand, cutting timber is not land disturbance if you don’t dig up the roots or bulldoze? 124 125 Michael Harvey: Cutting timber can be in certain circumstances, as defined by erosion control, can be land 126 disturbance. There are situations where it is exempt because it is either a bona fide farm or if you’re not disturbing 127 the ground cover. In theory yes, that is true but once you disturb the ground cover then it becomes land 128 disturbance. 129 130 Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner McKee was curious how this would impact someone who wanted to build a house 131 for parents or children on their land and I’ve had some emails and worked through some examples. My take is that 132 there is no simple way to sum up the impact of this and say as long as it’s only this size house, you’re good 133 because the process requires all these different aspects. What does house disturbance footprint, which is going to 134 be an impervious surface plus some area of around it, the driveway footprint, the septic tank, other areas. Also 135 having gone through the process of having built a house in the county, there is a bunch of stuff going on, and my 136 experience was that the sooner you engage the planning department with what you’re doing the better because 137 they can walk you through the rules and this is all part of the process of designing what you’re doing. I think the 138 best you can do to explain it to people is just make them aware of this process. 139 140 Herman Staats: I remember Commissioner McKee was asking about what someone could do if they got a piece of 141 land, the recommendation that we’re making is based on the state law, is that right? 142 143 Michael Harvey: The recommendation you’re making is, instead of having the existing standard which says 144 everybody in University Lake has to give you a professionally prepared site plan no matter what, we are basically 145 linking the submission of that site plan to the stormwater land disturbance thresholds we adopted last year. That to 146 us is a universal standard. No matter what we do this is here. It’s our position, and you have agreed with it, there’s 147 no need to have multiple caveats in the code which is what we have now. 148 149 Tony Blake: The County always has the sufficient cause to ask for one (site plan). 150 151 Michael Harvey: Yes, we do what is called a site assessment now for every project typically before they even apply 152 for a building permit. Site assessment is designed to identify all environmental factors and issues on any given 153 parcel of property. Its main purpose is to identify for health, in advance of their applying for a septic permit, what 154 areas can and cannot support a septic system. We use that process, that document that we produce using aerial 155 photography to identify these types of issues. 156 157 Pete Hallenbeck: My experience has been that if you can get the idea across to people to go talk to the County first 158 you can avoid a lot of headaches and they will help you understand these Ordinances and help you work through 159 the numbers and look at the options. 160 161 11 D R A F T 4 Michael Harvey: We’ve had a lot of success with the site assessment. People don’t like to do it but when they find 162 that its free and find that we identify issues before they go spending money, they seem to be somewhat happier but 163 they still don’t like the notion, it ultimately down to ‘it’s my property, I’ll do what I want’ and unfortunately that’s not 164 viable opinion to have in an age when zoning and land use issues are at the forefront of regulation. 165 166 Lisa Stuckey: I can envision a person who is under the limits and goes forward and then slowly but surely they 167 landscape more and more over years. 168 169 Michael Harvey: It’s not a cumulative issue. Impervious surface is a cumulative issue but land disturbance is not. 170 Having said that if you are required to adhere to an approved stormwater management plan and disturb property 171 invalidating that plan, you will have to take appropriate measures to address compliance with our regulations. 172 173 Pete Hallenbeck: There’s the incremental project where you add impervious surface and there’s the incremental 174 project where all the disturbed area from your previous project is grown over, has grass, is good and you’re 175 disturbing a new area and those are different things. 176 177 Michael Harvey: Right, you may recall when Terry Hackett appeared before you last April, different types of land 178 cover have different levels of credit for stormwater. A forest has the best and grass is not bad but it is the worst you 179 can have because it is just grassy field. As we continue to move forward, these regulations are going to become 180 somewhat more cumbersome. There are going to be more impacts on property owners and ability to develop 181 property and unfortunately this is the direction we are headed. 182 183 MOTION: made by Tony Blake to accept the Planning Department’s recommendation for Option C. Seconded by 184 Buddy Hartley. 185 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 186 187 188 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 189 190 a) Board of Adjustment 191 b) Orange Unified Transportation 192 193 Members and staff had some general discussion regarding cell towers. 194 195 196 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 197 198 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 199 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 200 12 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 5, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Baldwin Rezoning DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Ordinance Approving Rezoning Petition Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an owner-initiated general rezoning petition in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated the property owner, Mr. Alexander Baldwin, petitioned to rezone his 3.36 acre parcel of property (PIN 9893-81-7503): FROM: EDE-1 (Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity) TO: EDE-2 (Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity). The property is located on US Highway 70 East, adjacent to the Orange County Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) store. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a vicinity map denoting the subject parcel. Public Hearing: As detailed during the hearing, the applicant believes the EDE-2 zoning designation is more appropriate for the property given its frontage along US Highway 70 and represents a logical extension of the district. During the hearing the following questions were asked: 1. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify the size, and number, of parcel(s) subject to the petition. Staff Comment: As detailed in the abstract and application package the property owner is seeking to rezone a 3.36 acre parcel of property to EDE-2 along US Highway 70. The property is adjacent to the Orange County ABC store, which has a street address of 5413 US Highway 70 East 2. A BOCC member asked what impacts the rezoning would have on required land use buffers. 13 Staff Comment: Section 6.8.12 (c) of the UDO requires a 100 foot width buffer be ‘provided at the boundary of all Economic Development Districts’. A small portion of the subject parcel will be required to observe this perimeter buffer. Additional land use buffers for the subject parcel will be determined at the time the property is developed in accordance with Section 6.8.12 (c) of the UDO. 3. A BOCC member asked if the rezoning request for this parcel would impact the zoning of the property to the south. Staff Comment: Approval of this request will not alter or impact the zoning of the property to the south, which will remain zoned EDE-1. Agenda materials from the May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/130528.pdf Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the request finding that: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO. 2. The property is of sufficient size to be rezoned to EDE-2. 3. The rezoning is consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the Growth Management System, and the adopted Eno Economic Development District Area Small Area Plan. 4. The site has no environmental encumbrances. Attachment 2 contains the proposed Ordinance approving the rezoning. Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This rezoning request has been reviewed by County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate on the petition, 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation to proceed with Attachment 2 Approval of Rezoning, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed zoning atlas amendment in time for the September 5, 2013 BOCC meeting. 14 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 4/12/2013 VICINITY MAP - BALDWIN REZONING 1 inch = 250 feet 0 500 1,000Feet· Subject Parcel:Baldwin Property3.36 acre parcePIN 9893-81-7503 CW Clark Property19 acresZoned EDE-2 EDE-2 Zoning EDE-1 Zoning EDE-1 Zoning Whispering PinesSingle-family residentialsubdivision US Highway 70 Groucho Road 15 Ordinance #: 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition seeks to rezone an approximately 3.36 acre parcel of property off of US Highway 70, owned by Mr. Alexander Baldwin, identified with the Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9893-81-7503 to Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), and WHEREAS, the property to be rezoned is identified further as follows: ATTACHMENT 2 16 WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The Future Land Use Map. b. Principle 7: Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity. c. Economic Development (ED) Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances high-quality employment opportunities for County residents. d. Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses. e. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with 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. f. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. 17 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the property as described herein to Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 2013. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on ________________________, 2013 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2013. SEAL __________________________________ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 18 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 5, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Orange-Alamance Boundary Land Use and Zoning Atlas Amendments DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Future Land Use Map/Zoning Atlas Amendment Outline Form (CP 2013-01) Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 2. Current/Proposed Land Use 3. Resolution Amending Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 4. Ordinance Amending Zoning Atlas PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a County initiated amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Atlas to extend land use categories and zoning for lots being located within Orange County’s planning jurisdiction in conjunction with the formalization of the Orange-Alamance county line. BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated this item is designed to address the final disputed area of the Orange Alamance County line (i.e. the 9% area) consistent with Session Law 2012-108 adopted on June 28, 2012. Please refer to Section B.1 of Attachment 1 for additional information. Public Hearing: Please refer to Section C.1.b of Attachment 1 for a synopsis of comments made during the hearing. Agenda materials from the May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/130528.pdf Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends the Land Use and Zoning designations be extended as proposed based on the following: A. The amendments extend existing zoning and land use designations onto those portions of property now located within the County’s planning jurisdiction as a result of the formalization of the County line; and, B. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Section B.2 of Attachment 1 for additional information. Attachments 3 and 4 contain the Resolution and Ordinance approving the Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments as recommended by the Director. 19 Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 of Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary, 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation to proceed with Attachments 3 and 4, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas amendments, as contained within Attachments 3 and 4, in time for the June 18, 2013 BOCC meeting. 20 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENT OUTLINE CP & Zoning 2013-01 May 28, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing: Orange – Alamance Boundary Land Use and Zoning Amendments A. AMENDMENT TYPE Map Amendments Land Use Element Map: From: --- To: Agricultural Residential Zoning Map: From:- -- To: AR (Agricultural Residential) Other: This is a comprehensive plan and zoning atlas map amendment to assign land use and general use zoning district designations to 11 parcels along Eliza Lane, located within the Cedar Grove Township, either wholly or partially located in Orange County’s planning jurisdiction as a result of the changes to the Orange-Alamance County Line. Text Amendments Comprehensive Plan Text: Section(s): N/A UDO Text: UDO General Text Changes UDO Development Standards UDO Development Approval Processes Section(s): N/A Other: N/A B. RATIONALE 1. Purpose/Mission The purpose of this amendment is to establish land use and zoning categories for 11 partially zoned properties recently added to the County’s planning jurisdiction as a Attachment 1 21 2 result of the Orange-Alamance County Line Adjustment project consistent with Session Law 2012-108 (commonly referred to as the ‘9% line’) enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on June 28, 2012. The following properties, identified utilizing Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) data provided by the Orange County Tax Administration department, are subject to this request: 1. 9920461659 2. 9920471321 3. 9920461622 4. 9920461234 5. 9920451933 6. 9920461356 7. 9920461170 8. 9920461550 9. 9920471131 10. 9920461843 11. 9920461967 Please refer to Attachment 2 for maps of the aforementioned properties. It should be known there are three parcels along Eliza Lane located within both Orange and Caswell County. Planning staff, in coordination with the Manager’s office, will be contacting Caswell County to ensure tax and service issues are properly addressed for these parcels. Disputes over the actual location of the Orange-Alamance County line date back to its creation in 1849. Both counties have worked to resolve the problem and took the necessary steps, in consultation and coordination with our State legislative partners, to address the majority of the issue with the adoption of Session Law 2011-88 enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on May 25, 2011. This law addressed approximately 91% of the boundary line dispute between the counties. The County took action to assign land use and zoning designations to impacted properties (i.e. moved into our planning jurisdiction) associated with the passage of Session Law 2011-88 at its December 13, 2011 regular meeting. Agenda materials for this meeting can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/1112137a.pdf. Additional information on this portion of the project can be obtained by reviewing the agenda packet from the November 21, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing at: http://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/111121c2.pdf. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8: Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments and Section 2.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Planning Director has initiated an amendment to the Land Use Element Map, located within Chapter 5: Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Orange County Zoning Atlas to assign land use and zoning designations to those properties associated with the formalization of the county boundary line consistent with Session Law 2012-088. 22 3 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.3.9 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. In analyzing this proposal, the following information is offered: 1. The identified properties are already partially assigned a land use and zoning district designation, specifically they are zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and are located within the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category as detailed within the Comprehensive Plan. 2. 5 of these properties are located within the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. This proposal will extend the overlay district consistent onto the portions of the subject properties now located within our planning jurisdiction, specifically those properties with the following PIN Numbers: 9920-46-1170 9920-46-1550 9920-47-1131 9920-46-1843 9920-46-1967 3. Field inspections have been conducted by staff verifying that there do not appear to be any existing land uses inconsistent with the aforementioned zoning or land use categories. In order to be consistent with the existing development patterns in the area, and the current zoning/land use designation of the parcels, staff is recommending extending existing general use and overlay district zoning designations and land use categories on those portions of property recently added to our planning jurisdiction. ‘ 3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) This project is a house keeping item necessitated by the change in the Orange- Alamance County line location. In analyzing this proposal, the following Comprehensive Plan goals are offered justifying the request: Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with 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. • Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high 23 4 quality of life. • Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. • 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 systems. 4. New Statutes and Rules Session Law 2012-108, Senate Bill 201 (AKA the 9% Bill): ‘ An Act to establish the remaining nine percent of the common boundary between Alamance County and Orange County not addressed by Session Law 2011-88 and as authorized by the General Assembly by Session Law 2010-61 enabling the changes in the historic Orange County-Alamance County boundary line as described in the 1849 survey establishing Alamance county. ‘ This proposal will complete our work on the project and serve as concluding our efforts with respect to finalizing the boundary line for Orange and Alamance county. C. PROCESS 1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed February 5, 2013 b. Quarterly Public Hearing May 28, 2013. During the public hearing the following questions/comments were made: 1. A Planning Board member asked if the County should be concerned with the actual language contained within Session Law 2012-108 prior to taking action on the proposed map amendments. Specifically a concern was expressed over the use of ‘historic’ in Section1 of the law when, technically, this was not the proper word choice to convey the intended meaning. Staff response: Session Law 2012-108 was adopted on June 28, 2012. Regardless of concerns over word choice, the legality of the Orange-Alamance boundary line re-alignment is not in question and the County can proceed with the rezoning action as presented by staff. 24 5 c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints May 7, 2013 (legal ad approval) June 18, 2013 (decision) d. Other 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County ordinance requirements. Additionally, staff will hold one open house on April 22, 2013 to review the proposal with impacted property owners. a. Planning Board Review: June 5, 2013 (for recommendation) b. Advisory Boards: N/A c. Local Government Review: Alamance County: Alamance County reviewed the proposal and expressed no concerns to staff. d. Notice Requirements Process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County ordinance requirements. e. Outreach: General Public: Open House: An open house was held on April 22, 2013 to allow impacted property owners to review staff’s recommendation(s). Staff sent out letters via first class mail informing property owners of the meeting on April 12, 2013. No one attended the open house and staff received no inquiries. Public Hearing: Notification letters were sent via first class mail to impacted property owners prior to quarterly public hearing, no later than May 10, 2013 in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO. Letters were also sent to all property owners within 500 feet of those parcels subject to rezoning informing them of the 25 6 3. FISCAL IMPACT Expenditures for this project will be paid using Departmental funds budgeted for the specific activity. Expenditures include: • Legal Ad • Signs • Notification letters and postcards (postage and supplies) Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment. D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS Properties affected will now be subject to land use designations and zoning where there was no land use designation or zoning before in Alamance County. E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Please refer to Attachments 3 and 4 for the Resolution amending the Future Land Use Map and the Ordinance amending the official Zoning Atlas. public hearing in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO. Signs advertising the hearing were placed on the subject parcels as required by Section 2.8.7 of the UDO. Small Area Plan Workgroup: Other: Primary Staff Contact: Michael D. Harvey Planning (919) 245-2597 mharvey@orangecountync.gov 26 Caswell County AlamanceCounty Area to be zoned AR and assigned Agricultural Residential land usedesignation AlamanceCounty Hyco CreekUnprotected Watershed Back CreekProtected Watershed EL I Z A L N AN D E R S C T ANDERS WAY AR USGS Water Feature Soils Survey Water Feature OC Updated Water Feature Water Body River Basins Watershed Parcels Township School System Boundary Contours County Boundary Soils Zoning City Limits ETJ Conservation EasementsHeld by Others Orange CountyConservation Easements 100 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Floodway (Effective 02/02/07) 500 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Buildings Water and Sewer Boundary · 0 160 32080Feet 1 inch = 208.333 feet Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange CountyGIS and is for reference only.Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections. 27 RESOLUTION # _________________________ A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Orange County initiated an amendment to the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, as established in Section 2.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), to assign or extend land use categories for approximately 11 properties along the Orange-Alamance county line in northwestern Orange County along Eliza Lane, and WHEREAS, these properties are being located within the County’s planning jurisdiction a result of the Orange-Alamance County Line Adjustment project consistent with Session Law 2012-108 (commonly referred to as the ‘9% line’) enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on June 28, 2012, and WHEREAS, the properties subject to this resolution are further described utilizing Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) data provided by the Orange County Tax Administration department, as follows: 1. 9920461659 2. 9920471321 3. 9920461622 4. 9920461234 5. 9920451933 6. 9920461356 7. 9920461170 8. 9920461550 9. 9920471131 10. 9920461843 11. 9920461967 and WHEREAS, the area surrounding these aforementioned properties are designated as being located within the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category, and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has recommended that all of the aforementioned parcels be assigned the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category designation, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment is internally consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: ATTACHMENT 3 28 Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with 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. • Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. • Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. • 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 systems, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the Future Land Use Map, provided in Chapter 5 of the Land Use Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended as described herein to become effective June 18, 2013. Upon motion of Commissioner ____________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________________, the aforementioned 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted this the _________ day of _________________, 2013 and shall become effective upon adoption. __________________________________________ Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners 29 Ordinance #: 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), to extend existing zoning designations for 11 properties along the Orange-Alamance county line in northwestern Orange County along Eliza Lane, and WHEREAS, these properties are being located within the County’s planning jurisdiction a result of the Orange-Alamance County Line Adjustment project consistent with Session Law 2012-108 (commonly referred to as the ‘9% line’) enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on June 28, 2012, and WHEREAS, the parcels subject to this Ordinance, identified utilizing Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) data provided by the Orange County Tax Administration department, are identified as follows: 1. 9920461659 2. 9920471321 3. 9920461622 4. 9920461234 5. 9920451933 6. 9920461356 7. 9920461170 8. 9920461550 9. 9920471131 10. 9920461843 11. 9920461967 and WHEREAS, the parcels subject to this Ordinance, identified utilizing the aforementioned PIN data, are already partially zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) as denoted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and WHEREAS, 5 of these parcels, specifically those with PINs: 1. 9920-46-1170 2. 9920-46-1550 3. 9920-47-1131 4. 9920-46-1843 5. 9920-46-1967 are located within the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. WHEREAS, only those portions of the properties denoted utilizing the above referenced PIN data that were not previously within Orange County are subject to this Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and ATTACHMENT 4 30 WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with 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. Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. 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. 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 systems, and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to zone the portions of the aforementioned parcels, as detailed within Session Law 2012-108 and further detailed herein, Agricultural Residential (AR). BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to extend the Back Creek Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District over the 5 parcels as detailed herein. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 2013. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on ________________________, 2013 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. 31 WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2013. SEAL __________________________________ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 32 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 5, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Discussion of Planning Board Representative on the Board of Adjustment DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: None Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 PURPOSE: To discuss the continued viability of having a Planning Board member serve on the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and, if necessary, solicit volunteers/make an appointment recommendation to the BOCC to fill the aforementioned position. BACKGROUND: There is a ‘seat’ reserved on the BOA for a Planning Board member. This seat is currently vacant due to the expired term of Dr. Larry Wright. Staff does not believe there is a need to for the Planning Board to continue having a member serve on the BOA and would like to recommend the discontinuation of the practice. The position appears to have been intended to ensure there was an appropriate level of feedback provided to the Planning Board, as a whole, on various development issues reviewed by the BOA. There may have also been a perceived need to provide the Board ‘with a voice’ on development applications under review. Staff can provide minutes from any BOA meeting, or provide a report on reviewed items from the BOA Chair as necessary, to the Planning Board for their edification. We also do not believe it necessary to leave a ‘seat open’ specifically for a Planning Board member, especially if no one is able to serve. It would be more prudent to allow an interested Orange County resident to serve on the BOA rather than keep a seat open unnecessarily. The BOA is a County advisory board having the following duties: 1. Hear, review, and take action on the appeal of any order, decision, or determination made by the Planning Department, 2. Hear and take action on Class B Special Use Permit applications, and 3. Hear and take action of variance applications from the dimensional requirements detailed within the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Membership consists of 5 regular, and 2 alternate members each appointed by the BOCC for 3 year terms. The BOA acts in a quasi-judicial capacity meaning actions to approve or deny a request are based on the ‘sworn testimony and competent material evidence’ entered into the record during the meeting. Meetings typically occur on the second Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the lower level conference room, same room as the Planning Board meetings, of the West Campus Office building. 33 Current members of this board are as follows: Name Position Term Mr. David Blankford Full Member Term ends June 30, 2014 Dr. James Carter Full Member Term ends June 30, 2013 Cannot be reappointed Mr. Mark Micol Alternate Member Term ends June 30, 2013 Can be reappointed Dr. Dawn Brezina Full Member Term ended June 30, 2012 – BOCC has not taken action to fill seat yet Dr. Larry Wright Former Planning Board seat – BOCC to consider moving to Full Member of the BOA Term ends June 30, 2013 County policy is that citizens may serve on a maximum of two advisory boards. Current Planning Board members who do not serve on a second board are: Tony Blake Maxecine Mitchell Buddy Hartley Johnny Randall Rachel Phelps-Hawkins Pete Hallenbeck Herman Staats As of the writing of this abstract there has not been a Planning Board volunteer for this position. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board: 1. Provide input on whether the BOCC should change the BOA membership slots so that a current Planning Board member does not necessarily have to also serve on the BOA. 2. If necessary, designate a Planning Board member for appointment consideration by the BOCC to serve on the BOA. 34