HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 110613ORANGE 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, November 6, 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 November and December
i. Dinner Meeting with BOCC – 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 25
(before QPH) @ Link Government Services Center
ii. Quarterly Public Hearing – 7:00 p.m. on Nov. 25 @ Dept.
of Social Services – draft legal ad attached
3.
9-14
15-20
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 2, 2013 ORC Meeting Notes
October 2, 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
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 21-59 MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on a
major subdivision concept plan application (Triple Crown Farms),
located off of Dairyland Road.
Presenter: Jennifer Leaf, Planner I
8. 60-128 PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN FOR COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS’ ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT: To discuss the input form
for the annual BOCC planning retreat in early 2014. The annual report
informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory
boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning.
Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
9. 129-156 PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS IN THE COUNTY’S
JURISDICTION – To receive educational information on the challenges
North Carolina counties face in providing and maintaining sidewalks in
unincorporated areas.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planner III
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
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
November 2013
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
December 2013November 2013
Oc
t
2
7
-
N
o
v
2
Oct 27 28 29 30 31 Nov 1 2
No
v
3
-
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7:00pm
BOCC Reg
Meeting
(Central Orange
Senior Center)
6:00 pm
ORC Meeting
*7:00 pm
Planning Board
Meeting
(West Campus
Office Bldg )
No
v
1
0
-
1
6
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
7:30pm
Board of
Adjustment
(West Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
BOCC Work
Session
(Southern
Human
Services)
No
v
1
7
-
2
3
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
7:00pm
BOCC Reg
Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting -
CANCELLED
No
v
2
4
-
3
0
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
5:30pmBOCC/
Planning Board
Dinner Meeting
(Link Gov't Services)
HOLIDAY HOLIDAY
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
December 2013
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
January 2014December 2013
De
c
1
-
7
Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Department
of Social
Services)
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
De
c
8
-
1
4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
De
c
1
5
-
2
1
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
De
c
2
2
-
2
8
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOLIDAY
De
c
2
9
-
J
a
n
4
29 30 31 Jan 1, 14 2 3 4
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 5, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Legal Advertisement for Quarterly Public Hearing – November 25, 2013
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Legal Advertisement
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems
Coordinator, 919-245-2578
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-
245- 2592
PURPOSE: To consider the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the joint Board of
County Commissioners/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing scheduled for November 25,
2013.
BACKGROUND: T he Board of County Commissioners reviews proposals to be considered at
public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. The following
County initiated items are scheduled for the November 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing:
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment to amend the regulations that
pertain to home occupations. This item was initiated in conjunction with the Planning
Board and suggested during BOCC goal setting sessions.
2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment to amend the regulations that
pertain to telecommunication facilities. These changes are necessary to ensure the
ordinance conforms to recent changes in State law.
3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment to amend the regulations that
pertain to the Board of Adjustment. These changes are necessary to ensure the
ordinance conforms to recent changes in State law.
The attached legal advertisement provides additional information regarding these items. The
BOCC approved the Amendment Outline Forms for these items at its September 5, 2013
meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than advertising costs, which are included in the FY 2013-14
Budget, there are no direct financial impacts associated with the approval of this item.
5(&200(1'$7,21 6 7KH,QWHULP0DQDJHUUHFRPPHQGVWKH%RDUGDSSURYHWKHSURSRVHG
1RYHPEHU4XDUWHUO\3XEOLF+HDULQJOHJDODGYHUWLVHPHQW
5
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough
Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 25, 2013
at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or
against the following items:
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Board and
Planning Director have initiated an amendment to the text of the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO).
Text amendments are proposed to Sections 2.22 Home Occupations, 5.4.3
Special Events, and 5.5.3 Home Occupations. The purpose of the amendments
is to change the existing standards to allow for an increase in the number of
square feet that can be used for home occupation purposes, increase the
number of allowable onsite employees, permit larger scale home occupations in
the Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R-1) zoning districts, and
allow for the exemption of special events organized or affiliated with a
governmental or non-profit agency. Proposed amendments will also modify and
clarify existing regulations and definitions associated with home occupations. The
amendments also seek to fund a balance between the trend for small home
based businesses and the typical character and enjoyment of residential
neighborhoods.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendment.
2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has
initiated an amendment to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Text amendments are proposed to Section 2.7.14 Changes to Approved Plans
and Section 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication Facilities to incorporate
recent changes in State law with respect to the review and processing of
applications proposing the development or modification of telecommunication
facilities.
Session Law 2013-185, adopted June 26, 2013, established new criteria related to
the processing of applications, including:
a. Prohibition on requiring information related to the specific need for a
proposed telecommunication facility, including the addition of additional
wireless coverage or capacity, as part of the application package.
6
b. Local governments cannot require ‘proprietary, confidential, or other
business information’ to justify the need for a new telecommunication
facility.
c. Limits the fee local governments can collect for a third party consultant to
review applications for co-locations.
d. Mandatory review timelines/deadlines for local governments to act on co-
location applications.
The amendments are necessary to ensure Orange County’s regulations and
processes are consistent with these changes.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendment.
3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with
the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance
Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has
initiated an amendment to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Text amendments are proposed to Section(s) 2.5.4 Site Plan Review –
Procedures and Timeframes; 2.10 Variances; 2.11 Interpretations; 2.12 Board of
Adjustment; and 2.25 Appeals to incorporate recent changes in State law with
respect to items reviewed and acted upon by the Orange County Board of
Adjustment.
Session Law 2013-126, adopted June 19, 2013, modified and updated procedural
and notification requirements for the various applications reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment. The amendments are necessary to ensure Orange County’s
regulations and processes are consistent with these changes.
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed
amendment.
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the
receipt of comments made at the public hearing. Accommodations for individuals with
physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Planning Director at
least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the one of the phone numbers
below. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained no later than November
15, 2013 at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Meeting Agendas link.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning
Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West
Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and
you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions.
7
PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange
November 13, 2013 November 13, 2013
November 20, 2013 November 20, 2013
8
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 10, 2013 3
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4
5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 8
Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James 9
Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 10
Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 11 12
13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 14
Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 15
16
17
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 18 19 20
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 21
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO regarding Telecommunication Facilities. 22
This amendment is in response to Session Law 2013-185. 23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 24
25
Michael Harvey: Reviewed the abstract. The State of North Carolina, in passing this Session Law, has put additional 26
limitations on local governing bodies, municipalities and counties with respect to how they are processing applications for 27
telecommunications facilities. Specifically, they limited the amount of time devoted to a co-locating application to 45 days, 28
limited the total amount of outside consultant fees we can charge. This is an amendment to bring us compliance with State 29
law. 30
31
Paul Guthrie: Local government cannot require that doesn’t mean that you can’t ask for it. You just can’t require it, correct? 32
33
Michael Harvey: That is a correct statement, we also can’t utilize it if they say no as a reason to deny or recommend denial. 34
We can’t use it a basis for any other reason to say they didn’t comply or they don’t comply with the law. 35
36
Michael Harvey: We are going to be presenting this at the November quarterly public hearing. 37
38
Pete Hallenbeck: First off, raising a tower above 199 feet means you suddenly have to add lighting to it. It is a big 39
undertaking for a tower company. 40
41
Paul Guthrie: Over 200 feet requires FAA consideration. 42
43
Michael Harvey: Yes, and we have standards if you are proposing a 200 foot tall tower it is part of the submittal that the FAA 44
has given initial clearance. 45
46
Pete Hallenbeck: So, between the FAA and the ordinances, there are a lot of good reasons for the companies to put in towers 47
that are less than 200 feet tall. The second thing is that raising a tower is not trivial. You can’t just nail a 2 x 4 and make it 48
higher. 49
50
51 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OPERATION 52
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO related to Board of Adjustment operation. 53
This amendment is in response to Session Law 2013-126. 54
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 55
9
56
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. The General Assembly has modernized and provided uniformity of the Board of 57
Adjustment. We are updating our code to be consistent with State Law. 58
59
Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions? Ok, it makes sense to me. Thank you. 60
61
62 AGENDA ITEM 4: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – HOME OCCUPATION 63
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO regarding Home Occupation standards. 64 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 65 66
Paul Guthrie: For the record, we have a home business in my house. 67
68
Lisa Stuckey: I have a home business in my house too. 69
70
Pete Hallenbeck: I work out of my home too. 71
72
Ashley Moncado: (Reviewed abstract). 73
74
Paul Guthrie: Have you been able to identify what the traffic work load it going to be to the planning department as a result of 75
these regulations? 76
77
Michael Harvey: I have no concerns based on the provisions. I believe the regulations proposed are reasonable. I don’t 78
believe it will increase the workload tremendously. 79
80
Paul Guthrie: You don’t know how many applications you will get. I think technically the provision with regard to the number 81
of special events is still going to exclude the art tour because the number of 30 will breach that. We have a very strong arts 82
community and I need to think through how you do not become an impediment to that. 83
84
Ashley Moncado: Other counties don’t have limits on people but limitations on parking and other things. They are more 85
restrictive. 86
87
Paul Guthrie: You want to look at that dynamic. 88
89
Pete Hallenbeck: You can get a special permit for that event. 90
91
Paul Guthrie: The arts community is already buzzing about this. My other concern is the parking requirement could be 92
difficult for some folks. The other comment is regarding the maintenance; you may want to clarify that and be prepared that 93
may be a problem. 94
95
Pete Hallenbeck: On page 86 regarding parking, parking shall be met off the street and not required yard area, so when 96
people come to these events, they can’t park on the street. 97
98
Ashley Moncado: They would have to be in your area and not in the setback. 99
100
Pete Hallenbeck: Could you put setback instead of yard area? 101
102
Perdita Holtz: No, because of the way yard is defined and used in the UDO and other places. 103
104
Michael Harvey: There is an opportunity for you to go through a process to seek regress. We don’t want to have a commercial 105
impact on a private road. 106
107
Pete Hallenbeck: On the outside storage space, there is 500 square feet, for the major home occupations that is part of the 108
application. In the minor home occupation application, where is that? 109
110
10
Ashley Moncado: It should be indicated on the plot plan. 111
112
Michael Harvey: We are not regulating the UPS truck for home delivery. If your home occupation needs a vehicle to support 113
operations there is a limit. Also, there are specific land uses prohibited as home occupations. 114
115
Paul Guthrie: Zoning ordinance cannot prohibit a small business homeowner from owning a bigger truck, which I question. 116
117
Michael Harvey: By using it as part of the business parked on the property, it can become regulated. 118
119
Ashley Moncado: We will look into it again. 120
121
Maxecine Mitchell: Can they load the equipment and leave? 122
123
Ashley Moncado: That it still be used in connections with home occupations. 124
125
Maxecine Mitchell: It would not be permitted? 126
127
Ashley Moncado: No. 128
129
Maxecine Mitchell: If someone is already using his or her vehicle? 130
131
Ashley Moncado: That standard is already in place. 132
133
James Lea: If I decide to start a tree service and had a two or three ton truck, I could not park that at my house? 134
135
Ashley Moncado: No. 136
137
Tony Blake: If it fit in a garage, could you keep it there? 138
139
Ashley Moncado: No. 140
141
Pete Hallenbeck: Let us see what people feel is a good size. 142
143
Paul Guthrie: I am not too upset with the one ton. This is a thicket and reality is it going to be very controversial when you hit 144
someone that has been grandfathered in. 145
146
Herman Staats: I think if you consider, I have dually which is more than one ton. One ton may be too low. 147
148
James Lea: I would agree. Some of the language suggests that you could not have dually there. 149
150
Maxecine Mitchell: I don’t know what a one-ton truck is. If you have a landscaping business, they have trucks and long 151
trailers. 152
153
Ashley Moncado: There is language already in the UDO. 154
155
Tony Blake: Any language that is not a split axle truck. 156
157
Pete Hallenbeck: Rather than a ton limit, an axle limit. 158
159
Lisa Stuckey: Delivery trucks, UPS or FedEx are okay with me. 160
161
Pete Hallenbeck: If you had a small business, would this be something you could apply for a variance on. 162
163
11
Michael Harvey: I am hesitating to say yes because there may not be hardship. This is not to promote small business use for 164
a property but home occupation. Anybody can apply for anything. I don’t see the limitation that is providing such a limit on 165
your use of property as warranting a variance. 166
167
Pete Hallenbeck: I would say one or two ton. 168
169
Paul Guthrie: The five-acre provision worries me because of the entrepreneur starting out. 170
171
Pete Hallenbeck: I think part of the five acres is that we are applying the same rules whether you had a one acre lot or 100 172
acre farm. 173
174
Ashley Moncado: We’ll look into all the suggestions and changes and get back to you at the November Planning Board 175
Meeting. 176 177
178 AGENDA ITEM 5: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT ENTERPRISES 179
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO implement a program commonly referred 180
to “Agricultural Support Enterprises”. 181 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 182
183
ITEM WAS POSTPONED UNTIL END OF REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING DUE TO LACK OF TIME 184
185 AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 186
187
Meeting was adjourned. 188
189
190
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING BOARD MEETING 191
FOR THE LAST ITEM ON THE ORC AGENDA 192
193
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 194
Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, 195
Bingham Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 196 197
198 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 199
Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 200
201
202 AGENDA ITEM 5: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT ENTERPRISES 203
To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO implement a program commonly referred 204
to “Agricultural Support Enterprises”. 205 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 206
207
Perdita Holtz: (Reviewed Abstract) DEAPR is working on a manual and hopefully it will be available as part of the quarterly 208
public hearing in February 2014. 209
210
Tony Blake: I thought there was an acreage requirement as well. 211
212
Perdita Holtz: No, there is no acreage requirement, there may have been at one time. 213
214
Michael Harvey: The acreage requirement was only based on complying with the bona fide farm tax program. 215
216
12
Paul Guthrie: If the actual crop, what the central farm managed, planted, and prepared the soil for the crop on is on 217
somebody else’s land, could they use it under the definition? 218
219
Perdita Holtz: That noncontiguous parcel is normally considered part of the bona fide farm. Where it comes into play about 220
being off the farm is if you have another bona fide farm that wants to come back and sell products like in a farm store. 221
222
Perdita Holtz: (Continued review of item) 223
224
Pete Hallenbeck: What does the metal fabrication shop fit in under? 225
226
Perdita Holtz: That’s one of the more interesting things that was part of the previous work, metal fabrication shop would 227
normally fit under the Light Industrial zoning use category and a lot of these uses would have fit under umbrella uses that 228
appear in our zoning ordinance. Part of the problem is that people were saying we want to see these uses exactly in the 229
zoning code and so we went ahead and put them in the zoning code because there is no harm in doing so other than you 230
might end up with a whole bunch of pages in your table of permitted uses if you were to list every single possible use ever. 231
There is an effort to help the farmers and so we are doing that. There was apparently one farmer that does metal fabrication 232
on the side and so I think that is one of the reasons that ended up as we do to have this defined. 233
234
Pete Hallenbeck: So this is metal fabrication shop as in blacksmithing, making rod iron, and fixing large tractor things that 235
need lots of welding because of those two. 236
237
Perdita Holtz: Metal fabrication shop is the facility that is engaged in the shaping of metal or similar materials for wholesale or 238
retail trade. One of the standards for metal fabrication shop is that if it is located in an AR zoning district is that it has to be 239
located on a bona fide farm so the standard gets very important because some of these uses would only be allowed in those 240
zoning districts if they are located on a bona fide farm. 241
242
Pete Hallenbeck: There are things that require not a site plan but a plot plan and there may some interesting discussion about 243
exactly that the terms are. 244
245
Lisa Stuckey: What’s a nonfarm use of farm equipment, like tractor ride? 246
247
Perdita Holtz: That’s like a farmer using his tractor to grading work during the off season. 248
249
Lisa Stuckey: So what is the plot plan going to show? 250
251
Perdita Holtz: It is actually on page the page beforehand, of all the specifications of a plot plan. It is going to show property 252
lines. This is more for someone doing landscaping or grading type of activities off the farm. 253
254
Michael Harvey: To give you an example, we were dealing with a farmer that actually rented out equipment to be used either 255
in landscaping, grading, and also did septic tank work on the side and he had equipment. As all the equipment had a farm 256
application, legally as I interpret the statute there wasn’t much we could do. We required him to give us a plot plan showing 257
where it was parked, where any activity that was not farm related occurred and that there was any necessary infrastructure to 258
support this ancillary business. This project has gone back to 2001, this is one of the genesis for this nonfarm use of farm 259
equipment was this particular farmer and others who had similar relationships with people. 260
261
Perdita Holtz: On the plot plan, there are standards they have to meet. One of them is that they have to screen the 262
equipment from adjacent property and roads and outdoor storage of material such as gravel, dirt, plants shall be limited in 263
growth, area, and duration. There are a couple of others so they would have to show on the plot plan where equipment is 264
being stored and how they are going to achieve the screening and where their outdoor storage and materials is going to take 265
place. 266
267
Andrea Rohrbacher: On equipment, I haven’t heard the word that the equipment must be operable. What if it is non-operable 268
and it just sits there for a decade? 269
270
Perdita Holtz: If it is sitting on a bona fide farm, we really can’t do anything about it. 271
13
272
Tony Blake: Do you have sawmills in here? We have some folks that have sawmills out where I am and they mill their own 273
trees and such. 274
275
Perdita Holtz: That would probably be a bona fide farm and that is not regulated. Only if you are bring in lumber from other 276
places would it be regulated. 277
278
Perdita Holtz: The BOCC has requested specific input from advisory boards, the Planning Board and also the Agricultural 279
Preservation Board on this project. They would like to have input on whether more intensive uses should be removed from 280
consideration. 281
282
The consensus of the group was that this item should be considered further at a November ORC meeting. 283
284 AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 285
286
Meeting was adjourned 287
14
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 2, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 7
Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Herman 8
Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large 9
Chapel Hill Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 12
Stephanie O’Rourke, Eno Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current 15
Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Abigaile 16
Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 17
18 HANDOUTS: Petition regarding Eno Area Access Management Plan; Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Coordinated Area 19
Land Use Plan Flowchart 20
21
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 24
a) Planning Calendar for October and November 25
26 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 28 29 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the July 10, 2013 Planning Board ORC notes and the July 10, 2013 Planning Board 30
minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 36
37 Introduction to the Public Charge 38
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 39
the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the 40
County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious 41
development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its 42
citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the 43
health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision 44
of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and 45
recommendations. 46
47 PUBLIC CHARGE 48
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens 49
to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. 50
At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the 51
Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. 52
Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine 53
commitment to this public charge is observed. 54
15
AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 55 56 Agenda Item 7: Zoning Atlas Amendment – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a property owner-57
initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a 2.67 parcel of property located at 3604 58
Southern Drive (PIN 9844-86-5155) from Rural Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Light 59
Industrial (I-1). This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 60 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 61
62
Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). We have provided a synopsis of the questions asked at the public hearing. A 63
Commissioner wanted staff to clarify if this property was in an overlay zoning district specifically a watershed overlay zoning 64
district which it is, Upper Eno Protected, that means there is going to be impervious surface limits imposed on any 65
expansion of this property. There was also a question asked if the rezoning of this parcel would have an impact on any 66
property surrounding, and the answer is no. The only public comment I have received from the public hearing is a call from 67
Miss May who live right here (pointed out on location map), who expressed consternation that I made Mr. Keizer go through 68
this process at all. You have a planning staff recommendation of approval and the rationale for our decision is the 69
application was submitted in compliance with the UDO, the property is of sufficient size to be rezoned as requested, and the 70
rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, the Growth Management System Map, and the 71
adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. 72
73 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve Attachments 2 and 3 to rezone the Keizer property a 2.67 acre parcel of property 74
located at 3604 Southern Drive. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 75
76 VOTE: Unanimous 77
78 Agenda Item 8: Zoning Atlas Amendment – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a property owner-79
initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 2 parcels of property, totaling approximately 16 80
acres in land area, from Rural Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Light Industrial (I-1). The 81
parcels are undeveloped and without an assigned street address but are located east and south of 82
the USA Dutch property at 3604 Southern Drive. This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 83
quarterly public hearing. 84 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 85
86
Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). 87
88
Maxecine Mitchell: Are they on septic there? 89
90
Michael Harvey: They’re still on septic, however, sewer and utilities ought to be available in the near future. If it is available 91
they obviously could tie in if they go through the appropriate process. 92
93
Tony Blake: They have not purchased this property yet? 94
95
Michael Harvey: No, and as we stipulated at the public hearing, they have an offer to purchase and have signed a contract 96
to purchase contingent upon this rezoning going through. 97
98
Lisa Stuckey: Is this is the rural buffer? 99
100
Michael Harvey: No. This is rural residential zoning. 101
102
Maxecine Mitchell: Will this company’s future expansion create more job opportunities and is this something we should take 103
into consideration for this proposal? 104
105
Michael Harvey: It shouldn’t be part of the consideration but Mr. Kizer did make comment at the public hearing that 106
additional jobs would be created. 107
108
16
Paul Guthrie: Will that sewer system that is going through there have the capacity to handle that operation or will there have 109
to be pre-treatment? 110
111
Craig Benedict: The system is in the design stages and it will take into consideration the land uses and the water and sewer 112
demand enough to accommodate the change of land uses from what is there now to non-residential. From a demand 113
standpoint, yes we have it covered. We will examine what type of sewer flow they have and sometimes pretreatment is 114
necessary in some manufacturing operations. 115
116
Maxecine Mitchell: You said that a certain percentage of the R1 could be turned into I1. 117
118
Michael Harvey: The percentage figure I believe you are referring to was the allowable percentage of impervious surface 119
area on a given lot. The node, as currently defined, allows for minimal high intense residential development in the area. 120
121
Maxecine Mitchell: If we rezone this will it leave room for more requests? 122
123
Michael Harvey: Yes. Approval of this request will not limit or hinder future requests from being submitted or heard. 124
125 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve attachments 3 and 4 to rezone two parcels totaling 16.1 acres. Seconded by Lisa 126
Stuckey. 127
128
VOTE: Unanimous 129
130 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – To make a recommendation to the 131
BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that will 132
require a neighborhood information meeting be held prior to site plan submittal for most proposed 133
governmental uses. This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 134 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 135
136
Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). There were a couple of comments and questions at the quarterly public hearing. 137
This information is detailed on page 45 of your abstract. Concern was expressed by a Planning Board member that there 138
needs to be additional thought as to what constitutes government use and the expense of logistical issues of having this 139
neighborhood information meeting. Staff’s comment is essentially that we understand the concern but the direction we have 140
from the elected officials is that anytime there is a government use, that use is going to be reviewed by the adjacent property 141
owners in this form and setting to ensure that they understand what is going on. There are concerns about local volunteer 142
fire departments absorbing this cost and those have been expressed to the elected officials who have indicated that while 143
they understand the concern, they are moving forward with this option. Planning staff recommends that you deliberate on 144
this and vote to recommend approval of the amendment to the elected officials. 145
146
Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments. It was expensive and not what the intent of what the fire tax is. It was several 147
thousand dollars including renting space, printing boards and mailing expense. It was difficult to communicate to people that 148
this site plan was not approved yet so we didn’t have anything concrete to show them. 149
150
Paul Guthrie: Do I read this to be that the volunteer fire department is not a governmental function? 151
152
Michael Harvey: No sir. It is a government use. In Section 5.2 of the table under the government use category, it is listed. 153
154
Pete Hallenbeck: This is a pain for the fire department and it costs money but can be fairly cheap compared to upsetting 155
neighbors forever when something is just dropped on them. 156
157
Tony Blake: There were more complainers that lived further away. 158
159
James Lea: What are the nuts and bolts of this? It is the cost or the information for the meeting? 160
161
Michael Harvey: The issues were the cost of the certified mailing. 162
17
163
Tony Blake: There are costs for the volunteers to do this. 164
165
Pete Hallenbeck: The volunteer fire departments are run by volunteers and it is about a $3,000.00 cost. The county is 166
requiring these neighborhoods to have these meetings. 167
168
Michael Harvey: The issue is cost, resources, feelings that the meetings are unnecessary. 169
170
Tony Blake: We didn’t plan for this cost. 171
172
Paul Guthrie: One thing I mentioned is that once you established precedence in this area, the definition of governmental 173
uses in terms of projects, are there ways to do that communication without sending out thousands of letters. 174
175 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve. Maxecine Mitchell seconded. 176
VOTE: 7:1 (Tony Blake) 177
178
Tony Blake: I think the certified mailings should be left out and we should identify the affected property owners and not just 179
the ones within 500 feet. 180
181 Agenda Item 10: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan – To make a 182
recommendation to the BOCC on a proposed access management plan for the Eno Economic 183
Development District (EDD). The proposed access management plan involves approximately 980 184
acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County). This item 185
was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 186 Presenter: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner 187 188
Abigaile Pittman: (Reviewed abstract). At the quarterly public hearing several comments were collected and this is what we 189
came away with, that we need to prepare a summary of access management planning 101 to help educate residents and we 190
have given you some of that in these initial slides. There was some confusion over the relationship to recent zoning and 191
land use changes in the Eno EDD. Staff was asked to look at protections that could be applied on Old NC Highway 10 and 192
St. Mary’s Road was mentioned as an example. A petition was submitted by a group of citizens and it is one of your 193
handouts. We have mapped the addresses of the people who have signed it. Some petitioners have voiced their concerns 194
related to overall previously approved development plans, the zoning and future land use maps, water and sewer extension 195
plans, etc. and not so much the access management plan. They don’t like the zoning that is there. As a follow-up, based on 196
County Commissioners’ and public comments, staff has begun researching protections that may be put into place to 197
preserve the character of Old NC Highway 10 including previous protections pursued for St. Mary’s Road, secondary view 198
shed regulations, scenic corridor overlay regulations, scenic byway regulations, and scenic conservation easements. Staff is 199
recommending the following revisions to the plan based on comments: on page 4 and page 21 of the plan, to rephrase 200
language regarding bike lanes to state that NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Highway 201
10 for bicycles, and on page 26 of the plan which is the concept map, to remove the simple symbol for possible commuter 202
rail transit stop from the map and legend and revise the legend for signalized intersections to indicate that it means existing 203
signalized intersections. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Board review the plan and provide its 204
recommendation to the BOCC and the Board could also include the request that staff continue its research on protections 205
for St. Mary’s Road and report back to the BOCC. 206
207
Herman Staats: At the Quarterly Public Hearing it seems that most of the public comments I heard related to this were the 208
misperception that this was a plan to build a lot of new roads, stop lights, signals, etc. so I agree that education is needed. 209
210
Tony Blake: When we did the rezoning last year, I took a drive up there and I heard at least 4 or 5 people comment that the 211
biggest transportation improvement needed is to fix the railroad bridge on Old NC 10 because the trucks keep going down 212
there and slamming that bridge overpasses or having to back up when they realize the bridge is too low. Did that figure into 213
this plan? Are you working with DOT on that? 214
215
18
Abigaile Pittman: We reviewed that in the course of this access management plan because we heard comments from the 216
residents out there that they don’t want the truck traffic going down NC 10 and into Hillsborough. Our review is that it is not 217
possible because of the bridge. They don’t have adequate clearance. I think what could be done is that we need some 218
good signage and good communication from NCDOT because truckers have to clear their routes and it needs to be properly 219
signed that they can’t get down that road. We can certainly recommend communication with NCDOT to create a good 220
system of signage through there. 221
222
Maxecine Mitchell: People are concerned about the vehicle traffic and speed. To not encourage more traffic on Old NC 10. 223
Whatever development that comes will create more traffic on Old NC 10and it will be very dangerous for pedestrians and 224
bicyclists who utilize that road as a scenic route. 225
226
Abigaile Pittman: One of the objectives of an Access Management Plan is to control that traffic flow and manage the access 227
points so the road has capacity to manage it in a safe manner. 228
229
Maxecine Mitchell: If we have it in here, we will have to educate the community on how we plan to redirect the traffic. 230
231
Craig Benedict: If you don’t have an access management plan on Highway 70 where the focus of the growth is, the higher 232
intensity area where things are planned, then people are going to look for a bypass. The main purpose of this is to 233
designate efficiently spaced intersections on 70 with frontage roads so that people are directed to these potential of a 234
signalized intersection to handle the growth and then they won’t look for these bypasses as much. It really is a benefit to the 235
peripheral areas to bring people to those services that may be eventually on 70. 236
237
Lisa Stuckey: Could you repeat what you said about the bike lanes? 238
239
Abigaile Pittman: NCDOT striped two feet from the edge of the curb to allow for the bicyclists. 240
241
Paul Guthrie: Most of the signatures on the petition is concentrated in that area of the subdivision so I would suggest that 242
further communication with them regarding the access management plan, the transportation planning, may ease their pain. 243
244
Pete Hallenbeck: One of the things we can see from the petitioners’ map and addresses is that there is confusion over the 245
difference between zoning and an access management plan. 246
247
Tony Blake: Do we act on this petition? 248
249
Pete Hallenbeck: This is just information about public input. 250
251
Tony Blake: Ok, that was my question. 252
253
MOTION made by James Lea to adopt agenda item 10 as recommended by staff. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 254 VOTE: Unanimous 255
256
Agenda Item 11: Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan – To 257
make a recommendation to the BOCC on future land uses proposed for areas of County jurisdiction 258
located in the Town’s Urban Service Boundary. This is the next step towards completion of a joint 259
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Plan. This item was 260
heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 261 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 262
263
Tom Altieri: (Reviewed map). At the public hearing there were no members of the public that spoke but there was a 264
comment from Commissioner Gordon regarding process and more specifically some questions about the ETJ swaps that 265
are mentioned and part of the Interlocal Agreement. The ETJ swaps are not part of this process. It is a good question and 266
Commissioner Gordon is looking down the road at next steps. You have a handout that is a flowchart of what comes next 267
and the decision points. I can refer to that with those questions. The swapping process must be initiated by the Town of 268
Hillsborough and that had not been done prior to the public hearing and it since has. The County received letter and 269
19
notification from the Town on September 13th that the Town is prepared to initiate that process and has asked for 270
coordination with County staff and that a meeting be held to determine how that process will unfold and when. I don’t have 271
those specifics now but certainly will have more soon following that meeting we anticipate to take place this month. The 272
recommendation is that the Planning Board deliberate as necessary on the draft plan and provide that recommendation to 273
the County Commissioners in time for their November 5th meeting. 274
275
Pete Hallenbeck: I know that Commissioner Gordon had concerns about the area where the municipal was all in black 276
and gray in the map, did you have a chance to look at that. 277
278
Tom Altieri: I have and what she if referring to is the area shown within the Town’s ETJ and is included in the area that is 279
to be swapped with Orange County. It will become Orange County’s jurisdiction. There is an area that is presently in the 280
County’s jurisdiction that is to become Town of Hillsborough ETJ and therefore it has colors on the maps in those areas. 281
282
(Planning Members and staff reviewed maps) 283
284
Pete Hallenbeck: (referring to area on map) That area is Duke Forrest and critical watershed so it is really unlikely there 285
will be factories or condominiums in that area. 286
287
Tom Altieri: That is exactly why the Town is entertaining this swap and it makes sense to both parties. 288
289
Craig Benedict: ETJ is usually intended for growth and they can’t grow there so we are giving them areas such as near 290
the interchange that would allow them growth. We need some clarity with regard to the ‘rural living’ category within Orange 291
County planning jurisdiction. 292
293
Pete Hallenbeck: One of the things driving this is that Hillsborough historically had this very large bite of the County they it 294
was anticipating for services and then figured out how much it would cost to do water and sewer and the other thing that 295
really affected this was that I-40 came along and this area between I-40 and I-85 is pure gold. It developed in a way that no 296
one could anticipate prior to knowing about I-40. What we are really deliberating on here is saying yes this is a good 297
process in having the County and Hillsborough get together and come up with an agreement on how things should go and 298
coordinate their planning efforts to go in that direction. 299
300
Tony Blake: The swap makes sense. 301
302
Tom Altieri pointed out areas on the map in regard to the Town of Hillsborough’s plans on when to potentially service with 303
water and sewer. 304
305
MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to approve the draft Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Coordinated Future Land Use 306
Plan. Maxecine Mitchell seconded. 307
VOTE: Unanimous 308
309 AGENDA ITEM 12: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 310
311
a) Board of Adjustment 312
b) Orange Unified Transportation 313
314 AGENDA ITEM 13: ADJOURNMENT 315 316 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 317 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 318 319
320
20
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 6, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Concept Plan Application – Triple Crown Farms
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application Package
2. Property and Vicinity Map
Jennifer Leaf, Planner I 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2597
3. Staff Generated Correspondence
4. Fiscal Impact Analysis
Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575
5. Notes from Neighborhood Information
Meeting
PURPOSE: To review and take action on a Major Subdivision Concept Plan application proposing
a 20 lot single-family residential subdivision in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and
Article 7 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows:
Applicant(s): 16 Parkside Lane, LLC
2807 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Owner: 16 Parkside Lane, LLC
2807 Homestead Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Agent(s): Michael A. Neal and Associates, PLLC
105 W Corbin St
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Location: Dairyland Road - Please refer to Attachment 2 for a vicinity map of the
parcel.
Parcel Information: a. PIN: 9850-91-0030
b. Size of parcel: 104.25 acres in area
c. Zoning of parcels: Rural Buffer (RB) and University Lake
Protected Overlay District (UNIV-PW).
d. Township: Chapel Hill
21
e. School District: The project is split between the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro County Schools and Orange County Schools.
Please refer to Attachment 2 for additional information.
f. Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer
g. Growth Management System Designation: Rural
h. Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer – University
Lake category
i. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography
with heavy vegetation, primarily mixed hardwoods, throughout.
There are streams running through the property with varying
slopes. Stream corridor width varies from 120 feet to 250 feet.
The property is encumbered by floodplain.
j. Roads: Vehicular access to the parcel is through Dairyland
Road, a state-maintained road and Triple Crown Drive, a private
road that is in the process of being accepted by NCDOT for
addition to the State maintained system.
k. Water and Sewer Service: The property is not located within a
primary public utility service area according to the Water and
Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement
(WASMPBA).
Proposed lots are to be served by individual well and septic
systems.
Surrounding Land Uses: a. NORTH: Single family residences Zoned RB
b. SOUTH: Single-family residences zoned RB
c. EAST : Single-family residences zoned RB
d. WEST: Single-family residence zoned RB
Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a major
subdivision is as follows:
• First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held on October 3, 2013. Please refer
to Attachment 5 for a synopsis of meeting comments.
• Second Action – The Planning Board reviews and takes action on the Concept
Plan application approving either the ‘conventional’ or ‘flexible development’ layout.
The Planning Board review begins on November 6, 2013. As a reminder the
Concept Plan review is intended to allow Board members and the applicant to
discuss the nature of the project and identify possible solutions to concerns
identified by staff or surrounding property owners.
If approved the Concept Plan serves as a ‘roadmap’ for the developer with respect
to the acceptable lot and road layout as well as location of proposed/required open
space and recreation areas.
22
• Third Action – Once a concept plan is approved, the Planning Board reviews and
makes a recommendation on the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the project.
• Fourth Action – The BOCC reviews and take action on the Preliminary Plat
application.
• Fifth Action – Once all construction activities have been completed, or appropriate
bonds have been approved, staff will sign off and allow the recordation of a Final
Plat allowing for the individual lots to be created.
Proposal: The petitioner has submitted a Major Subdivision Concept Plan application proposing to
develop a maximum of 20 single-family residential lots with an overall proposed density for the
project of 1 dwelling unit per every 5 acres of land area with approximately 36 acres of dedicated
open space. Lots range in size from 1.65 acres (smallest) to 6.21 acres (largest).
UDO and Joint Planning Land Use Plan Requirements: Per Section 2.15.2 (C) (2) (b) of the UDO,
major subdivision concept plan applications are required to submit both a conventional and flexible
development option.
The flexible development option involves the preservation of a minimum 33% of the total tract’s land
area as protected open space. Development of individual lots is then allowed consistent with three
‘flexible development’ subdivision classifications detailed within Article 7 Subdivisions of the UDO,
namely:
• Estate Lot Option: Characterized by lots having a minimum area of 4 acres where the
building envelope does not exceed 50% of the total lot area.
• Conservation Cluster Option: Characterized by lots clustered together with a potential
minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. Allowable lot yield is based on compliance with
density limits denoted within Section 4.2.4 of the UDO and as found in Section 6, Joint
Planning Land Use Plan.
• Village Option: Allows for mixed-use development including various residential options (i.e.
single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.) as well as public/civic areas and non-residential
development. This option is expressly prohibited within the RB zoning district as detailed
within Section 7.13.2 (C) of the UDO.
Clustering of lots may be permitted as outlined within the UDO as well as in Section 6, Future Land
Use – Joint Planning Area of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, which can be viewed utilizing the
following link: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/JPALUPDocument.pdf
Per Section 4.2 of the UDO, cluster subdivisions are allowed within the University Lake Protected
Watershed Protection Overlay district with lots not less than 1 acre in area and a maximum density
allotment of 1 dwelling unit per every 5 acres of land.
As previously indicated the applicant has decided to submit a conservation cluster flexible
development layout with proposed lots adhering to the 1 acre lot size and proposing approximately
36.25 acres of open space. A summary of the proposal is as follows:
Subdivision Type Number of
Lots
Average Lot
Size
Area in Open Space Open Space
Percentage
Flexible Development
Plan
20 3 acres 36.25 acres in open
space
34% in open
space
23
STAFF COMMENT – SUBDIVISION TYPES: The proposal is in accordance with the anticipated
densities for properties located within the Rural Buffer land use category as defined within the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, Rural Designated area as denoted on the Growth Management
Systems Map, and the requirements of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan.
The applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue the flexible development option and has not
submitted a conventional option, which has the support of staff.
Roads: The proposal involves the creation of two private roads to service the project, each
constructed to NC Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. The applicant does not intend to
turn these roads over to NC DOT for maintenance at this time. Specifically, the plan calls for:
• Two cul-de-sac roadways. The first roadway will provide access to lots 12 through 20. The
second roadway will provide access to lots 1 through 9.
• Both roads will require stream crossings and the crossings will be engineered to meet NC
DOT standards.
STAFF COMMENT - ROADS: Staff has determined that the proposed roadway construction
and layout is consistent with the requirements of the UDO.
In reviewing the matter with Mr. D’Angelo Jones of NC DOT at the September 19, 2013
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting, staff has been informed there are no
concerns over the two proposed roadways gaining access from Triple Crown Drive once it is
accepted into the state maintained system. It was indicated that the roads could be potentially
accepted for state maintenance if they are constructed to DOT standards.
This development does not lend itself to a requirement of extending proposed right-of-way to
adjacent properties in an effort to promote street connectivity. Adjacent parcels, to the north,
south, and west are already developed. Further, requiring extension of proposed right-of-way
could impact environmentally sensitive areas.
Utilities – Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells
and septic systems developed on each lot. Sheet 3 of the major subdivision concept plan maps
denotes anticipated locations for well and septic sites for the lots.
STAFF COMMENT - UTILITIES: Orange County Environmental Health indicated during the
September 19, 2013 DAC meeting they did not see any potential problems with the proposed
layout with respect to finding suitable soils to support septic tank development.
As of the writing of this abstract, the Health Department has not submitted any additional,
written, comments. Final approval of proposed lot layouts typically occurs at the Preliminary Plat
application review stage of the subdivision process.
Stormwater Drainage: Drainage will be engineered according to Best Management Practices
(BMP) at the time of permit application for construction. The property is subject to recently
adopted stormwater management guidelines limiting total nitrogen runoff of 2.2 pounds per
acre annually and 0.82 pounds per acres annually for total phosphorus.
24
STAFF COMMENT - STORMWATER: Orange County Erosion Control has not submitted
comments at this time as there is no formal stormwater management plan required as part of
the concept plan submittal.
The applicant will be required to submit additional detail, with respect to the anticipated
stormwater management plan, as part of the Preliminary Plat application package for review and
comment.
Open Space: The flexible development plan denotes the maintenance of a 30-foot natural buffer
along Dairyland Road and a 100-foot building setback along the perimeter of the project. Open
space is identified open space in and around the existing streams. The total area reserved as open
space is approximately 1,578,882 square feet of land area or 36.25 acres. The proposed open
space is composed of existing, mature, vegetation and trees with an approximate height of between
50 to 70 feet.
STAFF COMMENT – OPEN SPACE: Staff has determined the proposed open space and land
use buffers meet the requirements of the UDO.
Land Use Buffer: The site plan indicates there will be a 30-foot buffer along Dairyland Road
comprised of existing, dense, vegetation composed of existing, mature, shrubs and trees with an
approximate height of between 50 to 70 feet.
STAFF COMMENT – LAND USE BUFFER: Section 6.8.6 (D) of the UDO requires that this
project maintain a thirty (30) foot land use buffer separating the project from adjacent roadways.
Staff has determined the proposed open space and land use buffers meet the requirements of
the UDO.
Staff Generated Correspondence: Attachment 3 contains the various comments for this project
as of the date of abstract preparation.
Public Notification: Section 2.15.2 (D) of the UDO requires that each property owner within
500 feet be notified by regular mail of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff
mailed out letters to the 48 properties within 500 feet of the property concerning the October 3,
2012 meeting. One letter was returned due to its envelope being destroyed while being
processed by the USPS.
JPA Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this project was sent to
the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for review and comment on September 13, 2013. As of
this date staff has not received any comments.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.15.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘prepare and submit a recommendation’ on the concept plan to the Planning Board for
consideration. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.2 and 2.15.2 of the UDO.
2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed
subdivision.
3. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
25
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
4. Staff has determined that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions and
goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement.
5. Staff supports the approval of the flexible development option as denoted on Sheet 3 of
the site plan package.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attachment 4 provides a financial impact for the project, as a whole, on
County services. Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of County
budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes should
supplement increases in cost.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Concept Plan application for the Triple Crown Farms Subdivision, and
2. Approve the Flexible Development option, denoted on Sheet 3 of the submitted major
subdivision concept plan site plan, and allow the applicant to proceed with the
development of a preliminary plat utilizing this layout.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4,532,409104.051,4
9
5
,
6
9
5
34
.
3
4
OPEN SPACE REQUIREM
E
N
T
S
Total Project Area, SFTotal Project Area, Acres Open Spa
c
e
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
33
%
,
SF
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
33
%
,
Ac
r
e
s
1,057,059365,17722,932
5,
7
8
2
12
7
,
9
3
2
1,
5
7
8
,
8
8
2
OPEN SPACE PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
,
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
e
a
Ar
o
u
n
d
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
,
SF
Primary Open Space, 100' Stream Buffer, SF Secondary Open Space, Wooded Area, SF Secondary Open Space, 30' Dairyland Rd. Roadside Buffer, SF Seconda
r
y
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
,
Landscap
i
n
g
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
at En
t
r
a
n
c
e
,
SF
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
,
SF
33
34
1,057,059365,17722,932
5,
7
8
2
12
7
,
9
3
2
1,
5
7
8
,
8
8
2
OPEN SP
A
C
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
D
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
,
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
e
a
Ar
o
u
n
d
Ro
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
,
SF
Primary Open Space, 100' Stream Buffer, SF Secondary Open Space, Wooded Area, SF Secondary Open Space,
30' Dairyland Rd. Roadside Buffer, SF
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
,
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
at
En
t
r
a
n
c
e
,
SF
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
,
SF
4,532,409104.05
1,
4
9
5
,
6
9
5
34
.
3
4
OPEN SPACE RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
Total Project Area, SFTotal Project Area
,
Acres
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
33
%
,
SF
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
33
%
,
Ac
r
e
s
35
Chapel HillTownship
Bingham
Township
9850629329
9850617854
9850713989
9850727501
9850601669
9850802060
9850609056
9860002037
9759793932
9860018537
9850910030
9759993504
9860014265
9860006709
9759997580
9759997199
975999933297597992899759997215
9759883947
9850607981
9759982935
9769097946
9759897833
9759697456 9759999681
9759799532
9759886702 9759984796
975998698697597839149759880979 97690829459759797084976909304597598829179759995082
9759982519 97599865789759983479
9759988741
97690836959759889418
97599888469759980741975978862597598836919759881603
9850709232
9759794574
9769091146
9759886702
9759987950
9759786760 97599867029759789675
9759882640
9850706156
97690927469769094731
97599963229759897467
97599950179759799052
9759894081
9759991041
97599838299759889841
9860025969
9860113147
98507340399850633083
9850824401
9850932203
9850828371
9850939251
9850939251
9850827174
9850828868
9850819953 9850916993
9850828274
9850912910
9850738227
9850817856
9860020368
9850835145
9850819986
9850823689
9850928914
9850916609
98509246829850829673
9850921206
9850924997
RB
R O L LIN G W OOD
R DMEADOWLN
KEIT
H
C
T
BRIGHTS
W AY
KEIT
H
L
N
STA
L
L
I
N
G
S
R
D
TRIP LECROWNDR
DA
I
R
Y
L
A
N
D
R
D
TWISTEDOAKDR
W
H
I
R
L
AWAYLN
ye
s
no
no
no
no
no
no
no n
o
University LakeProtectedWatershed
36
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245-2575
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov Hillsborough, NC 27278
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DAC) OFFICIAL MINUTES
September 19, 2013 – 9:30 a.m.
Planning Department Main Conference Room
131 West Margaret Lane
Attendees: Jennifer Leaf, Michael Kelly, Jennifer Phillips, Alan Clapp, Rich Shaw,
Jeff Scouten, James Bryan & D’Angelo Jones.
Agenda Item
I. Approval of September 5, 2013 DAC Minutes - Approved
II. Major Subdivision Concept Plan Approval
Applicant: Michael A. Neal & Associates, PLLC
PIN: 9850910030
Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB) and University Lake Protected W/S
Total Acreage: 104.05 acres
Legal Description: Recombination of Lot 1 of Donn Ann Acres, Inc. and located in Plat Book 94,
Page 99 of the Orange County Register of Deeds.
Proposal: Applicant is proposing a 20 lot major subdivision (Triple Crown Farms) in Orange
County with 36.25 acres devoted towards Open Space. Applicant submitted Major Subdivision
Concept Plan to Current Planning staff for review on September 4, 2013.
Triple Crown Farms –Title Page; Triple Crown Farms – Site Analysis, Triple Crown Farms – Site
Plan
Current Planning Staff Assigned: Jennifer Leaf, Michael Kelly, & Michael Harvey.
Discussion: Triple Crown Farm Rd. will be switching from a private road to a NC DOT state-
maintained road. Current Planning staff expressed concern with Lots 1 and 9 (the proposed
subdivision’s smallest lots) due to both lots containing large proposed septic field locations.
Likewise, Lot 10 will need to have a joint driveway with adjacent Lot 11.
Determination: NC DOT will need to further study the impacts of adding Triple Crown Rd. to the
state-maintained road system. One pertinent issue is the line of sight drivers will need to be
aware of, as Triple Crown Drive is a collector roadway. Also, Triple Crown Farm HOA will need to
37
Agenda Item
fully understand the costs associated with changing from a private road to a state-maintained
road.
Next Steps: There will be a Neighborhood Information Meeting scheduled for October 3, 2013
from 12-1 hosted by Michael A. Neal & Associates, PLLC at the Orange County Planning Office.
III. Minor Subdivision Concept Plan Approval
Applicant: Hamish Clarke
PIN: 0801144520
Project Number: MNR13-0018
Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB) and Jordan Lake Unprotected W/S
Legal Description: W/S Kerley Rd. and located on Plat Book 104, Page 6 of the Orange County
Register of Deeds
Proposal: Subdividing an approx. 7.36 acre parcel into two, 2 acre lots. The property in question
is located along the Durham/Orange County line.
Current Planning Staff Assigned: Jennifer Leaf
Discussion: According to Environmental Health, sewer and soils on this parcel may be an issue.
Presently, there is only good soil located in the upper left corner of the lot there by reducing the
parcel’s development potential.
Determination: It has been determined that the pump station will need to be moved in order to
proceed with the minor subdivision.
Next Steps: Further analysis will need to be performed by Orange County Environmental Health
staff.
IV. Eno Mountain Village Townhomes - Town of Hillsborough Courtesy Review
Applicant: Braddock Park, LLC of Hilton Head, SC
Property Owner(s): Andrew B. Lloyd and Cheryl Lloyd
PINS: 9864713556 & 9864715457
Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR) and Lower Eno Unprotected W/S
Location: Orange Grove Rd. and Eno Mountain Rd.
Total Acreage: 23.67 acres
Legal Description: Part of Ben Lloyd property and located in Plat Book 74, Page 63 of the Orange
County Register of Deeds.
Proposal: A proposed 118-unit townhome development to be located on 23.67 acres at Orange
Grove and Eno Mountain Roads in the Town of Hillsborough’s ETJ. Hillsborough Planning staff
would like input from Orange County. In order for the development to proceed, a rezoning request
has been submitted changing the current zoning from “AR” to “Multifamily Special Use”. A Special
Use Permit Application associated with this development has been submitted as well. The above
item has been placed onto Hillsborough’s October 1st Technical Review Committee (TRC)
agenda.
Discussion: Site plan was presented to Orange County staff to offer courtesy review per
intergovernmental agreement. Due to anticipated heavy traffic volume to be generated as a result
of proposed development, Orange County can request traffic signal warrant and turn-lane
analyses from NC DOT for Eno Mountain and Orange Grove Rds.
38
Agenda Item
Determination: Pending
Next Steps: Orange County to provide comments to Current Planning staff that will then be
forwarded to the Town of Hillsborough.
V. Internal Current Planning Staff Meeting
39
1
Michael Harvey
From:Jennifer Leaf
Sent:Monday, October 28, 2013 12:53 PM
To:Michael Harvey
Subject:FW: Site Plans for Review
From: Bret A. Martin
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 9:14 AM
To: Michael Kelly
Cc: Jennifer Leaf
Subject: RE: Site Plans for Review
Michael and Jennifer:
Please see my comments regarding each of these items below:
1) Triple Crown Farms:
Application requirements and processes, minimum design and construction standards, and utility requirements for
public dedication of subdivision roads to the NCDOT system may be accessed using the following weblink:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Asset‐
Management/StateMaintOpsDocs/Subdivision%20Manual%20January%202010.pdf
These standards would apply to any newly constructed subdivision roads or previously constructed private subdivision
roads that are to be petitioned for addition to the State‐maintained system. Certain materials would need to be
prepared for the NCDOT District Engineer’s review. These materials are listed in the NCDOT Subdivisions Roads Manual
referenced above. It would also be a good idea for the petitioner to have a conversation about the addition with the
District Engineer prior to preparing and submitting application materials. Particular attention should be paid to any
stream crossings or areas that could potential involve wetland encroachments. The District Engineer’s contact
information is below:
127 E. Crescent Square Drive
Graham, NC 27253
(336) 570‐6833
2) Eno Mountain Village Townhomes:
While volumes on Orange Grove Road and Eno Mountain Road are generally below capacity, the segment of Orange
Grove Road between Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street is highly congested and may be over capacity, primarily as a
result of through traffic from Eno Mountain Road using Orange Grove Road to access Mayo Street and/or John Earl
Street as a cutover to South Churton Street. I do not have traffic counts along this segment; however, beyond just
potential capacity constraints, the lack of operational improvements such as designated left and right turn lanes with
adequate stacking room or traffic signals at the intersections of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street at Orange Grove
Road acts as an impediment to traffic flow at these two intersections and along the Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove
Road/Mayo Street corridor. A 118‐unit townhome development may generate between 5 and 7 trips per weekday per
dwelling unit, exacerbating congestion at the intersections and along the segment of Orange Grove Road between Eno
Mountain Road and Mayo Street. The County and Town should direct particular attention to the impact on these
40
2
intersections and along this particular segment of Orange Grove Road in the TIA produced for the proposed
development. The County has prioritized a project that would realign these intersections and provide operational
modifications that would improve traffic flow and safety. No preferred alignment for the project has been established
but very broad preliminary feasibility analytics indicate that the preferred approach may be to realign Eno Mountain
Road with Mayo Street as opposed to realigning Mayo Street with Eno Mountain Road. While it is not likely for this
project to be implemented in the very near future, the implementation of the project could have long‐term access
impacts on site access from Eno Mountain Road.
Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments or need any further clarification.
Thanks,
Bret “Bee” Martin, AICP
Transportation Planner
Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2582
Fax: (919) 644-3002
http://www.orangecountync.gov
brmartin@orangecountync.gov
From: Michael Kelly
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:27 AM
To: Bret A. Martin
Subject: Site Plans for Review
Importance: High
B,
As to not add more to your workload, Current Planning had two site plans reviewed in DAC yesterday (see attachments).
We are most interested in any comments/concerns from your section. First, a major subdivision Triple Crown Farms is
proposing to make Triple Crown Farm Rd., currently a private road into a public road. Second, the Town of Hillsborough
would like Orange County’s input on a proposed 118‐unit development (Eno Mountain Village Townhomes). Current
Planning staff is concerned with the increased traffic that will be generated along Eno Mountain and Orange Grove Rds.
We welcome any comments from your dept.
Have a great day,
Michael Kelly, Planning Technician
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Ln., Ste. 201 (Physical Location)
P.O. Box 8181 (Mail)
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245‐2598 ‐ phone
(919) 644‐3022 – fax
41
1
Michael Harvey
From:Rich Shaw
Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2013 3:12 PM
To:Jennifer Leaf
Cc:Michael Harvey
Subject:Triple Crown comments (from 2006)
Attachments:Triple Crown memo II (RDavis).pdf
Jennifer,
Attached are my comments on a previous major subdivision plan for the Triple Crown property. I expect my comments
would be quite similar for this new proposal. If you are seeking comments at this stage I will update these comments for
the new 20‐lot major subdivision proposal.
Rich
Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager
Orange County
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
306A Revere Rd / PO Box 8181 / Hillsborough NC 27278 / 919-245-2514 / http://www.co.orange.nc.us
42
Environment and Resource Conservation
PO Box 8181 / 306-A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2590
Orange County
Environment and Resource Conservation Department
Memorandum
To: Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor
From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager
Date: May 25, 2006
Subject: Triple Crown Subdivision
On April 19 I attended a Neighborhood Information Meeting for the proposed Triple Crown
subdivision. During the meeting I was asked a question concerning the proposed open
space. The purpose of this memo is to document my earlier response in writing
and to provide new information from the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
According to the concept plan (2/15/06) the development would create 16 lots on 108 acres
located west of Dairyland Road (University Lake Watershed). The plan calls for setting
aside 40.82 acres of open space consisting largely of the Buckfork Creek corridor, which
bisects the property and eventually joins Morgan Creek located east of Dairyland Road.
During the meeting I was asked whether Orange County ERCD had considered protecting
the proposed open space through the Lands Legacy Program. I said that we had
considered that possibility, but determined that the site (in the context of the
subdivision) was not a priority for protection through Lands Legacy. The site is
not identified in any natural or cultural resource inventories that would suggest possible
ERCD involvement in protecting the open space. Setting aside the open space as a
separate lot in the homeowners association should help protect the stream corridor.
I understand that the landowner has hired Soil and Environmental Consultants to inventory
and evaluate the natural resources found on the property. I am interested in receiving a
copy of their findings, and if significant resources are found I would be interested
in discussing potential conservation options with the owners and Planning staff.
The following is new information for you to consider. I discovered today that the Joint
Planning Area (JPA) Land Use Plan identifies a proposed future greenway
through the subject property along the Buckfork Creek corridor. The Planning staff may
wish to discuss with the owners (and the Rec. & Parks Dept.) the possible dedication of a
public trail corridor through the open space to help implement the JPA Land Use Plan. A
map from the JPA plan showing the proposed greenway through this property is attached.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Let me know if you
have any questions.
cc: David Stancil
43
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic & Business Research - University of Florida
Modified 10/31/13 - Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA:ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
PROJECT:Triple Crown Farms
TOWNSHIP:Bingham/Chapel Hill
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:2015 to 2017
Beginning Year:2015
Ending Year:2018
Inflation Rate:2.00%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW.2.47
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW.0.36
% Non-Elderly:70.00%
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes ($)by Year
2015 2 600,000 33.33%
2016 2 600,000 33.33%
2017 2 600,000 33.33%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( ) BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County (1) Elementary School 45%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro (0) High School 32%
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
BUDGET YEAR:2013-2014
COUNTY POPULATION:(NC Demo)for July 2013 137941
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION:7402
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT:POSITIONSPER CAPITA
General Services plus Governing, and Management 174 0.0013
Public Safety 265 0.0019
Community & Environment plus Culture & Recreation 96 0.0007
Human Services 290 0.0021
Education (School District)900 0.0065
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT:POSITIONSPER STUDENT
Total 900 0.1216
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($):REVENUESPER CAPITA
Taxes - Other Than Property 19,829,148 143.75
Intergovernmental 19,614,941 142.20
Charges for Service 18,647,923 135.19
Licenses/Permits, Investments, Miscellaneous + Transfers 2,580,877 18.71
44
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($):EXPENDITURESPER CAPITA
General Services plus Governing, and Management 38,371,550 278.17
Public Safety26,713,604193.66
Community & Environment plus Culture & Recreation13,736,09099.58
Human Services36,976,478268.06
Education (Recurring Capital)69,657,252504.98
Non-Departmental (i.e. Debt Service and transfers)31,683,072229.69
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($):EXPENDITURESPER EMPLOYEE
General Services plus Governing, and Management38,371,550220526.15
Public Safety26,713,604100806.05
Community & Environment plus Culture & Recreation13,736,090143084.27
Human Services36,976,478127505.10
Education (School District)69,657,25277396.95
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($):EXPENDITURESPER STUDENT
County Government25,060,1543385.59
School District17,308,6492338.37
State and Federal45,528,7176150.87
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($):EXPENDITURESPER EMPLOYEE
County Government25,060,15427844.62
School District17,208,64919120.72
State and Federal45,528,71750587.46
TAX DATA:ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
County Tax Rate ($)0.9460 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
School District Tax Rate ($)0.0000 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
Assessment Ratio100.00
Elderly Exemption0 $11,000 Where Applicable
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR201520162017
HOUSING UNITS246
POPULATION51015
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary0.320.650.97
Middle0.170.330.50
High School0.230.460.69
TOTAL112
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government0.010.010.02
Public Safety0.010.020.03
Public Works0.000.010.01
Human Services0.010.020.03
TOTAL0.030.060.09
SCHOOL DISTRICT0.030.060.10
45
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
YEAR201520162017
TAX BASE ($1000)1,2002,4243,672
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 11,35222,93134,742
Other Taxes 7101,4492,216
Intergovernmental 7021,4332,193
Service Charges 6681,3622,084
Miscellaneous 92189288
TOTAL ($)13,52527,36441,524
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 1,3742,8034,289
Public Safety 9571,9522,986
Public Works 4921,0041,535
Human Services 1,3242,7014,133
Education 4,93210,06215,394
Non-Departmental 1,1352,3153,541
TOTAL ($)10,21420,83631,880
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($)3,3116,5279,644
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 201520162017
REVENUES ($)
County 4,93210,06215,394
School District 000
State 4,4299,03413,823
TOTAL ($)9,36119,09629,217
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 4,93210,06215,394
School District 000
State 4,4299,03413,823
TOTAL ($)9,36119,09629,217
46
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($)0 0 0
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 201520162017
HOUSING UNITS 2 4 6
POPULATION 5 10 15
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0 1 1
Middle 0 0 0
High School 0 0 1
TOTAL 1 1 2
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.030.060.09
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.030.060.10
TAX BASE ($1000)1,2002,4243,672
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues 13,52527,36441,524
Expenditures 10,21420,83631,880
BALANCE 3,3116,5279,644
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($)
Revenues 9,36119,09629,217
Expenditures 9,36119,09629,217
BALANCE 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 22,88646,46070,741
Expenditures 19,57539,93261,097
BALANCE 3,3116,5279,644
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County YES ) Elementary School 45%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro NO ) High School 32%
YEAR 201520162017 2018 2019
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0 1 1 5 5
Middle 0 0 0 3 3
High School 0 0 1 4 4
TOTAL 1 1 2 11 11
SCHOOL CAPACITIES - ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 3,694 Elementary 3,403
Middle 2,166 Middle 1,684
High School 2,439 High School 2,315
TOTAL 8,299 TOTAL 7,402
47
YEAR 2008-092009-102010-112011-122012-13 (Est)
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 3,3373,3353,435 3,438 3,403
Middle 1,7081,7511,732 1,716 1,684
High School 2,2542,2982,258 2,278 2,315
TOTAL 7,2997,3847,425 7,432 7,402
48
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic & Business Research - University of Florida
Modified 10/31/13 - Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA:ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
PROJECT:Triple Crown Farms
TOWNSHIP:Bingham/Chapel Hill
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:2015-2018
Beginning Year:2015
Ending Year:2018
Inflation Rate:2.00%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW.2.56
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW.0.36
% Non-Elderly:70.00%
HOME SALES DATA:
AverageDistribution
Number ofSales Priceof Units
YearHomes($)by Year
20152 600,00014.29%
20164600,00028.57%
20174600,00028.57%
20184600,00028.57%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( ) BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County 0) Elementary School46%
Middle School23%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro (1) High School31%
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
BUDGET YEAR:2013-2014
COUNTY POPULATION:(NC Demo)for July 2007137941
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION:11959
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT:POSITIONSPER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and Management1740.0013
Public Safety 2650.0019
Community & Environment + Culture & Recreation960.0007
Human Services2900.0021
Education (School District)1,9000.0138
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT:POSITIONSPER STUDENT
Total 1,9000.1589
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($):REVENUESPER CAPITA
Taxes - Other Than Property19,829,148143.75
Intergovernmental19,614,941142.20
Charges for Service18,647,923135.19
49
Miscellaneous 2,580,877 18.71
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($):EXPENDITUREPER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and Management 38,371,550 278.17
Public Safety 26,173,604 189.74
Community & Environment + Culture & Recreation 13,736,090 99.58
Human Services 36,976,478 268.06
Education (Recurring Capital)69,657,252 504.98
Non-Departmental 31,683,072 229.69
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($):EXPENDITUREPER EMPLOYEE
General Services, Governing, and Management 38,371,550220526.15
Public Safety 26,173,60498768.32
Community & Environment + Culture & Recreation 13,736,090143084.27
Human Services 36,976,478127505.10
Education (Recurring Capital)69,657,25236661.71
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($):EXPENDITUREPER STUDENT
County Government 40,019,0983346.36
School District 21,466,1341794.98
State & Federal 68,445,0505723.31
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($):EXPENDITUREPER EMPLOYEE
County Government 40,019,09821062.68
School District 21,466,13411297.97
State 68,445,05036023.71
TAX DATA:ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
County Tax Rate ($)0.8590 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
School District Tax Rate ($)0.2084 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
Assessment Ratio 100.00
Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR 2015201620172018
HOUSING UNITS 2 6 10 14
POPULATION 5152636
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0.330.991.662.32
Middle 0.170.500.831.16
High School 0.220.671.121.56
TOTAL 1 2 4 5
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.010.020.030.05
Public Safety 0.010.030.050.07
Public Works 0.000.010.020.02
includes district tax rate
50
Human Services 0.010.030.050.08
TOTAL 0.030.090.150.21
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.070.210.350.49
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
YEAR 2015201620172018
TAX BASE ($1000)1200362460968618
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 10308311305236974032
Other Taxes 736225238295360
Intergovernmental 728222837875302
Service Charges 692211836015041
Miscellaneous 96293498698
TOTAL ($)12560380216408490433
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 14244358740910373
Public Safety 971297350547075
Public Works 510156026523713
Human Services 1372420071409995
Education 4995152842598336377
Non-Departmental 1176359961188565
TOTAL ($)10449319745435576097
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($)21116048972814336
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 2015201620172018
REVENUES ($)
County 4995152842598336377
School District 250175521270517961
State 4121126102143630011
TOTAL ($)11616354466012584348
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 4995152842598336377
School District 1292395567239412
State 4121126102143630011
51
TOTAL ($)10408318495414375800
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($)1208359859828549
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 2015201620172018
HOUSING UNITS 2 6 10 14
POPULATION 5152636
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0122
Middle 0011
High School 0112
TOTAL 1245
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.030.090.150.21
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.070.210.350.49
TAX BASE ($1000)1200362460968618
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues 12560380216408490433
Expenditures 10449319745435576097
BALANCE 21116048972814336
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($)
Revenues 11616354466012584348
Expenditures 10408318495414375800
BALANCE 1208359859828549
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 2417673468124208174781
Expenditures 2085763822108498151897
BALANCE 332096451571122884
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County NO ) Elementary School 46%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro YES ) High School 31%
YEAR 201520162018
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0 1 2 5 5
Middle 0 0 1 3 3
High School 0 1 1 4 4
TOTAL 1 2 4 11 11
SCHOOL CAPACITIES - ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 5244 Elementary 5543
Middle 2840 Middle 2785
52
High School 3875 High School 3796
TOTAL 11959 TOTAL 12124
YEAR 2008200920102,011 2012
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 5142527353895,541 5654
Middle 2622268627722,833 2902
High School 3628368737323,789 3878
TOTAL 11392116461189312,163 12434
53
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Triple Crown Farms
Dairyland Road (PIN 9850-91-0030)
West Campus Office Building - 131 West Margaret Lane
October 3, 2013 – 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
There were 16 people in attendance in addition to the applicant’s agent (Mike Neal from
MANA and Associates) and planning staff.
Staff reviewed the Major Subdivision Concept Plan application review process, including
the need to submit a Conventional and Flexible Development subdivision layout for review,
and reviewed the physical composition of the subject property.
Staff informed those in attendance the applicant, 16 Parkside Lane LLC, had voluntarily
chosen to submit just a flexible development layout as allowed by the UDO.
Staff informed those in attendance of the meeting scheduled by the Planning Board to
begin the review of the proposed subdivision on November 6, 2013.
Once the Concept Plan is approved the applicant shall have 2 years to submit a
Preliminary Plat application package for action by the County. Staff reviewed the process
associated with the review of a Preliminary Plat application.
The applicant’s agent, Mr. Mike Neal, reviewed the basic elements of the proposal as
follows:
• Development of a 20 lot single-family residential subdivision, each lot approximately 2
acres in area, on a 104 acre parcel of property located off Dairyland Road.
• The lots are intended to be served by individual well and septic systems,
• Access to the project will be from public roads as denoted on the plan. The main
roadway would be Triple Crown Drive, an existing roadway about to be accepted for
maintenance purposes by the State.
• Internal roadways serving the project are proposed to be constructed to applicable
public road standards, with the eventual goal that they will be turned over to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for perpetual maintenance upon completion,
• The overall density of the proposed subdivision is 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of
property.
• The project will involve the preservation of 36 acres of land area as open space.
• The project will involve numerous stream crossings, each of which will have to be
permitted by local and State agencies.
Comment(s): Concerns were expressed about the stream crossings and over potential
environmental impact.
Answer: (Mike Neal) Specific designs on these stream crossings would be addressed at
the permitting stage with local and State review. Mr. Neal indicated these crossings would
Attachment 5
54
be built to applicable design guidelines to avoid unnecessary runoff/safety issues while at
the same time minimizing the overall impact on the local environment.
Question: An adjacent property owner indicated there was a beaver dam that had caused
a pond to be created both on her and the subject property. The property owner asked
what the developer intended to do about the dam, indicating she liked the pond on her
property and did not want it eliminated.
Answer: (Mike Neal) The physical location of the dam is on the subject property and the
property owner had a legal right to eliminate it as it represented a long term liability issue
for him. This could be done regardless of the subdivision application process currently
under review.
There were general comments made about preserving local wildlife.
Question: An attendee asked why the project needed to develop so many lots? Given
the environmental constraints in the area why can’t you just have lots that are 5 acres in
area and lower the overall impact of the project?
Answer: (Mike Neal) The number of lots is consistent with established density and lot area
regulations as detailed within the UDO and established planning documents. All existing
floodplain will be preserved in dedicated open space areas and the proposed stream
crossings will be in accordance with applicable development standards.
Question: Is there an opportunity to reduce the speed limit on Dairyland Road? There is
a real problem with drivers currently speeding along the roadway and new development
will only exacerbate the problem.
Answer: (Mike Neal) That is a NC DOT decision and the developer can do nothing about
the speeding issue along a State maintained roadway.
Question: Can the homeowners association for Triple Crown somehow stop the
developer from using Triple Crown Drive as their means of accessing this project?
Answer: (Mike Neal) No. Triple Crown Drive is slated to be accepted by NC DOT for
maintenance purposes. The developer has the right to use the road to access the project.
This right is also spelled out in the original deed for the roadway when it was transferred
into the ownership of the Triple Crown homeowners association.
There was additional discussion on the use of Triple Crown Drive and the issues between
the residents of Triple Crown and the developer.
Question: Can the County require the culverts installed on the property to allow stream
crossings be large enough to allow for wildlife to pass through?
Answer: (Staff) No. That would not be practical given the existing grade of property
around the denoted stream crossing areas. To do that would result in unnecessary
grading requiring the possible relocation of streams having a greater impact on the local
environment.
55
Comment: Any time you develop in this area you potentially create water quality issues.
Answer: (Mike Neal) I understand. W e are taking several precautions with respect to
roadway locations, stream buffer crossings, and proposed stormwater features to address
this issue.
Question: Why is there a 100 foot building setback denoted on the plan?
Answer: (Staff) The Ordinance requires a 100 foot building setback along the perimeter of
the property. This means no structure (i.e. house, shed, etc.) can be located in this area.
Question: So this means there cannot be a house built right on my property line?
Answer: (Staff) No structure can be erected within the 100 foot building setback area
denoted on the concept plan.
Question: This property was considered previously for a subdivision a long time ago.
During the review of that concept plan I seem to remember more area was designated as
being encumbered by floodplain at that time. When did the floodplain boundaries change?
Answer: (Staff) In 2007 the County adopted new floodplain maps. Portions of the property
were removed from the floodplain which is why you see a difference.
Comment: This is too much development in the University Lake watershed and the scope
of the project needs to be reduced.
Question: Who will maintain or control the open space?
Answer: (Mike Neal) A local homeowners association.
Question: What impervious surface limit will the project be held to?
Answer: (Staff) The project will be held to a 6% impervious surface limit in accordance
with the provisions of the UDO.
Question: What opportunity is there to require additional impervious surface be
transferred from this project to the adjoining subdivision? There is a real problem with the
limitations currently imposed on adjoining property owners, who are part of an earlier
project built by the same developer as Triple Crown Farms, and the developer needs to
address this discrepancy.
Answer: (Staff) The County cannot mandate the developer transfer additional impervious
surface to existing properties to the east of this project even if they are being developed by
the same individual and were once part of the same property. Impervious surface limits for
Triple Crown have already been established. If the developer chooses to transfer
impervious surface area there is a process he can go through to do that but it cannot be
required or mandated by the County because he is now looking to subdivide this parcel of
property.
There was additional discussion with respect to the impervious surface issues for the
Triple Crown project.
56
Question: How big will the houses be?
Answer: (Mike Neal) They will be comparable with surrounding houses but I do not know if
a decision with respect to their ultimate size has been made.
57
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
September 23, 2012
Dear Property Owner:
Section 2.15.2 (D) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance requires notification of
landowners within five hundred feet (500’) of a proposed subdivision of more than five new lots by
first class mail at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting.
The following Neighborhood Information Meeting has been scheduled to present a Concept
Plan for a subdivision near your property to address subdivision regulation requirements:
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2013
Time: 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.
Place: Ground Floor Conference Room
131 West Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
The Triple Farms Crown Subdivision Summary
The property is located in Chapel Hill Township on the west side of Dairyland Road, west of the
intersection of Dairyland Road and Old NC 86, as shown on the enclosed vicinity map. The
developer, 16 Parkside Lane, LLC, proposes to develop twenty lots on a parcel containing some
104 acres. The property is zoned RB (Rural Buffer), University Lake Protected Watershed. All
lots will have individual well and septic systems.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Information Meeting is to provide an opportunity for you to ask
questions about the proposed development plan. At the meeting, the Orange County Planning
Department staff will describe the subdivision review process and answer questions regarding the
land subdivision process. After the Neighborhood Information Meeting, the Planning Board will
review the Concept Plan. The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for November 6, 2013
at 7:30 p.m. in the131 West Margaret Lane Ground Floor Conference Room. You may also
attend the Planning Board meeting to ask questions.
Please refer to the enclosed map and contact the Orange County Planning Department if you
need additional information. A staff member may be reached at 919 245 2575.
58
59
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 6, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report / Work Plan for County Commissioners’ Annual
Planning Retreat
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Annual Report / Work Plan Form
2. Planning Board Interest Areas
(January 2013)
3. Small Area Plan Implementation
4. UDO Implementation Bridge Status
Spreadsheet
5. UDO Implementation Bridge Document
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, 245-2578
PURPOSE: Provide an annual report and work plan input to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in preparation for its annual planning retreat.
BACKGROUND: Each year the County Clerk’s Office collects information from each of the
County’s advisory boards to prepare a report for the annual BOCC planning retreat in January.
The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory
boards/commissions, as well as proposed activities for the upcoming year.
Staff and advisory boards are asked to collaborate to complete the form that has been provided
by the Clerk’s Office and return by December 6. Proposed activities are to be consistent with
the goals of the BOCC.
The Annual Report / Work Plan form (Attachment 1) has been completed by staff for Planning
Board review and comment. Additionally, staff has updated the Small Area Plan
Implementation spreadsheet (Attachment 3) and the spreadsheet related to the UDO
Implementation Bridge “bucket list” (Attachment 4). Attachment 5 is the UDO Implementation
Bridge report prepared by Clarion Associates during the UDO adoption process in early 2011.
In January 2013, the Planning Board discussed members’ “areas of interest” and this list is
included as Attachment 2.
The Planning Board is involved with approximately 40 - 60% of the work Planning Department
staff is responsible for (the percentage varies by year, depending on specific work being
completed in a given year). For the upcoming year, Planning staff will be working on some
items for which other advisory boards have primary responsibility. Examples of these tasks are
transit issues, transportation planning, and economic development issues (not related to the
UDO) in partnership with the Economic Development Department. Some work items the
Planning staff is responsible for do not go to an advisory board for a recommendation (for
60
example, water and sewer engineering and the annual report related to the Schools Adequate
Public Facilities ordinance [SAPFO]).
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board:
1. Review the attached documents prior to the meeting.
2. Discuss members’ ideas about activities to be worked on in 2014.
3. Direct staff to incorporate the results of the discussion into the Annual Report / Work
Plan form and bring the final form back to the December 4, 2013 Planning Board
meeting for approval.
61
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Planning Board
Report Period: 2013 calendar year for annual report; 2014 calendar year for work plan
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT/ WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of Commissioners welcomes input from various advisory boards and
commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please complete the
following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background
materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form.
Board/Commission Name: Planning Board
Person to address the BOCC at work session- if applicable- and contact information:
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair, (919) 732-6551, pete@eflandfd.org
(please note the Chair may change in January when the Planning Board holds
elections – the Chair at the time the work session is held will address the BOCC)
Primary County Staff Contact: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; secondary
contact: Perdita Holtz, Planner III (Planning Systems Coordinator)
How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any special
meetings and sub-committee meetings? On average, twice per month (12 regular
meetings + 4 Quarterly Public Hearings + special or sub-committee meetings).
Brief Statement of Board/Commission’s Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
Under the authority of NC General Statute, the BOCC created the Planning Board
to embark upon a continuing planning program, including but not limited to the
preparation and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, in
protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future
residents, landowners and visitors. The duties of the Planning Board are listed in
Section 1.6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
What are your Board/Commission’s most important accomplishments?
Within last 3-years:
• Three separate UDO text amendments that revised numerous regulations in
order to better promote activity in the Economic Development Districts,
Commercial Transition Activity Nodes, and Commercial-Industrial Transition
Activity Nodes.
• UDO text amendment to add a new conditional zoning district – Rural
Economic Development Area (REDA) – that is applicable to the geographic
area in the “Highway 57 Speedway Area” Small Area Plan.
• Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas amendments in the Eno EDD Area.
• Zoning Atlas amendment to pre-zone certain properties (232 acres) in the
Buckhorn/Mebane Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes (CITAN) to
prepare the area for eventual non-residential development. (This is the area
Morinaga recently announced they will locate in).
• UDO text amendment to address the development of solar arrays.
More recently:
• UDO, Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Atlas Amendments to adopt two new
zoning overlay districts in Efland (denied by BOCC in Feb. 2013, to be
Attachment 1 62
reconsidered in early 2014).
• Annandale at Creekwood major subdivision preliminary plat.
• Triple Crown Farms major subdivision concept plan.
• UDO text amendment to require a neighborhood information meeting for
governmental uses.
• UDO text amendment to change standards related to home occupations.
• UDO text amendment to establish a new conditional zoning district for
Agricultural Support Enterprises and various accompanying changes to the
text.
• Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area – Joint Land
Use Plan
• In 2013, three property-owner initiated applications for rezonings were
processed. The Planning Board reviewed all of these and issued a
recommendation to the BOCC on each application.
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually.
• Monthly Planning Board meetings
• Quarterly Public Hearings (4)
• Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings and special meetings
as required
• Review applications for ordinance amendments, major subdivisions,
and Class A special use permits and provide recommendations to
the BOCC
• Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative
procedures and other means for carrying out plans
Describe this board/commission’s activities/accomplishments in carrying out BOCC
goal(s)/priorities, if applicable.
The Planning Board is involved in the ongoing implementation of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Potential projects listed in the “Implementation Bridge,”
such as updates to home occupation standards, continue to be work on as do
small area plan implementation measures, such as the Eno EDD Access
Management Plan and the Efland zoning overlay districts.
Work completed in past years, including UDO text updates and zoning atlas
amendments, contributed greatly to the 2013 announcement that the Morinaga
Company would located its new manufacturing facility in the Buckhorn-Mebane
area.
If your board/commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory Board involved
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process, please indicate your board’s
activities/accomplishments as they may relate to the Comprehensive Plan’s goals or
objectives.
(The Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, EDC, OUTBoard,
Commission for the Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture
Preservation Board, Affordable Housing Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council)
The processing of small area plan recommendations specifically addresses an
objective included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Following are specific
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives that have been part of the Planning
Board’s recent work:
63
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.
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.
Objective LU-1.2: Evaluate and report on whether existing and approved locations for
future residential and non-residential developments are coordinated with the location of
public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer services, high-speed internet access, streets and
sidewalks).
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.
Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and
rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community
facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan.
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient,
and responsive.
Objective LU-6.1: Undertake a comprehensive effort to inform and involve the citizens
of Orange County in the land use planning process.
Objective LU-6.2: Maintain a cooperative joint planning process among the County
municipalities and those organizations responsible for the provision of water and sewer
services to guide the extension of service in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan,
and the policies of the municipalities.
Economic Development 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.
Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local
businesses, and mitigate these barriers.
Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that
serves existing development supports future development, and is consistent with the
64
County’s land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment
and community character.
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2014 as they relate
to established BOCC goals and priorities.
If applicable, if there a fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff time, other resources) associated
with these proposed activities (please list).
The Board will continue its work in partnership with staff to further implement
recommendations contained within small area plans and the UDO Implementation
Bridge and to implement existing and new BOCC priorities, some of which may
emerge at the January 2014 BOCC retreat:
1. Agricultural Support Enterprises.
2. Consideration of changes to the existing Public Hearing Process.
3. UDO Text Amendment to add two new overlay zoning districts in the Efland
area and specify design standards for the areas. This item was denied by the
BOCC in February 2013 but is scheduled to be reconsidered in early 2014.
4. Hillsborough-Orange County ETJ Swaps.
5. Comprehensive Plan and UDO amendments to implement the joint land use
plan with the Town of Hillsborough.
6. Revisions to UDO regarding mass gathering and special events (must happen
after Emergency Services/Attorney’s Office enacts a Mass gathering
Ordinance).
7. Address clustering in the Rural Buffer.
8. Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative changes at the
State level.
9. Continue to streamline regulations where possible.
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming
year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners’ attention?
1. Continue to expand rural enterprises by completing work on “Agricultural
Support Enterprises” and Home Occupation standards.
2. Streamline the project approval/public hearing process by revising the
existing quarterly public hearing process.
3. Work with appropriate staff/departments to better ensure properties can be
reached by emergency personnel (e.g., driveway width and clearance, bridge
weight limit signage and sufficiency to allow a fire truck to pass, gate width,
curve radii sufficient for emergency vehicles.
4. Consider a new zoning district that relates to targeted research and
development industry and applied light manufacturing.
5. Continue to “prezone” areas where possible to focus growth in appropriate
areas with consistent land uses, thereby improving the review and approval
process.
65
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.
Attachment 2 66
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
67
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.
68
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 was done but
denied by the BOCC in Feb. 2013;
to be reconsidered at the Fe. 2014
QPH
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.
69
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 but denied by the BOCC in
Feb. 2013; to be reconsidered at
the Fe. 2014 QPH
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 (to be reconsidered at the
Feb 2014 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 (to be reconsidered at the
Feb 2014 QPH) takes this into
account
Add park-n-ride lot - MEDIUM
HIGH priority - project has been
added to the MPO transportation
planning process project list
70
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Bike lanes - County to
communicate to DOT
Evaluate feasibility of bike lanes
along Old NC10 and US70 -
shoulder has been widened,
although not an official bike lane
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
reconsideration at the Feb 2014
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 - being
considered through the
transporation planning process
Provide bus service to area -
being considered through the
transporation planning process
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 - PARTIALLY
COMPLETE
Adopt access management
program for US70 & Old NC10 -
Currently (Nov. 2013) going
through adoption process
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
71
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Examine strategies to preserve
affordablity through neighborhood
preservation.
Existing residential dwellings shall
not be made non-conforming
under any new zoning designation
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
72
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
73
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 to 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 to 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 to 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.
Will be considered as topics are brought forward for revision. For
example, changes to Outdoor Lighting standards, adopted Jan. 24, 2013,
has slightly different standards for urbanizing vs. rural areas. Changes to
Home Occupation standards (to be heard at the Nov. 2013 QPH) have
different standards based somewhat on lot size.
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.
74
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.Changes to Home Occupation standards will be heard at the November
2013 QPH.
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. In October 2013, Orange County adopted requirements that a
Neighborhood Information Meeting be held prior to submission of a site
plan for governmental uses.
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.
75
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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
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
76
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 14 Explore ways to shorten review and approval processes.
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Additionally, proposed changes to the
existing public hearing process will be brought forward for the Feb. 2014
QPH.
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.
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 and the
Joint Land Use Plan was heard at the Sep. 2013 QPH. Text will be added
to the UDO as necessary as items move through the adoption process.
77
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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
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.This project is underway and is scheduled for the Feb. 2014 QPH.
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.
78
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
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. Changes to the existing quarterly public hearing process are
scheduled to be brought forward at the Feb. 2014 QPH.
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. Changes to the existing quarterly public hearing process are
scheduled to be brought forward at the Feb. 2014 QPH.
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. Changes to the existing quarterly public hearing process are
scheduled to be brought forward at the Feb. 2014 QPH.
79
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
UDO amendments for Agricultural Support Enterprises are scheduled to
be heard at the Feb. 2014 QPH. 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.
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.
80
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
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
(to be reconsidered at the Feb 2014 QPH) have provisions for shared
driveways.
81
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 was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outddor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
82
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 was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
33.
The limits under section (c) "General Operations" and (e) "Use of
Accessory Structures" severely limit what a home occupation can
do.
Changes to Home Occupation standards will be heard at the November
2013 QPH.
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.
83
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 was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
84
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 was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
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.
85
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 was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
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.
86
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.
51.Will staff be making recommendations to shorten any of the
processes?
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Additionally, proposed changes to the
existing public hearing process will be brought forward for the Feb. 2014
QPH.
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).
87
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
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.
88
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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?
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 and the
Joint Land Use Plan was heard at the Sep. 2013 QPH. 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?
89
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
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.
Changes to Home Occupation standards will be heard at the November
2013 QPH.
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.
90
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
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.
91
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
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.
92
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
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.
93
Orange County, NC
Code of Ordinances
Unified Development Ordinance
Implementation
Bridge
March 24, 2011
Prepared by
Clarion Associates
94
95
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
96
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
97
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.
98
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.
99
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:
100
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.
101
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.
102
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.
103
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.
104
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.
105
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.
106
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.
107
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.
108
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.
109
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.
110
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.
111
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.
112
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.
113
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.
114
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.
115
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.
116
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.
117
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.
118
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?
119
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
120
A-8
121
122
123
124
125
12
6
12
7
12
8
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 6, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Provision and Maintenance of Sidewalks in the County’s Jurisdiction
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Chart and Materials from October 6, 2011
BOCC Work Session
2. Excerpt of Minutes of October 6, 2011
BOCC Work Session
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 245-2578
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245- 2592
PURPOSE: To receive information about the challenges unincorporated areas face in providing
and maintaining sidewalks.
BACKGROUND: Staff is providing this information because the Efland zoning overlay districts,
denied by the Board of County Commissioners on February 5, 2013, are scheduled to be heard
again at the February 2014 quarterly public hearing. What also occurred with the denial, which
was based on pedestrian system (walkways) issues, was the denial of the entire ordinance
revision that had predominantly uncontroversial amendments supported by the community and
which would have made development in the area far more feasible than existing regulations.
Because new Planning Board members have been appointed this year, staff believed it would
be helpful to provide educational information about sidewalks and the challenges North Carolina
counties face in providing and maintaining these types of facilities since this may be a point of
discussion in the near term.
In December 2012, the Planning Board made a recommendation on the proposed Efland
zoning overlay districts, which were heard at the November 19, 2012 quarterly public hearing.
The Planning Board’s recommendation included requiring that pedestrian circulation systems
be provided as part of any development in the “Efland Village” overlay district. (Maps and
materials can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/130205.pdf and Planning
Board members are encouraged to read the abstract for this item to better understand the
issues).
Staff had reported to the Planning Board that the Board of County Commissioners had
considered the issue of sidewalks at its October 6, 2011 work session and had decided that,
although sidewalks were a desirable amenity, the County would not be in the position in the
foreseeable future to begin maintenance and/or construction of public sidewalks (see
Attachments 1 and 2 for relevant materials from the work session). Because of this, the
129
Planning Board recommended that pedestrian circulation systems be provided as they would be
privately owned/maintained. This was a rare instance where the Planning Board
recommendation and Planning Staff recommendation (with advice from the County Attorney’s
office) to the BOCC differed as staff could not support requiring private pedestrian circulation
systems intended for general public use in the overlay district. The issues regarding this topic
were stated in the materials linked above (page 3 of the BOCC abstract).
Although the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan
(http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/EflandPlanADOPTED062706.pdf) recommends
the provision of sidewalks in the planning area and particularly in the “core area” (which
includes the “Village” area), small area plan recommendations are implemented as they
become viable.
The County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(http://orangecountync.gov/planning/compre_cpupdate.asp) also supports the provision of
pedestrian facilities (see sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.7, and Objectives LU-1.1, LU-3.2, LU-3.7, ED-
2.3, AE-8, T-1.1, T-2.1, T-2.6). But, once again, goals and objectives are implemented as they
become viable.
As a side note, Orange County has recently completed important public sewer infrastructure
improvements in the Efland area. The area is now postured for urban/village style growth
consistent with the land use plan and further refined and implemented by the small area
planning studies and zoning overlay proposal.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in receiving this educational information.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the information regarding provision of sidewalks.
2. Discuss the issue as needed.
130
Excerpts from October 6, 2011 BOCC Work Session Abstract
(Note: The text below references “Attachment 2” and these materials have
been included as part of this attachment for the Planning Board)
Issue
As much as a county may desire to provide pedestrian facilities in its jurisdiction, there
are challenges in actually being able to do so. In North Carolina, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) does not build nor maintain sidewalks (see materials in
Attachment 2 - pages 14 and 15 [bottom of page] in particular). Although the materials
in Attachment 2 are geared towards municipal governments, they are also largely
applicable to any county government that chooses to provide sidewalks within its
jurisdiction. The DOT will work with the local government to provide sidewalks within
road right-of-way if the local government agrees to pay for construction costs (or
portions thereof, in certain cases) and assume maintenance and liability for the
sidewalk.
Orange County (as well as most, if not all, counties in North Carolina) does not maintain
local streets within its jurisdiction; public roadways are part of the State Maintained
System. In municipalities, streets are generally maintained by a municipal public works
crew and the municipality has the staff and equipment to do so. Municipalities receive
some funding from the State through the Powell Bill to perform this task. Any necessary
sidewalk maintenance (if sidewalks are provided within the municipality) is achieved by
either the public works crew or, more recently, by a Homeowners Association (HOA) or
Property Owners Association (POA) if the HOA or POA is a party to the required
maintenance agreement between the local government and DOT.
Existing Development vs. New Development
Providing sidewalks in areas that are already developed is a particular challenge. A
local government may require, through its zoning or subdivision regulations, that new
development provide a sidewalk (either within the road right-of-way or on private
property via an easement). A local government may also require that the property
owner(s) maintain the sidewalk, although this becomes more difficult to achieve in the
absence of an HOA or POA. The issue of liability needs to be addressed but very few,
if any, property owners seem willing to take on liability of a sidewalk for public use, even
if located within an easement on their property. The local government would likely have
to accept any liability for the sidewalk.
In the case of existing development, especially if there is not an existing HOA or POA,
construction and maintenance of sidewalks is more difficult. Funding for construction of
a sidewalk must come from the local government, with the potential for some cost
sharing with DOT (see materials in Attachment 2 for potential cost sharing information
[pages 10 through 15 – bottom of page – in particular]). The local government may use
funds from its General Fund, designated bond funds, Powell Bill Funds (if the local
Attachment 1
131
government receives funding from this source), or by a special assessment district of
property owners within the benefit area. Additionally, limited grant funding may be
available from various sources, depending on the situation.
UNC Chapel Hill School of Government has a useful publication that is part of its
County and Municipal Government in North Carolina series. The article is “Article 40 -
Transportation, Street Parking, Public Transportation, and Airports” and it is viewable
free of charge (but not printable) at: http://sogpubs.unc.edu/cmg/cmg40.pdf. Pages 7
through 10 of the publication are particularly helpful in understanding sidewalk issues.
North Carolina Counties
Planning staff queried a Planning ListServ for information about sidewalks outside of
municipal areas in North Carolina. The responses show that a handful of North
Carolina counties have one or two sidewalks within their jurisdiction that are not part of
a residential subdivision. In many cases, the sidewalks were constructed to provide
access to a school and were paid for using local, DOT, and/or grant funds (some local
match was required for almost all of the projects). The sidewalks are maintained by
agreement with an adjacent or nearby municipality or a county public works crew
(Chatham County). Additionally, some counties have sidewalks in residential
subdivisions that were constructed by the developer and are maintained by the HOA.
Several years ago Orange County entered into a sidewalk maintenance agreement for a
portion of Homestead Road adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The
sidewalk is in the County’s jurisdiction at this time but inevitably would be annexed since
it is part of adjacent ETJs. The agreement is multi-party including NCDOT which
allowed an encroachment agreement in its right-of-way. The Town maintains the
sidewalk.
Financial Impact
The cost of designing and constructing sidewalks can vary considerably depending on
factors such as grading issues, land acquisition costs, land clearing, utility relocations,
etc. A study has not been done specific to Orange County but staff research found that
the Town of Mooresville spent $119 - $200 per linear foot ($629,000 - $1,056,000 per
mile) for recent sidewalk projects. This figure includes all necessary costs design &
administration, curb & gutter, various retrofitting costs, etc.
132
Provision of Sidewalks
Retrofit Existing Development
(no new building)
Infill Development New Development
(Larger Scale)
Who Installs Local Government Property Owner, if required by
regulations
OR
Local Government
Developer, if required by
regulations
OR
Local Government
Who Pays Local Government – either through
General Fund (may include some
potential grant funding) or by
establishing a special assessment
district whereby benefitting property
owners are taxed
Property Owner, if required by
regulations
OR
Local Government (funding
sources same as retrofit)
Developer, if required by
regulations
OR
Local Government
(funding sources same as
retrofit)
Who Maintains Local Government – either through
General Fund (grant funding not
available) or by establishing a
special assessment district whereby
benefitting property owners are
taxed
Either Property Owners, if
required by regulations (could be
difficult to enforce)
OR
Local Government (funding
sources same as retrofit)
Either Property Owners /
Homeowners Association,
if required by regulations
OR
Local Government
(funding sources same as
retrofit)
Where Located Within road right-of-way (DOT
encroachment agreement required),
OR
on private property (liability issues
need to be resolved)
OR
a combination (depending on exact
circumstance)
Same as retrofit Same as retrofit, but likely
within road right-of-way
133
13
4
13
5
13
6
13
7
13
8
13
9
14
0
14
1
14
2
14
3
14
4
14
5
14
6
14
7
14
8
14
9
15
0
15
1
15
2
APPROVED 11/1/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DAY WORK SESSION
October 6, 2011
1:30 pm
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, October 6,
2011 at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
Valerie Foushee, Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S.
Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
1. Southwest Branch Library Siting Criteria
Asset Management Director Pam Jones said that this process is similar to what the
Board has experienced before. The criteria can be applied to multiple sites. She and Library
Services Manager Lucinda Munger went through the criteria, which is used nationally by a lot of
different libraries.
Low Medium High Phase I
1 2 3 Visibility
- Visible from the street
- Traffic count that meets or exceeds the average traffic counts of
a major thoroughfare in a community
- Visual appeal
1 2 3 Site Capacity
- Meets minimum acreage (urban services vs. rural services)
- Space for building and on-site parking
- Adequate utilities
- Space for future expansion
- Space to accommodate the necessary setbacks, road
expansions, and other site amenities
Total: Phase I
(If total ranking equals 6 or more, excluding a ranking of 1, go to Phase
II)
Low Medium High Phase II
1 2 3 Centrality
- Existing population
- Growth and development
- Proximity to schools
- Proximity to retail
153
20,000 square-foot size facility could incorporate and how many people it could serve, including
meeting rooms, etc.
Chair Pelissier asked that this information be presented at the meeting next week with
the Town of Carrboro.
Lucinda Munger said that the services provided all depend on what will be included in
the library facility.
Frank Clifton said that this library is not just for the Town of Carrboro, but for outside of
the Town of Carrboro wherever it is put.
Commissioner McKee said that, as they look at this process, a great deal of the users
will be from Carrboro and there will need to be some sort of agreement with Carrboro to
expedite this process. He asked if there was information on how many patrons would be drawn
off of the Chapel Hill Library.
Frank Clifton said that he agreed, but there are many people who do not live in Carrboro
proper who would also come in and use this library.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the studies for this library take into account the building
size of the current Main library. It was answered no.
Lucinda Munger said that the County is limited and cannot expand the new Orange
County library facility physically. The patronage has almost doubled in the new facility with no
room to grow. She wants to call the southwest library a partner to the Main library.
Commissioner Yuhasz suggested comparing the zoning process and see if there can be
some pre-zoning from Carrboro that would help with the timing and the siting of the library. He
also suggested having this conversation with the Town of Chapel Hill in case there is an
appropriate place in Chapel Hill.
Commissioner Foushee said that it seems that what is here is in conflict. She said that
the last process of siting a library did not go well. She asked how to juxtapose the problem that
the residents have with increased traffic against having the site in a well-traveled area so that
people will know that the library is there. Any neighborhood that is considered will be opposed
by the residents. She said that the County needs to be careful about not excluding sites that
are not within the municipality and sites that fall within Chapel Hill’s Planning jurisdiction.
Chair Pelissier said that it is in Carrboro’s interest to have the library sited in Carrboro.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County needs to make sure that the municipal
partners recognize that Orange County is not just another customer.
Commissioner McKee said that before they start spending money on another site, he
would like to see some sort of cooperation between the Town of Carrboro and Orange County,
and he would also like to see an expedited review process.
Chair Pelissier said that if there is an agreement that a one-story facility is wanted, then
this needs to be spelled out to the Town of Carrboro with the rationale. This needs to be clear.
Lucinda Munger said that another issue is on-site parking for a facility.
Commissioner Gordon arrived at 2:40 p.m.
Chair Pelissier said that the Board is pleased with the criteria and Carrboro will respond
shortly.
2. Provision and Maintenance of Sidewalks in the County’s Jurisdiction
Planner Perdita Holtz said that this item grew out of the attempts to work on design
guidelines for the Efland core area. While working on this, it was realized that there should be
some policy guidelines before working on the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. This plan
recommends the provision of sidewalks throughout the whole area, particularly in the more
dense development. Staff is seeking direction on the sidewalk provision. Another challenge is
that the County does not have a way to maintain the sidewalks like municipalities would. She
154
made reference to page 3 of the abstract, which lists the decisions to be made on this issue.
These are shown below:
Decisions to be Made:
In order to proceed with the design guidelines for the Efland core area, staff needs
direction from the BOCC on the sidewalk issue. Design guidelines for areas with a pedestrian
network are quite different from areas without sidewalks. Additionally, preliminary research
shows there could be particular challenges in the Efland area because public (NCDOT) right-of-
way is much narrower in some areas than the current standard of 60 feet (or more, depending
on roadway type), and in some cases parcels actually extend to the centerlines of streets and
the public road is located within an easement.
Questions staff has included:
1. Does the BOCC want to proceed with the county “getting into the sidewalk business”
at this time?
2. If so, is staff authorized to begin development of a sidewalk program for certain
areas of the County (i.e., the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane corridor to start). Does the
BOCC have direction on any of the funding and maintenance issues discussed
above, particularly the issue of providing sidewalks in an area that is already partially
developed (the Efland core area)? (Note: a sidewalk program is likely to result in
amendments to development regulations).
Options for providing sidewalks include:
a. Orange County or developer (for new construction) pays for and builds the sidewalks
and either Orange County contracts with a city for maintenance or a Property
Owners Association (setting up a POA would be a requirement for new construction)
is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. County general funds would be used
under this option. Note that NCDOT would require a maintenance agreement with
the County and NCDOT is willing to enter into third party agreements with the County
as a “back-up” signatory for maintenance.
b. Orange County creates a special assessment district for sidewalk. Property owners
within the district would be required to pay into the special district and a fund would
be created for sidewalk construction and maintenance. Orange County would be
responsible for maintenance, likely through contracting with another city for
maintenance tasks.
c. Other options as the BOCC decides.
3. If not, should staff proceed with the Efland core area design
requirements/guidelines? The requirements/guidelines will be more minimal than
what the Small Area Plan recommended because of the differences in urban form a
sidewalk network brings to an area.
Commissioner McKee said that he does not have a problem with major developments
having sidewalks but he does not want to get Orange County in the business of building and
maintaining sidewalks.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he agreed with Commissioner McKee for not wanting
Orange County to get into the sidewalk business. He said that if they look at large subdivisions,
155
the Orange County subdivision regulations discourage large subdivisions. He said that it is not
practical to add sidewalks to smaller subdivisions.
Commissioner Hemminger agreed and said that she does not want Orange County in
the sidewalk business. However, she does want the County to be in the business of
connectivity. She also wants to look at the Safe Route to Schools systems.
Commissioner Gordon agreed and said that there is no funding available to maintain the
sidewalks. She said that there are ways to have connectivity without having sidewalks.
Frank Clifton said that it would be important to have a policy in case there is a
development that wants to have sidewalks.
Chair Pelissier agreed with her colleagues.
Discussion ensued about bicycle lanes and the shoulders on US 70 in Efland.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked for information about the annual maintenance costs for
sidewalks.
3. Paperless Agenda Options- canceled
Frank Clifton said that this item would be rescheduled for a night meeting.
Commissioner Hemminger said that if Durham County is doing this, she wants to see
how it works and how it looks.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
to adjourn the meeting at 3:05 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
156