Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 030514ORANGE 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, March 5, 2014 Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 3-4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for March and April 3. 5-10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 5, 2014 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. 11-78 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling approximately 52 acres in area, off of Redman Road between the railway and Interstate 85/40 in Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 8. 79-86 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application seeking to rezone an approximately 12 acre parcel of property located at 5908 US 70 East in Eno Township from Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1); Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2); and Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay to Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE- 2) and Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 9. 87-100 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application seeking to amend Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (b) Kennels (Class II) – Standards of Evaluation to reduce required setbacks for Class II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 zoning district. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 10. COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS a. Board of Adjustment b. Orange Unified Transportation 11. ADJOURNMENT IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578). 2 *Planning Board Member Attendance Required SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 March 2014 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 April 2014March 2014 Fe b 2 3 - M a r 1 Feb 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mar 1 Ma r 2 - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Department of Social Services) 7:00pm *PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) 7:00pm BOCC Meeting (Dept Social Services) Ma r 9 - 1 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:30pm Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) 5:30pm BOCC Work Session Dinner Meeting (Link Gov't Service) 7:00pm BOCC Work Session (Link Gov't Service) Ma r 1 6 - 2 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 6:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Southern Human Services) 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting (West Campus Office Bldg) Ma r 2 3 - 2 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 7:00pm BOCC/Town of Chapel Hill Joint Meeting (Southern Human Services) Ma r 3 0 - A p r 5 30 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 3 *Planning Board Member Attendance Required SuMoTuWeThFrSa 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 April 2014 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 May 2014April 2014 Ma r 3 0 - A p r 5 Mar 30 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5 6:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Department of Social Services) 7:00pm *PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) Ap r 6 - 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7:00pm BOCC Work Session (Link Gov't Service) 7:00pm BOCC Budget Work Session (Southern Human Services) Ap r 1 3 - 1 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7:30pm Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Southern Human Services) 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting (West Campus Office Bldg) HOLIDAY Ap r 2 0 - 2 6 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Ap r 2 7 - M a y 3 27 28 29 30 May 1 2 3 8:30am Legislative Breakfast (Solid Waste Adm) Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 4 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 FEBRUARY 5, 2014 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 8 Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 9 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; 10 Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine 11 Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; 12 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; 15 Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 16 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Jennifer Leaf, 19 Planner I; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Michael Kelly, Planning Technician; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 20 21 22 OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Boylan, David Lazzo, Judith Timyau, David Delgado, Cole King, David & Lisa O’Hara, 23 Charles Porter, Gary Paschall, Terry Rishar, Chris Jones, Scott & Susan Tilley, Susan Heckman 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 27 28 Pete Hallenbeck called the meeting to order. 29 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 32 a) Planning Calendar for February and March 33 b) Quarterly Public Hearing – 7 p.m. on Feb. 24 @ Dept. of Social Services – draft legal ad 34 attached 35 36 Michael Harvey: There is a change in the quarterly public hearing ad. The item for the proposed solar array off Mt. 37 Sinai Road has been removed from the quarterly public hearing scheduled for February 24, 2014 at the request of 38 the applicant. It is scheduled for the May quarterly public hearing. 39 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 JANUARY 8, 2014 ORC SUMMARY 43 JANUARY 8, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 44 45 Pete Hallenbeck: I have a couple of changes, the first is on page 21, line 131 to add Planning Board so that it reads 46 “how the Planning Board would” and the second one is on page 24, line 260, put the word “something” before “ I’m 47 seeing” and strike the word some. 48 49 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the January 8, 2014 ORC notes with changes and Planning Board minutes. 50 Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 52 53 54 5 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 58 59 Introduction to the Public Charge 60 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 61 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 62 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 63 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 64 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 65 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 66 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 67 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 68 69 PUBLIC CHARGE 70 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 71 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 72 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 73 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 74 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 75 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 76 77 78 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 79 80 81 Agenda Item 7: Major Subdivision Concept Plan – To review and make a decision on a major subdivision 82 concept plan application (Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV), located off Pleasant Green Rd. 83 Presenter: Jennifer Leaf, Planner I 84 85 Michael Harvey reviewed the major subdivision approval process and steps 86 Jennifer Leaf reviewed the application 87 88 Pete Hallenbeck: We will now give the members time to ask questions. 89 90 Andrea Rohrbacher: What is the intent on clearing the site and preserving the site? 91 92 Terry Boylon: The site is heavily wooded and the intent is to only clear the right of way for the proposed road. The 93 rest would remain wooded and the individual lots would be cleared as necessary. 94 95 Michael Harvey: In our ordinance, we have tree preservation guidelines and standards that do allow clearing of lots 96 for house sites and septic and repair fields. There are still requirements that a percentage of trees be preserved on 97 site. There will not be mass clearing. The presence of trees on the site will also help with storm water and nutrient 98 reduction loads. 99 100 Terry Boylon: Yes, that is the case. 101 102 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there covenants on the deeds on these properties that would have additional limits or 103 restrictions on the percentage of trees that will be cleared. 104 105 David Lazzo: We have not established covenants but they are very likely to be almost identical to what is in 106 Pleasant Green Woods now. It is in our best interest as the homebuilder to preserve the trees. 107 108 6 Pete Hallenbeck: At this point, since this is the concept plan, which is reasonable. As we move forward, those 109 covenants will be available. 110 111 David Lazzo: Yes sir, I am not sure what the rules are. 112 113 Michael Harvey: The preliminary plan application will require the applicant to file a preliminary set of covenants and 114 deed restrictions for our review and comment. That is one of the conditions that this Board will be looking for. 115 116 Paul Guthrie: This storm water lot, have you envisioned what the gallon capacity will be? 117 118 David Lazzo: For fire protection? No not yet, that could be smaller or larger, it is a placeholder at this point as to 119 where a good location is for that lot. 120 121 Paul Guthrie: Water and sewer, are you thinking about individual septic fields or a series of septic field that cover 122 more than one property. 123 124 David Lazzo: At this point, we are looking at individual septic fields. 125 126 Paul Guthrie: Are you thinking of individual wells or some form of joint well production. 127 128 David Lazzo: On individual lots. 129 130 Paul Guthrie: On each lot, you will have a well and septic field? 131 132 David Lazzo: Yes. 133 134 Paul Guthrie: This is something you may want to pay attention to depending on the types of soils there are. 135 136 Pete Hallenbeck: I assumed there were preliminary perk tests done? 137 138 David Lazzo: That happens in the next stage. There are preliminary soil profiles available that lead us to make 139 assumptions about the availability of septic soils. An actual survey by the health department will be done. 140 141 Michael Harvey: This project is based on 16 lots but there may be only 15 or 14 lots if there are no soils or there 142 may an alternation of the existing layout to accommodation additional soil areas. 143 144 Paul Guthrie: Do you have any information as to what depth you have to go and what flows you can get? 145 146 David Lazzo: Not at this time. 147 148 Herman Staats: Reviewed location. 149 150 Johnny Randall: It looks like the forest is about 30 years old. Has any type of natural area inventory been done on 151 this site? 152 153 Michael Harvey: Preliminary assessments have not indicated any natural or heritage sites. Obviously there will be 154 a more in depth investigation. 155 156 Tony Blake: The streams empty into the Eno? 157 158 Michael Harvey: I would say yes. 159 160 Tony Blake: It appears there is source stream on one side, is that a stream? 161 162 7 Terry Bolan: On the east side, that is spring fed. 163 164 Tony Blake: That would probably not be the one that fed the fire pond. The proximity of the road to this lot that is 165 sort of insert, does that meet all the setbacks? So that is okay. 166 167 Pete Hallenbeck: The diameter of the cul-de-sac was 96 feet which was nice to see. 168 169 Jennifer Leaf: Actually it is not 96 feet, there was a comment by the fire marshal that he would like for it to be. 170 They have what makes it looks like a Y here. That has been acceptable with the fire marshal. 171 172 Michael Harvey: On page 40 and 41 are the emails from the fire marshal. 173 174 Jennifer Leaf: There will be further engineering done at the preliminary plan stage. 175 176 Pete Hallenbeck: We have a request from the fire marshal for 96 foot radius and a proposal there is some cutouts 177 to allow a three point turn. That sounds good. 178 179 Lisa Stuckey: What happens with these cutouts, you can’t put anything on them? 180 181 Michael Harvey: It is in the right of way. 182 183 Terry Boylan: It would actually be a concrete surface. 184 185 Tony Blake: Is there any proposed square footage of the houses? 186 187 David Lazzo: The minimum in Pleasant Green Woods, Phase III was around 2,800. Everything we plan is 2,800 188 feet or larger. 189 190 Pete Hallenbeck: Another fire related comment with regard to the 20 foot stretch that comes to the pond is to 191 continue it on through. There have been problems in the past with that. The distance from Pleasant Green Road to 192 the closest a house could get is almost 200 feet. 193 194 Terry Boylan: The shaded buffer is 65 feet; it is probably 200 feet between150 to 200. 195 196 Michael Harvey: There will be a 100 foot building set back. 197 198 Paul Guthrie: What would be the likely timeline from now until the first occupied house? 199 200 David Delgado: This whole process to get out preliminary plat approval is going to likely take until September. 201 Maybe early Spring 2015. 202 203 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there comments from the public? You can make a comment tonight and also a written 204 presentation that will go into the minutes. 205 206 Charles Porter: I am the president of the Pleasant Green Woods Homeowners Association. I want to ask about the 207 covenants and the homeowners association, are you planning on joining or not? How do you plan to work with us? 208 209 David Lazzo: There has been no plan to be part of the homeowners just yet. Our covenants will closely mirror the 210 covenants in place for Pleasant Greens Woods, Phase III. We are calling it Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV out 211 of convenience. 212 213 Charles Porter: If you don’t join the homeowners association, would you plan on doing your own homeowners 214 association? 215 216 8 David Lazzo: If we are not part of the existing homeowners, we would set up our own. 217 218 Susan Huffman: When you say the runoff will go into the Eno River, it has to go through the pond that is bordered 219 by Rapids Lane homes on the west side in Pleasant Green. I have heard from the homeowners in the past that 220 drainage area at the end of the pond going into the river hasn’t been kept open and it backs up into their crawl 221 spaces. If you decrease impervious by having more impervious and having more runoff going into the streams 222 leading into the Eno, you have to work on keeping that channel open or it will back up. 223 224 Pete Hallenbeck: The problem is that the water way that runs and feeds that pond is not cleared enough and the 225 pond backs up. 226 227 Susan Huffman: I think it is at the end where the pond dumps into the river. 228 229 Lisa Stuckey: Whose responsibility is that? 230 231 Pete Hallenbeck: At this point, we can take that comment and have the planning department be aware and look at 232 what they can do. 233 234 David Lazzo: The ponds are designed for the flow that runs off the property to be exactly as it is today. 235 236 Terry Boylan: This is a requirement by state law. 237 238 Susan Tilley: In addition to being concerned about Paper Birch as people who live on that road, we are very 239 concerned about sight lines for people coming around that curve. Has there been any thought to changing the 240 entrance to that neighborhood onto Pleasant Green which as opposed to Paper Birch? 241 242 Pete Hallenbeck: For my edification Paper Birch is not DOT maintained? But the plan is that it will be DOT 243 maintained? 244 245 Terry Boylan: It is in the process of DOT accepting that. 246 247 Maxecine Mitchell: Is Paper Birch Road a cul-de-sac? 248 249 Terry Boylan: Yes. As far as access onto Paper Birch that is the best location site distance wise. It would not have 250 been feasible to access the neighborhood from Pleasant Green Road. We would have to cross 130 foot buffer. 251 252 Pete Hallenbeck: You already have a crossing over that stream on Paper Birch and if you come in off Paper Birch 253 you would be using that. If you went to Pleasant Green, there would be a second crossing across that waterway. 254 255 Terry Boylan: Right. 256 257 Maxecine Mitchell: Is Willett a regular size road, private road? 258 259 Michael Harvey: State maintained. 260 261 MOTION by Maxecine Mitchell to approve Planning Director’s recommendation. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 262 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 263 264 Michael Harvey: Introduced Michael Kelly, Planning Technician and Patrick Millett, Planner II who is taking Glenn 265 Bowles position. 266 267 268 269 270 9 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 271 272 a) Board of Adjustment 273 No Meeting. 274 b) Orange Unified Transportation 275 The OUTBoard meeting will be in two weeks. 276 277 278 AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT 279 280 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 281 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 282 283 284 10 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Class A Special Use Permit – Solar Array off Redman Road in Cheeks Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant Affidavit(s) Submitted at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing Michael D. Harvey, Planner III 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 3. E-mail Correspondence Submitted at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing PURPOSE: To begin review of a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter ‘SUP’) application proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As a reminder the review of this item is carried out in a quasi-judicial format. Decisions relating to the approval or denial of SUP applications are based solely on the sworn testimony of all parties involved with the case, both those for and against, as well as the review of competent material and substantial evidence submitted during the public hearing. Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. Applicants have the burden of establishing, by the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the existence of facts and conditions that demonstrate the project’s compliance with the UDO. Those opposing approval of the application shall have the burden of establishing, also through the submission of competent material and substantial evidence, the specific manner in which the proposal does not satisfy the requirements for approval of the application. Please remember to bring your copy of the abstract, attachments, and handouts from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing. CADENCE OF REVIEW: The review of a SUP is as follows: • STEP ONE – PUBLIC HEARING: The first step in the review of an SUP application is the holding of a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to provide sworn testimony related to the proposal. 11 STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing was held at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing where the following testimony/evidence was entered into the record: i. Staff entered the abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, into the record. ii. Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. iii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis Iannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO. The applicant entered copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr. Kirkland, into the record providing additional information on the project’s compliance with applicable standards. iv. Staff entered an email and letter from adjoining property owners into the record. The applicant testified they would address the concerns expressed by both property owners and respond in writing to the County. v. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. • STEP TWO – PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviews the request and makes a recommendation on the project’s compliance with specific development standards (Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO. Staff prepares a script to aid the Board in making required findings and denoting the ‘evidence’ utilized in rendering a decision. STAFF COMMENT: This review will begin at the March 5, 2014 regular meeting and be continued to the April 2, 2014 regular meeting where the Board will be asked to make a recommendation. This will allow the applicant to respond, in writing, to concerns from adjacent property owners presented at the public hearing. • STEP THREE – DECISION: The BOCC will receive the Planning Board recommendation as well as any other written evidence, deliberate, certify the record, close the public hearing, and then render a final decision. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated the applicant proposing the development of a solar array on 2 parcels (PIN 9844-06- 5971 and 9844-17-2687) of property totaling 52 acres in area, owned by Stout Farm LLC, off of Redman Road (please refer to the vicinity map in Attachment 1). During the public hearing the following comments and questions were asked: 1. A BOCC member asked the applicant about the use of chemicals to treat the grass and asked for a list of products that would be used. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant indicated disturbed area(s) would be stabilized with grass seed and chemical use would be consistent with the typical care of a residential lawn. The applicant agreed to provide a list of possible chemicals that could be used to ‘care for’ the grass growing on site. 2. A BOCC member asked about stormwater runoff and if drainage ponds would have to be built. 12 STAFF COMMENT: Both staff and the applicant stated the property had a natural grade channeling stormwater towards Interstate 85. Staff said the applicant would be required to submit both an erosion control plan and a stormwater management plan as part of the project. Runoff from the property would be strictly limited based on current regulations, addressing a concern expressed from both adjacent property owners. The applicant said they prefer to develop and install vegetated swales to convey and capture stormwater as it is more environmental friendly and allow for greater natural infiltration of water. This method was utilized at the solar facility off of White Cross Road and has proven very successful. The applicant indicated there would not be any mass grading on the property and existing topography would be preserved. 3. A BOCC member asked how many solar facilities there were in Orange County. STAFF COMMENT: There is a major solar facility, approved through the SUP process in 2012, off of White Cross Road. Several farms, including Maple View off of Dairyland Road and the Pickard’s Mountain Eco Institute off of Pickard Mountain Road, also have large solar arrays located on their property. 4. A BOCC member asked if there would be a lot of noise emanating from the site. STAFF COMMENT: The panels themselves had no electrical components on them generating noise. There is a transformer in the middle of the property, over 500 feet from adjoining property lines, which would generate some noise. Due to its central location on the property, and the presence of required land use buffers, the applicant testified adjoining property owners will not hear any noise from the property. 5. A Planning Board member indicated he was concerned over the removal of the trees from the lot and increased levels of noise being heard from Interstate 85 over increased levels of stormwater runoff. While the member expressed support for alternative energy development the suggestion was made that such facilities are better located on previously cleared sites or ‘brownfield’ sites to avoid unnecessary clearing of forests. STAFF COMMENT: The property has been timbered in the past as part of an agricultural operation (i.e. tree farm). There are various timer rights that have been extended to allow for the harvesting of these existing hardwoods and, from our standpoint, existing trees were always intended to be ‘harvested’ regardless of this project. In effect, this will project will represent the redevelopment of previously disturbed property as the trees will be removed as part of an agricultural operation. Per County regulations the project will not be allowed to increase stormwater runoff beyond what already exists in its current, forested, state. This means runoff will be captured on-site to avoid impacting adjacent property owners. The clearing of the property will not result in an increase in stormwater flow from the property. 6. A member of the general public, Ms. Megan Tobin the owner of the Pickards Mountain Eco Institute, expressed support for the project. Staff Analysis: At the public hearing, staff said the project complied with the various provisions of the UDO, including: 13 a. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). b. Staff has determined that the leased area of the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed solar array. c. Staff is satisfied that the proposed landscaping and buffering complies with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the UDO. d. Comments received from various County agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire Marshal, DEAPR, Orange County Health) indicate there are no concerns associated with the request. e. Staff made the determination that a formal Environmental Impact Statement would not be required per Section 6.18 of the UDO. f. The applicant had submitted sufficient documentation denoting compliance with specific development standards as detailed within Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO. g. The proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. Natural and Cultural Systems Goal 1: Energy conservation, sustainable use of non-polluting renewable energy resources, efficient use of non-renewable energy resources and clean air. b. Objective AE-15: Foster participation in green energy programs such as installation incentives for solar hot water/solar generation/solar tempering in residential or commercial construction. The County should develop programs that will link citizens and businesses with options for alternative and sustainable energy sources. c. Objective AG-8: Encourage the use and production of natural fuel alternatives to petroleum based products and pursue new types of energy sources. Staff is still awaiting the submittal of additional information, most notably written responses to adjacent property owner questions (please see Attachment 3) prior to making a formal recommendation. We anticipate completing our review in time for the April 2, 2014 regular meeting. Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.7.8 (A) (3) of the UDO, the BOCC has requested that the Planning Board recommendation be made available in time for the May 8, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. As a procedural note, additional comments on the application must be submitted in writing to the Planning Board in order to become part of the official record of these proceedings. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board begin deliberating on the application. 14 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 01/10/2014 VICINITY MAP - STRATA SOLARCLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST US 70 W I 85 NI 40 E I 85 SI 40 W RE D M A N RD RE D M A N XIN G US 70 W I 85 N I 40 E I 85 SI 40 W 1 inch = 400 feet 0 500 1,000Feet· Parcels Township Boundary City Limits ETJ2010 ImagesRGB Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 I 4 0 E I 4 0 W NC 57 I 85 S N C 8 6 N NC 54 W US 70 W NC 49 US 1 5 5 0 1 S SUBJECT PARCELPIN 9844-17-2687 RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING SUBJECT PARCELPIN 9844-06-5971 RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING R-1 ZONING R-1 ZONING R-1 ZONING EDB-2 ZONING EDB-2 ZONING 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Easterlin Rezoning of 5908 US 70 East in Eno Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Ordinance Approving Rezoning Petition Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592 3. Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an owner-initiated general rezoning petition in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated the property owners, Mr. and Ms. Donna and Donald Easterlin, have applied to rezone an approximately 12 acre parcel of property located at 5908 US 70 East in Eno Township: FROM: Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1); Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2); and Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay. TO: Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2) and Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay. Approximately 8.6 acres of the property is currently zoned EDE-2 with the remaining acreage (approximately 3.4 acres) zoned EDE-1. Public Hearing: As indicated during the hearing, the purpose of the amendment is to extend the EDE-2 zoning designation over the entire property. The property is currently utilized to support a Class II Kennel operation and a telecommunications tower. Kennels are a permitted use of property, subject to the issuance of a Class B Special Use Permit, in the EDE-2 zoning district and are prohibited within the EDE-1 zoning district. The applicants are requesting the rezoning to eliminate the existing split zoning and ensure the kennel operation is entirely contained within the EDE-2 general use zoning designation. There were no comments or questions posed during the hearing. Agenda materials from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140224.pdf 79 Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the request finding that: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO. 2. The property is of sufficient size to be rezoned to EDE-2. 3. The rezoning is consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the Growth Management System, and the adopted Eno Economic Development District Area Small Area Plan. Attachment 2 contains the proposed Ordinance approving the rezoning. Attachment 3 contains a statement detailing the requests consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This rezoning request has been reviewed by County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate on the petition, 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation to proceed with Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed zoning atlas amendment in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC meeting. 80 Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 01/10/2014 VICINITY MAP - EASTERLINREZONING REQUEST US 70 E US 70 E 1 inch = 130 feet 0 500 1,000Feet· Parcels Township Boundary City Limits ETJ2010 ImagesRGB Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 I 4 0 E I 4 0 W NC 57 I 85 S N C 8 6 N NC 54 W US 70 W NC 49 US 1 5 5 0 1 S SUBJECT PROPERTYPIN 0803-11-5662 EDE-2ZONING EDE-1 ZONING EDE-2ZONING 81 Ordinance #: 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has received and processed a petition seeking to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, This petition, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Donald and Donna Easterlin, seeks to rezone an approximately 12 acre property located at 5908 U.S. 70 Business, and WHEREAS, the property to be rezoned is identified further as follows: Beginning at an iron stake in the northern right-of-way line of U.S.70, which point is located N 72’54’09” W 1478.10’ of the centerline intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751; then N 04’21’41’’E 637.53’ to an iron stake; then N.85’38’19” W 304.2’ to a point; then S 04’37’23” W 771.68’to an iron stake in the northern right-of-way line of U.S. 70; then S. 73’32’48’E 313.77’ to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The Future Land Use Map. b. Principle 7: Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity. c. Economic Development (ED) Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances high-quality employment opportunities for County residents. d. 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. e. 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 ATTACHMENT 2 82 creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the property as described herein to Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2). BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 2014. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on ________________________, 2014 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2014. SEAL __________________________________ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 83 1 RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Donald and Donna Easterlin, Orange County property owners, have initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the rezoning petition seeks to rezone an approximately 12 acre property located at 5908 U.S. 70 Business, further described as follows: Beginning at an iron stake in the northern right-of-way line of U.S.70, which point is located N 72’54’09” W 1478.10’ of the centerline intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751; then N 04’21’41’’E 637.53’ to an iron stake; then N.85’38’19” W 304.2’ to a point; then S 04’37’23” W 771.68’to an iron stake in the northern right-of-way line of U.S. 70; then S. 73’32’48’E 313.77’ to the point of beginning. and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the following: a. The Future Land Use Map. b. Principle 7: Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity. c. Economic Development (ED) Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances high-quality employment opportunities for County residents. d. 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. e. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. and, Attachment 3 84 WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest as it promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by furthering the goals and purposes of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of consistency signifying same. Upon motion of Commissioner ________________________, seconded by Commissioner ________________________, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this ________ day of ___________________, 2014. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on ________________________, 2014 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of ______________, 2014. SEAL __________________________________ Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 85 86 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 5, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Setbacks for Class II Kennels Developed in the EDE-2 General Use Zoning District DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Map of Kennel Operation 2. Applicant Proposed Text Amendment 3. Staff Recommended Language 4. Copy of E-mail from Donna Easterlin Provided at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing 5. Copy of E-mail(s) sent to County Commissioners Relating to Easterlin Request Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592 PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application proposing a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) related to the required setbacks for Class II Kennels developed within the Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2) general use zoning district. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff indicated that property owners in the Eno Economic Development District, Mr. and Ms. Donna and Donald Easterlin, have been working with staff since approximately 2006 to address expansion(s) to an existing kennel operation located at 5908 US Highway 70 East in the Eno Township. The kennel is operating under a previously issued Class B Special Use Permit (hereafter ‘SUP’) and is required to observe a 150 foot setback from all property lines. The Easterlin’s indicated they are unable to comply and are seeking to reduce the required setback to 25 feet, the typical minimum required setback for the EDE-2 zoning district, by amending the text of the UDO in order to allow the existing operation to remain. If approved, the text amendment will only impact Class II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 zoning district. It will not be applied in other general use zoning districts where such facilities are allowed. During the public hearing the following comments and questions were asked: 1. A BOCC member asked if the applicant could apply for a variance. 87 STAFF COMMENT: Staff and the Easterlin’s attorney, Mr. Michael Brough of the Brough law firm, indicated it was their professional opinion applying for a variance was not a viable option as there would be difficulty for the applicant to prove this was not a self-induced hardship or that somehow they were experiencing a unique hardship from other kennel operations throughout the County. These are some of the required findings allowing for the issuance of a variance as outlined within Section 2.10 of the UDO. 2. A BOCC member expressed concern over different accounts from staff and the applicant over when there was disclosure of the 150 foot setback requirement. STAFF COMMENT: Staff stands by its statement(s) indicating the Easterlin’s were aware of the 150 foot required setback for kennel operations as currently detailed in Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) of the UDO and has verified this account with both their surveyor, Mr. Steve Yuhasz, and their former attorney Mr. Michael Parker. From staff’s standpoint the issue is moot. The Easterlin’s have been investigating methods and opportunities for addressing compliance issues with the kennel with Planning staff for some time and have finally determined, based on their current attorney’s advice, this is the most viable course of action available to them. 3. A BOCC member asked how many acres of the Eno Township are currently zoned EDE- 2 and how much of that is already developed. STAFF COMMENT: There are approximately 430 acres of property zoned EDE-2 with approximately 180 acres ‘developed’ including underdeveloped acreage and required yard (i.e. setback) areas. 4. A BOCC member asked if it was possible to amend the terms of the existing SUP to reduce the setback. STAFF COMMENT: It is possible to amend the terms of the existing SUP but the ordinance amendment would have to be approved first. Otherwise the 150 foot setback will still have to be observed. SUPs cannot change or modify established development standards required by the UDO unless there is specific language, within the standards section, allowing the reviewing body (i.e. BOCC or Board and/or Adjustment) to impose different standards as determined through the SUP review process. 5. A Planning Board member asked if there had been any complaints from adjacent property owners related to noise or order associated with the kennel operation. STAFF COMMENT: No complaints had been received. The issue here is a unpermitted expansion of the kennel in contradiction to the existing SUP. 6. A couple of BOCC members indicated they believed the request was justified given this amendment would only impact the development of Class II Kennels in the EDE-2 high intensity general use zoning district. 7. A Planning Board member asked if it were possible to provide a more detailed map detailing the location of the kennel operation on the property. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 1. Agenda materials from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140224.pdf 88 Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends denial of the request based on the following: 1. There is nothing inherently significant about the EDE-2 general use zoning district mandating kennel operations be allowed to observe a ‘different’ setback requirement from other non-residential general use zoning districts, where Class II Kennels are allowed, throughout the County. 2. Permitted uses within the EDE-2 zoning district include: a. Offices, b. Retail (i.e. restaurants, retail sales, etc.), c. Financial offices/uses (i.e. bank, finance agency, credit agency, brokerage house, etc.) d. Government uses, e. Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing operations, f. Services (i.e. assembly uses, barber/beauty shops, funeral home, health care, music/dance schools, day care, etc.) g. Wholesale trade operations. These uses have been deemed ‘permitted by right’ meaning they are reviewed and acted upon by staff through the review of a site plan. There are other uses, including Class II Kennels, allowed in the district where the County has determined they are required to go through a heightened level of permit review (i.e. a Special Use Permit process acted upon by either the Board of Adjustment or County Commissioners) to ensure the use is compatible with the surrounding area. These uses are required to adhere to additional development restrictions, including increased setbacks, to address potential impacts on adjacent properties in an effort to ensure there are no adverse impacts. While some of the allowable permitted uses may not be concerned over the proximity of a kennel operation to a common property line, some might. Staff is concerned this may limit the marketability of adjacent, undeveloped, properties. 3. Staff is concerned reducing the required setback to 25 feet will increase ‘complaints’ related to the operational characteristics of a kennel and its impacts on adjacent property development/redevelopment. 4. Staff is not convinced the 25 foot setback currently required for ‘permitted land uses’ within the EDE-2 general use zoning district will provide sufficient separation from a kennel operation and adjacent properties to ensure protection from ‘adverse impacts’ as required under Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO. If there is a recommendation to approve this item, staff would suggest the Board consider a revised version of the amendment contained in Attachment 3 of this abstract. Staff has taken the liberty of modifying the applicant’s proposal to make it consistent with existing UDO formatting and ensured the proposed standards are only applicable to Class II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 general use zoning district as proposed by the applicant. 89 Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by County departments who have determined that the approval or denial of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate on the petition, 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed UDO text amendment in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC meeting. 90 The Black line identifies the area of the property complying with the150 foot setback requirement. NOTE the 150 foot setback does not apply if the operator of the kennel 'ownes or controls' external property. In these cases the underlying setback standards for thedistrict would apply (i.e. 25 feet). The Easterlin's own the 2 external propertieswith frontage along US Highway 70 East The red liine indicates the boundary of the propertywhere the kennel is located. The blue line identifies the existing fence line Lower EnoProtected Watershed US 70 E E N O T R A I L E R P A R K DUKEFORESTPARKLN USGS Water Feature Soils Survey Water Feature OC Updated Water Feature Water Body River Basins Watershed Parcels Township School System Boundary Contours County Boundary Soils Zoning City Limits ETJ Conservation EasementsHeld by Others Orange CountyConservation Easements 100 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Floodway (Effective 02/02/07) 500 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Buildings Water and Sewer Boundary · 0 150 30075Feet 1 inch = 200 feet Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange CountyGIS and is for reference only.Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections. 91 92 93 Article 5: Uses Section 5.6: Standards for Commercial Uses Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-43 5.6.4 Junkyards (A) Standards for Class A Special Use Permit (1) Submittal Requirements – In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use: (a) Detailed plans and specifications for the site screening proposed. (b) Description of type and number of motorized machines to be employed upon site. (c) Indicate on the site plan the extent of area to be used for the storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles (2) Standards for Evaluation - (a) The site shall be screened from adjacent property by a minimum of an eight foot high solid fence or equal, uninterrupted except for required vehicle access points. (b) No materials shall be stored closer than 50 feet to the public right of way or 30 feet to the property lines. (c) Site is of adequate size to protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the junkyard. 5.6.5 Kennels (Class II) (A) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit (1) Submittal Requirements – In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use: (a) Plans for all kennels, exercise yards, dog runs, pens and related improvements, including signage. (b) Site plan showing the improvements listed in a) above, other structures on the same lot, and structures on adjacent property. (2) Standards of Evaluation – (a) The site is of adequate size to protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the kennel. (b) No part of any building, structure, dog run, pen, or exercise yard in which animals are housed or exercised shall be closer than 150 feet from a property line, except property occupied by the owner/operator of the kennel. (i) These minimum distances The 150 foot setback established by this section shall not apply if all portions of the facility, in which animals are housed, are wholly enclosed within a building.1 (ii) For Class II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 zoning district, this setback shall not apply to dog training activities where each dog is under the immediate control of its trainer, owner, or other responsible individual.2 1 This is an existing standard being modified by the applicant. Staff has no concern related to the modification. 2 As originally written by the applicant this would apply to all Class II Kennels, not just those in the EDE-2 zoning district. Staff has modified the language to ensure it only applies to kennels in the EDE-2, consistent with the advertised public hearing, and the stated intent of the applicant. 94 Article 5: Uses Section 5.6: Standards for Commercial Uses Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-44 (iii) For Class II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 zoning district, all buildings, structures, dog runs, pens, or exercise yards in which animals are housed or exercised shall observe the principal setbacks established within Section 3.7 of the UDO in those instances where the property abuts other EDE-2 zoned property and US Highway 70.3,4 (b) Any kennel, including primary enclosures or runs, which is not wholly enclosed within a building shall be enclosed by a security fence at least six feet in height. (c) The site plan shows parking, access areas and screening devices for all buildings and animal boarding facilities existing or proposed for the property. (d) The site plan shall be reviewed by the Orange County Animal Services Department, and found in conformance with the Animal Control Ordinance. (e) Building plans for all kennel facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Animal Services Department prior to issuance of any building permits. (f) A sign clearly visible from the ground shall be posted at the main entrance to the facility and shall contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers where persons responsible for the facility may be contacted at any hour of the day or night. The sign shall comply with dimensional requirements as set forth within this Ordinance. (g) A Class II Kennel Permit shall be obtained from Orange County Animal Services within the first 30 days of occupancy. Failure to obtain and maintain a valid Class II Kennel Permit or other related permits which may be required by the USDA or Wildlife Resources Commission will result in revocation of the Special Use Permit. 5.6.6 Riding Stables (A) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit (1) Submittal Requirements – In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use: (a) Plans for all barns, boarding facilities, exercise yards, riding arenas, and related improvements, including signage. (b) Site plan showing the improvements listed in a) above, other structures on the same lot, and structures on adjacent property. (2) Standards of Evaluation – 3 Per Section 3.7 of the UDO the required setback for all structures developed within EDE-2 is 25 feet from property lines, including those properties with frontage along US Highway 70. Staff has combined the applicant’s proposed subsection(s) (ii) and (iii) in Attachment 2 into a central section. 4 This text amendment will need to generate a comprehensive re-assessment of required setbacks for Class II Kennel operations within all non-residential zoning districts (Community Commercial CC-3 and General Commercial GC- 4). In staff’s opinion there is no justification to treat kennels developed within the EDE-2 district differently from other non-residential general use districts. If this text amendment is approved, staff recommends a separate discussion item at a future Planning Board meeting to review the 150 foot setback requirement in all non-residential general use zoning district designations. There may be a need to modify this regulation in the future to ensure equity for property owners seeking to develop a Class II Kennel and establish a framework where the setback could be reduced. 95 96 97 1 Michael Harvey From:Barry Jacobs Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:50 PM To:Michael Harvey Subject:FW: Public Hearing of February 24, 2014 Regarding Sunny Acres Pet Resort fyi “A great tailor cuts little." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching       From: Susan Heske [susan.heske@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:17 PM To: Barry Jacobs; Earl McKee; Mark Dorosin; Alice Gordon; Bernadette Pelissier; Renee Price; Penny Rich Subject: Public Hearing of February 24, 2014 Regarding Sunny Acres Pet Resort Dear Orange County Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity to speak last night in support of Sunny Acres Pet Resort to amend the zoning of their property and to ask for an exemption from the 150-foot buffer regulation. Sunny Acres is an exceptional small business run by decent hard-working owners who have invested financially, personally, and emotionally in trying to provide the best quality of care and service to their two- and four-legged customers. Also, a number of dogs who go there (including one of mine) are rescue dogs who have been products of unregulated puppy mills in North Carolina. As a community service, Sunny Acres has hosted adoption days for various organizations desperate to find homes for abused, neglected, and abandoned dogs. In response to the testimony of last evening, I am rather concerned about how compliance and complaints are handled. Although a letter from 2006 was referenced several times, I would like to know if this letter has been entered into the public record, and if such letter clearly states that Sunny Acres was not in compliance with the 150-foot buffer regulation and that it (the letter) clearly states the guidelines for specific permits. It is still not clear to me why 8 years has passed regarding this matter and that the only explanation was about some issues with the staff. There does appear to be some inconsistencies as to which businesses have to comply with the 150-foot buffer zone. I also thought it rather inappropriate that an official would testify that it would not be a hardship for the owners of Sunny Acres to move their fences without direct knowledge of what the costs would entail nor the ability or reality for the Easterlin's to incur such costs. Sunny Acres is a small business not a major company like Duke Energy that has "deep pockets" to incur such costs (actually, come to think of it, DE complains about incurring costs on a regular basis so maybe they are not a good example). The feasibility of Sunny Acres moving fences and moving yards (even if the rezoning of their other property is approved) doesn't seem very feasible. Granted, I am not a civil engineer or landscape architect, however relocating several homes and undertaking a major (de)construction project doesn't seem to make a lot of sense and it would be quite costly. I, for one, believe in landshaping - working with the existing landscape in order to make the best use of land while minimizing the environmental impact. Sidebar: I am for solar energy/power, but 98 2 not for the cutting down of approximately 50 acres of trees that are important to this state's environmental well- being. Thank you again for the opportunity to express my support for Sunny Acres. I trust that you will consider favorably their requests. Respectfully, Susan Heske 99 1 Michael Harvey From:Donna Baker Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:56 AM To:Michael Harvey Subject:FW: Sunny Acres Pet Resort zoning     Donna Baker  Clerk to the Board  P.O. Box 8181  200 South Cameron St.  Hillsborough, N.C. 27278  Phone:  (919) 245‐2130  Fax:       (919) 644‐0246  Cell:       (919) 428‐3212  dbaker@orangecountync.gov     From: Nick England [mailto:nick.england@3rdtech.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:04 PM To: ALL_BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK Subject: Sunny Acres Pet Resort zoning Dear Commissioners: I am writing to support Sunny Acres Pet Resort in their request to continue their Doggy Day Camp business. It is my understanding that Sunny Acres is a very desirable business that evidently has no negative impact on the neighborhood (having been in existence for many years), is located in the proper zoning area, has a very positive economic impact and provides local employment in these tough times, and makes a really positive contribution to the life of dogs and their humans (like me). They are truly friendly people and provide a great service to the community. There are many dog owners in the area who definitely need Sunny Acres to provide the valuable exercise and playtime socialization to keep their dogs healthy and happy. I understand that this long-established well-liked business had the proper Special Use permit when they fenced in their exercise areas, but now they are being required to meet a 150' setback rule that wasn't even in place when they installed these fences. Please do whatever is necessary to change or fix the rules to allow these people to continue their valuable service and contributions to the economic health of the community. It will surely be a travesty if these fine people are forced to close a valuable local business even when they acted in good faith and in accordance with all the rules. Nick England (also writing for Emma the springer spaniel) 811 Kenmore Rd Chapel Hill NC 27514 100