HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 1008141
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3-4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for October and November
i. Next regular meeting on Nov. 5th
ii. Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing
on Nov. 24th
3.
5-10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 3, 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
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 11-26 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - To
make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated
amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan
to assign County land use classifications to approximately 500 acres of
property that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) located generally near the Eno River
between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough
Townships. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly
public hearing.
Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
8. 27-48 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation to the BOCC
on government-initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas to assign
County zoning districts to approximately 500 acres of property that are
to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) located generally near the Eno River between US 70
W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. This item was
heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
9. 49-70 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a
recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to
the text of the UDO to require that a neighborhood information meeting
be held at least 45 days prior to the public hearing regarding
applications for a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit. This item
was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
10. 71-76 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To either
provide input or make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing
public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning
Atlas-related items/amendments. This item was heard at the
September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
11.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
12. 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
October 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
November 2014October 2014
Se
p
2
8
-
O
c
t
4
Sep 28 29 30 Oct 1 2 3 4
7:00pm Fire
Department
Work Session
(Whitted
Building)
Oc
t
5
-
1
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(note change
of date)
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
Oc
t
1
2
-
1
8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm BOCC
Work Session
(Whitted
Building)
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
BOCC/Town
of Carrboro
Joint Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
Oc
t
1
9
-
2
5
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
Oc
t
2
6
-
N
o
v
1
26 27 28 29 30 31 Nov 1
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
November 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
December 2014November 2014
Oc
t
2
6
-
N
o
v
1
Oct 26 27 28 29 30 31 Nov 1
No
v
2
-
8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
No
v
9
-
1
5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
BOCC Work
Session
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
No
v
1
6
-
2
2
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
7:00pm
No
v
2
3
-
2
9
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
HOLIDAY HOLIDAY
No
v
3
0
-
D
e
c
6
30 Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
D R A F T
1
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 8
Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 9
Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 10
Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-11
Large Chapel Hill Township; 12
13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham 15
Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; 16
17
18 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri, 19
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Patrick Mallett, Planner II, Abigaile Pittman, Transportation Planner, Tina Love, 20
Administrative Assistant II 21
22
23 OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Boylan, Dave Hausfel, Glenn Futrell 24
25
26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 27 28
29
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 30
a) Planning Calendar for September and October 31
32
33 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 34 JULY 2, 2014 ORC MEETING NOTES 35 JULY 2, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 36 37 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the July 2, 2014 ORC meeting notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 39 40 MOTION by Laura Nicholson to approve the July 2, 2014 Planning Board minutes with changes. Seconded by James 41
Lea. 42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 43 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 46 47
48 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 49 50 Introduction to the Public Charge 51
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 52
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 53
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 54
5
D R A F T
2
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 55
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 56
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 57
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 58
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 59
60
61 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 62 63
Pete Hallenbeck: If you are on the Planning Board, you need to be at the public hearing. 64 65 66 AGENDA ITEM 7: MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a decision on a Major 67
Subdivision Preliminary Plat application. Pleasant Green Woods, Phase IV, located off of 68
Pleasant Green Road. The plan is consistent with the Concept Plan Flexible Design Option 69
reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in February 2014. The Plan calls for 16 single 70
family residential lots on a 46.34 acre tract. 16.53 acres (35.6%) of the site is reserved for 71
primary and secondary open space. 72 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II. 73
74
Patrick Mallett reviewed abstract. 75
76
Paul Guthrie: It is an acre and one half? 77
78
Patrick Mallett: Yes. There is a 100 foot perimeter setback so that setback would go further down. 79
80
Terry Boylan: That is one of those properties that between the setbacks and the stream buffer and there is no 81
suitable soil for septic, it is above and beyond what is required for the open space. It is not developable. 82
83
Pete Hallenbeck: If the person that bought the lot didn’t want to buy the land, it would be space you could not do 84
anything with unless the residents got together and agreed upon something to put there. 85
86
Terry Boylan: Correct. 87
88
Pete Hallenbeck: What is the acreage of the fire pond? 89
90
Terry Boylan: The lot itself is about an acre and one half and that is ¾ of an acre. It is designed to hold water during 91
the 50 year drought and some depth below that. 92
93
Pete Hallenbeck: You want it to be at least 4 feet deep preferably 5 feet which would give you 44,000 gallons. 94
95
Patrick Mallett: We will make sure the fire marshal is satisfied with the volume. 96
97
Pete Hallenbeck: Is Paper Birch a DOT road? 98
99
Patrick Mallett: They have submitted an application and the right of way has been dedicated. 100
101
Terry Boylan: There are some items being taken care of in terms of BMPs. 102
103
Pete Hallenbeck: So you are still moving in that direction. The road to the development will be DOT standard. 104
105
Terry Boylan: Yes. 106
107
6
D R A F T
3
Patrick Mallett: Typically the right of way is dedicated and then the road can be accepted but they want to see 108
everything. 109
110
Lisa Stuckey: Behind lot 1, there is an open space that is a recreation lot, how would the other residents access that 111
lot? 112
113
Terry Boylan: That lot can be access from Paper Birch Lane by foot. 114
115
Lisa Stuckey: Across the Hobbs Lot, that is an easement that exists that is part of the … 116
117
Terry Boylan: That is the stream buffer. 118
119
Lisa Stuckey: So is it an easement for residents or just to keep people off? 120
121
Terry Boylan: That is an extension of this buffer for the stream. 122
123
Tony Blake: Are you putting in the hydrants? 124
125
Terry Boylan: In talking to the fire marshal, they prefer to be able to extend the hose. They have a platform they put 126
it on a floating dock instead of a hydrant. 127
128
Pete Hallenbeck: I would suggest you talk to the fire department serving this. 129
130
Patrick Mallett: With a Major Subdivision, you go through the concept, preliminary plan and then they go through that 131
exercise. At this point, we make sure it can work. 132
133
Michael Harvey: We have been meeting our Orange County Emergency Services to discuss regional impoundment 134
systems to address fire access issues. Part of that problem that came up with Triple Crown Farm was a concern 135
there were no fire ponds in the area and the developer who was willing to address his comments was not willing to 136
build a fire pond that would kill two of his lots to satisfy an impoundment need globally so we are meeting to discuss 137
regional impoundment systems. 138
139
Paul Guthrie: Are you far enough along that you are satisfied that the density of the wells on this site will be able to 140
provide the water? Do you know what the water conditions are that you will be drilling into? 141
142
Terry Boylan: There has been no individual well testing. 143
144
Paul Guthrie: You have densities there that I would be curious that if you had any idea how deep you will have to go 145
or is that still to be found out? 146
147
Terry Boylan: That is still to be found out. 148
149
Paul Guthrie: Are you comfortable with the location of the septic fields and the density of the septic fields as opposed 150
to being adjacent to a cluster of wells? 151
152
Terry Boylan: We showed the wells with 100 foot rings. We had a consultant come out and preliminarily locate the 153
septic and an engineer from Environmental Health came out to determine the depths and the types of systems they 154
will support. 155
156
Paul Guthrie: In locating the septic fields, were you using an anticipated house size? 157
158
Terry Boylan: They are sized for four or five bedroom houses. 159
160
Patrick Mallett: Environmental Health is satisfied. 161
7
D R A F T
4
162
Andrea Rohrbacher: I have the same question Lisa had about the feasibly of access to the buffer area. 163
164
Pete Hallenbeck: I think it is interesting on this fire pond, putting an open space area, you are taking this thing that is 165
nice and required, a pond and giving it an opportunity to make a nice open space area with a water feature. 166
167 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the proposal as presented in our packet. Seconded by Tony Blake. 168 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 169
170
171 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a decision on a Major 172
Subdivision Preliminary Plat application. Stroud’s Creek located southwest of the intersection 173
of NC Highway 57 and Stroud’s Creek Road. The Plan is consistent with the Concept Plan 174
Flexible Design Option reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in June 2014. The 175
Preliminary Plat calls for 14 single family residential lots on a 25.33 acre tract. 17.21 acres 176
(67.96%) of the site is reserved for primary and secondary open space. 177 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II. 178
179
Patrick Mallett Reviewed abstract. 180
181
Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions or comments? 182
183 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve this application. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 184 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 185
186
187 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE PRIVATE ROAD AND ACCESS STANDARDS: To receive 188
information about a current multi-department advisory board project involving the review of 189
private road and access standards and to receive the Board’s comments. 190
Presenter: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation and Land Use Planner 191
192
Abigaile Pittman presented abstract. 193
194
Lisa Stuckey: Would the pullover roads apply just to 18 foot wide roads? 195
196
Abigaile Pittman: It would apply to any one way road. 197
198
Paul Guthrie: What is the definition of a private road? 199
200
Abigaile Pittman: One that is not accepted for public maintenance. Not built to public maintenance standards. 201
202
Paul Guthrie: There are no use standards or number of properties attached to define it; it has to do strictly with the 203
shape and construction of the road. 204
205
Abigaile Pittman: Yes. 206
207
Pete Hallenbeck: A private road is one that NCDOT does not maintain. 208
209
Paul Guthrie: Any existing non-public road servicing more than one household is grandfathered until an effort is 210
made to do some sort of planning development. 211
212
Abigaile Pittman: The new regulations are not retroactive. 213
214
Paul Guthrie: What would trigger on that situation this proposal? 215
8
D R A F T
5
216
Michael Harvey: Someone coming in and trying to subdivide any of those existing lots. There are two dual issues 217
here. We have an addressing ordinance that is enforced by Orange County Land of Records via the attorney’s office 218
that spells out road serving x number of lots or certain size has to be name. That is part of the ordinance. County 219
subdivision regulations have been adopted over the years. We didn’t get private road standards until 1998-2000 so 220
the County has a history of subdivision development some of which have been done under different standards. We 221
also have several properties in the County that have exercised their right under the general statute to develop their 222
property or subdivide their property through the exempt subdivision process. By state law, we have no review 223
authority and cannot hold them to any specific requirements identified in our subdivision standards. 224
225
Abigaile Pittman: The standard we are recommending to address those exempt subdivisions is to develop a 226
requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road, public or private, for emergency responders. 227
228
Tony Blake: I do want to have this discussion around water supply at some point. 229
230
Lisa Stuckey: I do think it would be a good idea to say that if you have a gate we can’t get through, there should not 231
be any discussion about who owes what for whom. 232
233
Craig Benedict: It is important how we differentiate what would go in the UDO and what needs to be handled by 234
other ordinances. 235
236
Paul Guthrie: In the emergency access to trails systems, there are two sides to it, one is providing the access points 237
but the trails may not be able to accommodate the size vehicles we have. We may need smaller vehicles. 238
239
Pete Hallenbeck: I like the three lots on the driveway. 240
241
Craig Benedict: You will probably need a road name. 242
243
Pete Hallenbeck: We have a few roads in Efland we cannot get the fire trucks down. With the pullovers, anyone who 244
had to go through a 1700 foot road would appreciate those pullovers. 245
246
247 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 248
a. Board of Adjustment 249
250
Michael Harvey: There were two meetings in August. The first was a regular meeting reviewing an application for 251
Chestnut Ridge United Method Church for a daycare which requires a Class B Special Use permit which was issued. 252
There was special hearing on August 27 to review an application to allow for PSNC natural gas line to be installed in 253
the county. The permit was issued and we will see what will come from that. I always expect litigation. 254
Unfortunately, I believe there is no issue that anyone can argue to overturn the decision because PSNC, at the onset 255
of the meeting filed their formal objection that North Carolina state law regulations actually preempts local approval of 256
utility lines. A majority of the issues at the hearing involved a perception by local residents that PSNC was less than 257
forth coming with information, they were rude and refused to provide required information and they are not being 258
adequately compensated for these new lines. There were also arguments there have been gas lines explosions as 259
such the County cannot issue the permit. There were also arguments that this would have a negative impact on 260
adjacent property value. 261
262
Pete Hallenbeck: What is the size of the line? 263
264
Michael Harvey: A 16 inch line from Mebane Oaks to the existing Regulator Station in the Town of Carrboro planning 265
jurisdiction on NC Highway 86. The reason for this permit was because it went through private property 266
267
Paul Guthrie: Do you have any information as to whether this large pipeline that was announced from West Virginia 268
to Eastern North Carolina will run near Orange County? 269
9
D R A F T
6
270
Michael Harvey: No but it is running into severe opposition in West Virginia. 271
272
AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT: 273 274
MOTION by Paul Guthrie to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 275 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 276
277
10
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 8, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment – Related to
Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Relinquishment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan/Future Land Use
Map and UDO Amendment Outline Form
(CP and Zoning 2013-02)
2. FLUM Hillsborough Surrounds
3. FLUM Classification Comparison
4. Orthophotos and Table Summarizing
Existing Land Uses
INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Tom Altieri, Planning, 245-2575
Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2592
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation on a County initiated amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) affecting approximately 500-acres located
generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough
Townships. This amendment assigns County future land use classifications to properties that
are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), which is to
become effective October 1, 2014. This item is companion to Action Agenda Item No. 8,
“Zoning Atlas Amendment.”
BACKGROUND: Through a previous joint planning process with Orange County, the Town of
Hillsborough identified an Urban Service Area outside of which municipal services, such as
public water or sewer, will not be provided. To establish consistency with the Urban Service
Area, the Town is adjusting its ETJ boundary to exclude any properties located outside its
intended area for urban services. Please see Section B of Attachment 1 for relevant
information.
The “Amendment Outline Form” (Attachment 1) for these amendments was approved by the
BOCC at its November 19, 2013 regular meeting.
In May of this year, the BOCC and Hillsborough Town Board approved a resolution (Attachment
2) amending a 2009 agreement to reflect the intent to continue coordination with Hillsborough to
relinquish some areas of its ETJ but to end the ETJ expansion process that had been initiated.
Properties are to be classified to County Future Land Use Classifications, which in this case
includes: Agricultural Residential and Public Interest District (portions to include Watershed
Protection Overlay Districts). A map showing the proposed FLUM Classifications is provided in
Attachment 1.
Public Hearing
11
The proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan FLUM amendment was heard at the September 8,
2014 joint public hearing. No members of the public spoke on the proposed amendment.
However, the BOCC had primarily one question:
Why is staff recommending application of the “Agricultural Residential” FLUM
classification versus the “Rural Residential” classification to the properties effected by the
Town’s ETJ relinquishment?
Staff response – Beyond the materials that were included in the joint public hearing
packet, staff has included a larger view of the FLUM that includes the entire Hillsborough
periphery (Attachment 2). Staff posits that the Agricultural Residential FLUM category is
consistent with FLUM categories applied in the general amendment area and the only
“base” (i.e. not an overlay) that currently exists north of Interstate 85 along the
Hillsborough fringe and Eno River.
Although the Rural Residential FLUM category is not substantially different from
Agricultural Residential, there are some subtle differences (Attachment 3), which also
contributed to staff’s recommendation. For example the Population Density Locational
Criteria for Rural Residential is “Generally 1 dwelling unit per acre” compared to
Agricultural Residential, which is “Dispersed low-density typical of agricultural areas.”
Furthermore, the Agricultural Residential FLUM category is consistent with the existing
land uses present in the amendment areas. Attachment 4 provides orthophotos of the
amendment areas and a table that summarizes existing land uses. Fifty-six percent
(56%) of the amendment area consists of Public/Quasi-Public/Institutional (i.e. Duke
Forest, Assoc. for the Preservation of the Eno River Valley, State of NC, NCDOT,
Krishna Temple, etc.) existing land uses and 19% of the amendment area is under the
Present Use Value program.
A video of the joint public hearing can be viewed from the following link:
http://orange-nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=750
Procedural Information
In accordance with Section 2.3.10 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not
presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s
recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board 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.
Planning Director’s Recommendation
The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan
FLUM amendment based on the following:
a. Staff has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to pursue
implementation of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement
(2009 and as amended 2014); and
b. This amendment is consistent with land use goals and objectives of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan; and
12
c. The request for the amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with the
requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 and of the Unified Development Ordinance; and
d. The proposed FLUM classification and overlays are consistent and compatible with those of
the surrounding area and in general, are of a very low density residential and
conservation minded nature.
Link to Additional Background Information
Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement and Map (Includes guidance for
Town ETJ adjustment)-
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/Hillsborough-
OrangeInterlocalLandManagementAgreement.pdf
Joint Resolution Amending the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement
(Includes additional guidance for Town ETJ adjustment)-
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/JointResolutionAmendingOC-
HillsboroughCOCAAgreement.pdf
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Sections C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendment;
2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation to approve the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan FLUM amendment; and,
3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan
FLUM amendment in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC meeting.
13
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
CP and Zoning-2013-02
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Interlocal Agreement
Implementation – Adjustment of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ) and Application of County Future Land Use Map Classifications and
Zoning
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments (Also see maps attached at end)
Future Land Use Map:
From: Town of Hillsborough Land Use Classification
To: Agricultural Residential (Portions to include Watershed and Resource
Protection, and Public Interest Area overlays)
Zoning Map:
From: Town of Hillsborough Zoning
To: AR Agricultural Residential and PID Public Interest District (Portions to
include Watershed Protection, Special Flood Hazard, and Major
Transportation Corridor Overlays)
Other: To address Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
retraction
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s):
Other:
Attachment 1 14
2
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
Continue the implementation of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land
Management Agreement (2009) through adjustment of the Town’s Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction (abandonment of some existing ETJ).
2. Analysis
As required under Sections 2.3.9 and 2.8.5 of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to
be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a
recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners’. In analyzing this proposal, the following information is offered:
a. Staff has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to pursue
implementation of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement
(2009 and as amended 2014).
b. This amendment is consistent with land use goals and objectives of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
c. The request for the amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with
the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 and of the Unified Development Ordinance.
d. The proposed Future Land Use Classification, zoning districts, and overlays are
consistent and compatible with those of the surrounding area and in general, are of a
very low density residential and conservation minded nature.
Proposed Changes
2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment - Properties are to be
classified to County Land Use Classifications, which in these cases include:
Agricultural Residential (portions to include Watershed and Resource Protection and
Public Interest Area overlays). The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) of the twenty-
two parcels included in this amendment are:
9864212218 9864294255 9864165305 9854989358
9864111534 9864012864 9864175152 9864135926
9864015589 9864074274 9864210925 9864111926
9864122219 9864028637 9864312586 9864155705
9864124872 9864138329 9864319480
9864224688 9864069297 9854980353
Zoning Atlas Amendment - Properties are to be zoned to County zoning districts,
which in these cases include: Agricultural Residential (AR) and Public Interest District
(PID) (portions to include Watershed Protection, Special Flood Hazard, and Major
Transportation Corridor Overlays). The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) of the
twenty-two parcels included in this amendment are:
9864212218 9864294255 9864165305 9854989358
15
3
9864111534 9864012864 9864175152 9864135926
9864015589 9864074274 9864210925 9864111926
9864122219 9864028637 9864312586 9864155705
9864124872 9864138329 9864319480
9864224688 9864069297 9854980353
Maps depicting the proposed Land Use Classifications and zoning districts are
provided immediately following this amendment outline form.
Background
Town of Hillsborough Initiation - Orange County received a letter in September 2013
conveying Town Board action and adoption of a resolution indicating its interest in
releasing areas west of town from its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and requesting
jurisdiction over areas defined in the Interlocal Land Management Agreement.
Coordination between the respective staffs was also requested to begin identifying
the required steps and to process the adjustments.
Joint Information Meeting - A Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Joint Information
Meeting was held January 9, 2014 to help inform property owners of the process,
implications, and answer questions. Over 50 residents attended the meeting,
including some BOCC and Town Board representatives. Nearly all attendees were
owners of property within the areas proposed to be added to the ETJ.
Joint BOCC and Hillsborough Town Board Meeting:
At a February 27, 2014 Joint Meeting, the Boards received an update on the process
and outreach from staff. Following discussion between the boards, it was informally
concluded that due to feedback received from the public, changes in State
annexation law, and achievement of the vision articulated by the Agreement, both
parties agreed to consider stopping ETJ expansion and formally consider a joint
resolution amending the Agreement to that effect.
Joint Resolution Amending the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management
Agreement for the Central Orange Coordinated Area – At its meeting on May 8,
2014, the BOCC adopted a resolution amending the Interlocal Agreement to reflect
the intent to continue coordination with Hillsborough to relinquish some areas of its
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), as defined in the Agreement, back to the County
and end the ETJ expansion process. The Hillsborough Town Board followed suit at
its meeting on May 12, 2014.
Town of Hillsborough Public Hearing - The Town of Hillsborough held a public
hearing on July 17, 2014 for relinquishing the respective properties from its ETJ.
There were no public comments conveyed and no discussion among board
members. Subsequently, on August 21, 2014 the Town’s Planning Board
unanimously recommended approval of the ETJ adjustment as proposed. At its
meeting on September 8, 2014, the Hillsborough Town Board is expected to approve
the ETJ adjustment to become effective on October 1, 2014. The effective date was
selected to allow Orange County sufficient time to process its Future Land Use Map
and zoning atlas amendments within 60-days, consistent with State law.
16
4
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
life.
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.
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.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 19, 2013
b. BOCC Public Hearing
September 8, 2014
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
May 8, 2014 – Adopted Joint resolution amending Interlocal Agreement
June 17, 2014 – Approved Legal Ad for public hearing
17
5
d. Other
Summary of Timeline and Key Steps
Adjustment of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and Application of
County Land Use Element Map Classifications and Zoning
2013
September 9 Town adopted resolution of intent
November 19 BOCC authorization to proceed
December Preparation of public outreach and notification materials (i.e. ETJ
Q&A document and maps)
2014
January 9 Joint Public Information Meeting (Property owners notified via
First Class Mail)
February 27 Joint BOCC and Hillsborough Town Board Meeting
May 8 BOCC adopted joint resolution amending the Interlocal
Agreement to end ETJ expansion and continue retraction
(Property owners notified via First Class Mail)
June 17 BOCC legal ad approved for September Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing to apply Future Land Use and
Zoning designations to areas of new County jurisdiction
(Property owners notified via First Class Mail)
October 8 Orange County Planning Board recommendation
November 6 BOCC adoption of Future Land Use and Zoning designations
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements. Additionally, staff held a Joint Public
Information Meeting on January 9, 2014 to explain the process and its implications to
the public and property owners in affected areas. Property owners were notified of
the Joint Public Information Meeting, as well as the May 8, 2014 BOCC meeting for
consideration of the joint resolution amending the Interlocal Agreement, via First
Class Mail.
a. Planning Board Review:
18
6
October 8, 2014
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
July 17, 2014 Town of Hillsborough
Public Hearing (No public comments
offered)
September 8, 2014 Town of
Hillsborough action (To become
effective October 1, 2014)
August 21, 2014 Town Planning
Board Recommendation for approval
(Unanimous)
d. Notice Requirements
This item was included in the Quarterly Public Hearing legal ad; notices were
mailed to affected property owners and property owners within 500-feet of
affected properties; and signs were posted in the affected area. The Town of
Hillsborough had additional legal ad and notification responsibilities consistent
with State law for its actions to relinquish portions of the Town’s ETJ.
e. Outreach:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Existing Planning staff will accomplish the work required to coordinate with Town of
Hillsborough staff on its ETJ adjustment and application of County Future Land Use
Classifications and Zoning to areas removed from the Town’s ETJ. The required
legal ad and first class mail notices were paid with Departmental funds already
budgeted for this purpose.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
See Sections B.1 and C. 2. Of this Amendment Outline.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
N/A
Primary Staff Contact:
Tom Altieri, AICP
Planning Department
(919) 245-2579
taltieri@orangecountync.gov
General Public: Joint Public Information Meeting January 9, 2014
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
19
I§
!"c$
!"c$
!"_$
WESTHILLAVEN
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
SOUTHST
W K I N G S T
MUR
R
A
Y
S
T
REXDR
LATIMER ST
EN O S T
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
I§
!"c$!"_$
!"c$
WESTHILLAVEN
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
SOUTHST
W K I N G S T
MUR
R
A
Y
S
T
REXDR
L ATIMER ST
EN O S T
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
Assignment of County Land Use Classifications to Areas Removed from Hillsborough ETJ
Urban Service AreaRemove from ETJParcels10 Year TransitionRural ResidentialAgricultural ResidentialCity LimitsETJOverlaysWatershed Critical AreasWater Supply Watersheds
Resource Protection AreasPublic Interest Areas
·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (7/14/2014)
0 500Feet
1 in = 1,320 feet
Current Future Land Use Map Proposed Future Land Use Map
20
I§
!"c$
!"c$
!"_$
WESTHILL
A
V
E
N
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
W
E
S
T
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
S
SOUTHST
W K I N G S T
REXDR
WINDCHIMEWAY
E N O S T
LATIMER ST
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
V I R GI N I A C ATES
R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
M
U
R
R
A
Y
S
T
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
ORAN
G
E
HEI
G
H
T
S
LO
O
P
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
I§
!"c$!"_$
!"c$
RILEYAVE
ROSEWOOD RD
WKING ST
WADDELL ST
PRABHUPADADR
RAYNORST
WESTHILL
A
V
E
N
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
W
E
S
T
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
S
SOUTHST
REXDR E N O S T
LATIMER ST
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
V I R GI N I A C ATES
R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
M
U
R
R
A
Y
S
T
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
ORAN
G
E
HEI
G
H
TS
LO
OP
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
Assignment of County Zoning to Areas Removed from Hillsborough ETJ
Urban Service Area
Remove from ETJ
Parcels
Agricultural Residential (AR)
City Limits
ETJ
Existing Commercial (EC5)
Public Interest District (PID)
Rural Residential (R1)
Overlays
Watershed Critical Areas
Water Supply Watersheds
Major Transportation Corridor
Special Flood Hazard Areas
·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (7/14/2014)
0 500Feet
1 in = 1,320 feet
Current Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map
21
Amendment Area
Amendment Area
Chapel Hill Twp
Efland
Hillsborough
Lower Eno Watershed
S T M A R Y S R D
US 70 W
ORAN G E G R O V E R D
US 70 E
BORLAND
R
D
W
E
S
T
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
S
OAKDALE D R
REVERERD
L E BANONRD
C
OLE
M
A
N
LOO P
NC
5
7
NC
5
7
WESTHILL
A
V
E
N
C O R N E LIUS ST
US 70A
OLD NC 10
US70E
N
C
8
6
N
O
D
E
T
U
R
N
E
R
RD
NE WHOP
E
CHU R C H RD
W E S T T E N R D
I85US
70CONNECTOR
IRARD
RI
C
H
M
OND
RD
UNIVERSITYSTATION R D
NEW
SHARON
CHURCHRD
DIMMOC
K
S
MILLRD
DAVISRD
EFLAN
D
C
E
D
A
R
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
D A V IS RD
B
A
L
D
W
I
N
R
D
I 85 S
I 4
0
W
I 85 N
I 85 S I 40 WI85NI40E
I 85 N EXIT 164
I 40 WEXIT 261
BUSHYCOOKRD
I 4
0
E
O
L
D
N
C
8
6
N
C
8
6
S
N
C
8
6
S
FAUCETTEMILLRD
SCHURTONST
HIG
H
R
O
C
K
RD
MTHERM
O
NCHURC HRD
LAWRENCERD
N
N
A
S
H
S
T
BROOKHOLLOWRD
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
RIDGECHURC H R D
E
N
OMOUNTAIN
R
D
M T WILLIN G R D
M
I
L
L
E
R
R
D
MILLE R R D
FRANK PERRYRD
Future Land Use Mapof the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
0 2,000Feet1 in = 1 mile
.Adoption Date: Nov 18,2008Amended through February 2012
Watershed Critical Areas
Water Supply Watersheds
OC/CH/CA Joint Planning Area
Resource Protection Areas
Public Interest Areas
10 Year Transition
20 Year Transition
Rural Residential
Rural Buffer
Agricultural Residential
City Limits
ETJ
Rural Neighborhood
Commercial Transition
Economic Development Transition
Commercial-Industrial Transition
Rural Industrial
Amendment Area
Orange County and Planning and Inspections Department.This copy printed September 30, 2014. Map is for reference use only.Contact Planning staff for verification of data.
22
Attachment 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION COMPARISON
RURAL RESIDENTIAL and AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS
09/12/2014
RURAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL
FUTURE LAND USE DEFINITION:
Rural Residential - Land in the rural areas of
the County which is appropriate for low
intensity and low-density residential
development and which would not be
dependent on urban services.
Agricultural Residential – Land in the rural
areas where the prevailing land use activities
are related to the land (agriculture, forestry)
and which is an appropriate location for the
continuation of these uses.
FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING
APPLICATION:
Rural Residential – Identifies rural areas to be
developed as low intensity and low density
residential. The applied zoning district is R-1
(Low Density Residential).
Agricultural Residential – Agricultural activities
and associated residential and commercial
uses predominate. The applied zoning districts
reflect this primary land use and include: AR
(Agriculture Residential) and AS (Agricultural
Services).
LOCATIONAL CRITERIA RURAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL
Land/Slope Overall slope of less than 15% No evaluation
Hydrology Outside of 100-yr. flood prone areas No evaluation
Flora and Fauna Away from sites with endangered species No evaluation
Soil Conditions Suitable for on-site sewage disposal systems Suitable for agriculture production
Public Services/Utilities Areas that will not require urban-type services Areas where urban services, especially water
and sewer lines, are not needed
and should be discouraged
Transportation System No evaluation No evaluation
Energy Use At least 5 min. commute from activity node No evaluation
Population Density Generally 1 dwelling unit per acre Dispersed low-density typical of AG areas
Agriculture and Forestry No detrimental impact on productive
agricultural (AG) and forest land
See existing land uses
Historic and Cultural No detrimental impact on state/federal
historic/cultural sites or County
Public Interest sites
No detrimental impact on state/federal
historic/cultural sites or County
Public Interest sites
Existing Land Use Located in association with other low-density
rural residential uses in general proximity to
developed or developing activity nodes
Located in areas where the prevailing activity is
agriculture or forestry
A highlighted difference between the two Future Land Use Map classifications and rationale for staff’s recommendation to apply the
Agricultural Residential classification to the properties that are being relinquished from the Town of Hillsborough ETJ.
23
LATIMER ST
U S 7 0 W
WEST HILLAVE N
PEACE ST
BENJOHNSTO N R D
M I R A N D Y A V E
KING JAME
S
R
D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
R
O
S
E
W
O
O
D
RD
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
L E N APEE T R L
Areas Removed from Hillsborough ETJ (2013 Imagery)
Remove from ETJ
Parcels ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (9/19/2014)
0 200Feet
1 in = 600 feet
24
B E N J O H N S T O N RD
R
I
L
E
Y
A
V
E
I 85 N
RUBY LN
DIMMOCKS MILL R D
REX
D
R
E N O S T
I 85
N
I
4
0
E
V I R G I N I A C A T E S RD
M
U
R
R
A
Y
S
T
I 40 W
I 85 S
I 40
E
BARRACKSRD
T
I
M
B
E
R
S
D
R
B
I
N
F
O
R
D
S
T
I85I40EXIT163
I 85I40EXIT163
Areas Removed from Hillsborough ETJ (2013 Imagery)
Remove from ETJ
Parcels ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (9/19/2014)
0 200Feet
1 in = 600 feet
25
Attachment 4
Summary of Existing Land Uses
PIN OWNER1_LAST
FARM USE
VALUE
Acres Inside
Amendment
Areas
9854980353 PALMER Yes 10.82
9854989358 PALMER Yes 22.57
9864012864 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0.04
9864028637 KRISHNA TEMPLE OF NC 6.01
9864069297 MAYO 0.97
9864111534 BABA 12.68
9864111926 SPAINE 10.15
9864122219 COON ROCK FARM LLC Yes 10.42
9864124872 COON ROCK FARM LLC Yes 10.28
9864135926 PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP 6.24
9864138329 MALINOWSKI Yes 17.30
9864155705 WAGNER 8.37
9864165305 MEDLIN 10.31
9864175152 MEDLIN 10.02
9864210925 MORTON 7.34
9864212218
ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF
THE ENO RIVER VALLEY INC 15.04
9864224688 COON ROCK FARM LLC Yes 22.60
9864294255 CRAIG 7.28
9864312586 NORTH CAROLINA STATE 65.08
9864319480 ORANGE COUNTY 4.06
9864015589 CATES 5.98
9864074274 DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY 172.99
ROW & River 48.72
Total 485.26
Existing Land Use Properties Acreage % of Total
Private Non-Farm Use 9 73.09 15%
Private Farm Use 6 93.99 19%
Public/Quasi-Public/Institutional 8 269.46 56%
R.O.W and Eno River N/A 48.72 10%
Total 22 485.26 100%
26
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 8, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment – Related to Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) Relinquishment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan/Future Land Use
Map and UDO Amendment Outline Form
(CP and Zoning 2013-02)
2. Zoning Map Hillsborough Surrounds
3. Zoning Classification Comparison
4. Consistency Statements
INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Tom Altieri, Planning, 245-2575
Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2592
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation on a County initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas
affecting approximately 500-acres located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and
I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. This amendment assigns County zoning to
properties that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ), which is to become effective October 1, 2014. This item is companion to Action Agenda
Item No. 7, “2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment.”
BACKGROUND: Please see Section B of Attachment 1 for relevant information.
The “Amendment Outline Form” (Attachment 1) for these amendments was approved by the
BOCC at its November 19, 2013 regular meeting.
In May of this year, the BOCC and Hillsborough Town Board approved a resolution amending a
2009 agreement to reflect the intent to continue coordination with Hillsborough to relinquish
some areas of its ETJ but to end the ETJ expansion process that had been initiated.
Properties are to be zoned to County zoning districts, which in this case includes: Agricultural
Residential (AR) and Public Interest District (PID) (portions to include Watershed Protection, Special
Flood Hazard, and Major Transportation Corridor Overlays). A map showing the proposed
zoning is provided in Attachment 1.
Public Hearing
The proposed zoning atlas amendment was heard at the September 8, 2014 joint public
hearing. No members of the public spoke on the proposed amendment. However, the BOCC
had primarily two questions:
27
1. Why is staff recommending application of the “Agricultural Residential (AR)” zoning
district versus the “Rural Residential (R1)” district to some of the properties affected by the
Town’s ETJ relinquishment?
Staff response – Beyond the materials that were included in the joint public hearing packet,
staff has included a larger view of the zoning atlas that includes the entire Hillsborough
periphery (Attachment 2). Staff posits that the AR zoning district is consistent with the
zoning applied in the general amendment area. The northern amendment area is more
similar to lands to the west and north which are also AR, Public Interest District (PID), and
Watershed Critical Area. For the southern amendment area, although there are some
properties on the west side of Dimmocks Mill Road, north of I-85/40, that are presently
zoned R1, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) has those
properties classified as Agricultural Residential. As defined in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, Appendix F, the companion zoning district for the Agricultural Residential FLUM
classification is AR exclusively and not R1. In other words, to apply R1 zoning, it should be
located within an area classified as Agricultural Residential on the FLUM. Therefore, staff
cannot recommend that an existing inconsistency in the application of R1 zoning just outside
the proposed amendment area be exacerbated by adding additional R1 within the
amendment area on the east side of Dimmocks Mill Road.
Although the Dimensional and Ratio Standards between the R1 and AR zoning districts are
nearly identical, there is one difference in the minimum lot width standard and some
differences in the uses permitted within the two districts. As part of Unified Development
Ordinance amendments implementing Agricultural Support Enterprises, additional
Agricultural Uses were added to the Table of Permitted Uses in May of this year (Attachment
3). The permitted Agricultural Uses and minimum lot width standard (150-ft) associated with
AR are more compatible with the existing land uses and character of the amendment areas
than those associated with R1 (130-ft). Orthophotos of the amendment areas and a table
that summarizes existing land uses were provided as part of the materials for Agenda Item
7, “2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment.”
2. What would happen if a development application was submitted within the amendment
area during the time period between the effective date of the Town’s ETJ relinquishment
(October 1, 2014) and conclusion of the County’s amendment process (November 6, 2014)
to apply its FLUM classifications and zoning?
Staff response - The North Carolina General Statutes (Section 160A-360(f1)) allow the Town
to continue to enforce its regulations for either 60 days or until the County adopts its FLUM
and zoning amendments, whichever comes first. Since the Town’s relinquishment becomes
effective October 1, the Town’s planning regulations and powers of enforcement remain in
effect until Dec 1 or when the BOCC concludes the County’s process on November 6.
A video of the joint public hearing can be viewed from the following link:
http://orange-nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=750
Procedural Information
In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not
presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s
recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is
for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held
28
open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Planning Director’s Recommendation
The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed zoning atlas amendment based
on the following:
a. Staff has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to pursue
implementation of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement (2009
and as amended 2014); and
b. This amendment is consistent with land use goals and objectives of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan; and
c. The request for the amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with the
requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 and of the Unified Development Ordinance; and
d. The proposed zoning districts and overlays are consistent and compatible with those of
the surrounding area and in general, are of a very low density residential and conservation
minded nature.
Consistency Statement
In July of this year, the NC Court of Appeals issued a new opinion which dealt with consistency
statements. When the BOCC considers a rezoning or zoning ordinance amendment the BOCC
must approve a statement about the amendment’s consistency with adopted plans and public
interest. The Planning Board is tasked with providing a written recommendation to the BOCC
that addresses plan consistency and other matters as deemed appropriate by the Planning
Board.
The Planning Board’s recommendation on plans consistency should be handled as a separate
motion/vote from its recommendation on the rezoning or application of zoning. Attachment 4
provides a draft consistency statement for the Planning Board’s use.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Sections C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Deliberate on the petition, and
2. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the consistency of the proposed zoning atlas
amendment with County plans (Attachment 4), and
3. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation to approve the proposed zoning atlas
amendment, and
4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed zoning atlas amendment in time
for the November 6, 2014 BOCC meeting.
29
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
CP and Zoning-2013-02
Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Interlocal Agreement
Implementation – Adjustment of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ) and Application of County Future Land Use Map Classifications and
Zoning
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments (Also see maps attached at end)
Future Land Use Map:
From: Town of Hillsborough Land Use Classification
To: Agricultural Residential (Portions to include Watershed and Resource
Protection, and Public Interest Area overlays)
Zoning Map:
From: Town of Hillsborough Zoning
To: AR Agricultural Residential and PID Public Interest District (Portions to
include Watershed Protection, Special Flood Hazard, and Major
Transportation Corridor Overlays)
Other: To address Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
retraction
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s):
Other:
Attachment 1 30
2
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
Continue the implementation of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land
Management Agreement (2009) through adjustment of the Town’s Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction (abandonment of some existing ETJ).
2. Analysis
As required under Sections 2.3.9 and 2.8.5 of the Orange County Unified
Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to
be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a
recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners’. In analyzing this proposal, the following information is offered:
a. Staff has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to pursue
implementation of the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement
(2009 and as amended 2014).
b. This amendment is consistent with land use goals and objectives of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
c. The request for the amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with
the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 and of the Unified Development Ordinance.
d. The proposed Future Land Use Classification, zoning districts, and overlays are
consistent and compatible with those of the surrounding area and in general, are of a
very low density residential and conservation minded nature.
Proposed Changes
2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment - Properties are to be
classified to County Land Use Classifications, which in these cases include:
Agricultural Residential (portions to include Watershed and Resource Protection and
Public Interest Area overlays). The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) of the twenty-
two parcels included in this amendment are:
9864212218 9864294255 9864165305 9854989358
9864111534 9864012864 9864175152 9864135926
9864015589 9864074274 9864210925 9864111926
9864122219 9864028637 9864312586 9864155705
9864124872 9864138329 9864319480
9864224688 9864069297 9854980353
Zoning Atlas Amendment - Properties are to be zoned to County zoning districts,
which in these cases include: Agricultural Residential (AR) and Public Interest District
(PID) (portions to include Watershed Protection, Special Flood Hazard, and Major
Transportation Corridor Overlays). The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) of the
twenty-two parcels included in this amendment are:
9864212218 9864294255 9864165305 9854989358
31
3
9864111534 9864012864 9864175152 9864135926
9864015589 9864074274 9864210925 9864111926
9864122219 9864028637 9864312586 9864155705
9864124872 9864138329 9864319480
9864224688 9864069297 9854980353
Maps depicting the proposed Land Use Classifications and zoning districts are
provided immediately following this amendment outline form.
Background
Town of Hillsborough Initiation - Orange County received a letter in September 2013
conveying Town Board action and adoption of a resolution indicating its interest in
releasing areas west of town from its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and requesting
jurisdiction over areas defined in the Interlocal Land Management Agreement.
Coordination between the respective staffs was also requested to begin identifying
the required steps and to process the adjustments.
Joint Information Meeting - A Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Joint Information
Meeting was held January 9, 2014 to help inform property owners of the process,
implications, and answer questions. Over 50 residents attended the meeting,
including some BOCC and Town Board representatives. Nearly all attendees were
owners of property within the areas proposed to be added to the ETJ.
Joint BOCC and Hillsborough Town Board Meeting:
At a February 27, 2014 Joint Meeting, the Boards received an update on the process
and outreach from staff. Following discussion between the boards, it was informally
concluded that due to feedback received from the public, changes in State
annexation law, and achievement of the vision articulated by the Agreement, both
parties agreed to consider stopping ETJ expansion and formally consider a joint
resolution amending the Agreement to that effect.
Joint Resolution Amending the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management
Agreement for the Central Orange Coordinated Area – At its meeting on May 8,
2014, the BOCC adopted a resolution amending the Interlocal Agreement to reflect
the intent to continue coordination with Hillsborough to relinquish some areas of its
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), as defined in the Agreement, back to the County
and end the ETJ expansion process. The Hillsborough Town Board followed suit at
its meeting on May 12, 2014.
Town of Hillsborough Public Hearing - The Town of Hillsborough held a public
hearing on July 17, 2014 for relinquishing the respective properties from its ETJ.
There were no public comments conveyed and no discussion among board
members. Subsequently, on August 21, 2014 the Town’s Planning Board
unanimously recommended approval of the ETJ adjustment as proposed. At its
meeting on September 8, 2014, the Hillsborough Town Board is expected to approve
the ETJ adjustment to become effective on October 1, 2014. The effective date was
selected to allow Orange County sufficient time to process its Future Land Use Map
and zoning atlas amendments within 60-days, consistent with State law.
32
4
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
life.
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.
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.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 19, 2013
b. BOCC Public Hearing
September 8, 2014
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
May 8, 2014 – Adopted Joint resolution amending Interlocal Agreement
June 17, 2014 – Approved Legal Ad for public hearing
33
5
d. Other
Summary of Timeline and Key Steps
Adjustment of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and Application of
County Land Use Element Map Classifications and Zoning
2013
September 9 Town adopted resolution of intent
November 19 BOCC authorization to proceed
December Preparation of public outreach and notification materials (i.e. ETJ
Q&A document and maps)
2014
January 9 Joint Public Information Meeting (Property owners notified via
First Class Mail)
February 27 Joint BOCC and Hillsborough Town Board Meeting
May 8 BOCC adopted joint resolution amending the Interlocal
Agreement to end ETJ expansion and continue retraction
(Property owners notified via First Class Mail)
June 17 BOCC legal ad approved for September Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing to apply Future Land Use and
Zoning designations to areas of new County jurisdiction
(Property owners notified via First Class Mail)
October 8 Orange County Planning Board recommendation
November 6 BOCC adoption of Future Land Use and Zoning designations
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements. Additionally, staff held a Joint Public
Information Meeting on January 9, 2014 to explain the process and its implications to
the public and property owners in affected areas. Property owners were notified of
the Joint Public Information Meeting, as well as the May 8, 2014 BOCC meeting for
consideration of the joint resolution amending the Interlocal Agreement, via First
Class Mail.
a. Planning Board Review:
34
6
October 8, 2014
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
July 17, 2014 Town of Hillsborough
Public Hearing (No public comments
offered)
September 8, 2014 Town of
Hillsborough action (To become
effective October 1, 2014)
August 21, 2014 Town Planning
Board Recommendation for approval
(Unanimous)
d. Notice Requirements
This item was included in the Quarterly Public Hearing legal ad; notices were
mailed to affected property owners and property owners within 500-feet of
affected properties; and signs were posted in the affected area. The Town of
Hillsborough had additional legal ad and notification responsibilities consistent
with State law for its actions to relinquish portions of the Town’s ETJ.
e. Outreach:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Existing Planning staff will accomplish the work required to coordinate with Town of
Hillsborough staff on its ETJ adjustment and application of County Future Land Use
Classifications and Zoning to areas removed from the Town’s ETJ. The required
legal ad and first class mail notices were paid with Departmental funds already
budgeted for this purpose.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
See Sections B.1 and C. 2. Of this Amendment Outline.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
N/A
Primary Staff Contact:
Tom Altieri, AICP
Planning Department
(919) 245-2579
taltieri@orangecountync.gov
General Public: Joint Public Information Meeting January 9, 2014
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
35
I§
!"c$
!"c$
!"_$
WESTHILLAVEN
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
SOUTHST
W K I N G S T
MUR
R
A
Y
S
T
REXDR
LATIMER ST
EN O S T
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
I§
!"c$!"_$
!"c$
WESTHILLAVEN
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
SOUTHST
W K I N G S T
MUR
R
A
Y
S
T
REXDR
L ATIMER ST
EN O S T
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
Assignment of County Land Use Classifications to Areas Removed from Hillsborough ETJ
Urban Service AreaRemove from ETJParcels10 Year TransitionRural ResidentialAgricultural ResidentialCity LimitsETJOverlaysWatershed Critical AreasWater Supply Watersheds
Resource Protection AreasPublic Interest Areas
·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (7/14/2014)
0 500Feet
1 in = 1,320 feet
Current Future Land Use Map Proposed Future Land Use Map
36
I§
!"c$
!"c$
!"_$
WESTHILL
A
V
E
N
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
W
E
S
T
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
S
SOUTHST
W K I N G S T
REXDR
WINDCHIMEWAY
E N O S T
LATIMER ST
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
V I R GI N I A C ATES
R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
M
U
R
R
A
Y
S
T
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
ORAN
G
E
HEI
G
H
T
S
LO
O
P
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
I§
!"c$!"_$
!"c$
RILEYAVE
ROSEWOOD RD
WKING ST
WADDELL ST
PRABHUPADADR
RAYNORST
WESTHILL
A
V
E
N
DIMMOCKSMILLRD
W
E
S
T
H
I
L
L
A
V
E
S
SOUTHST
REXDR E N O S T
LATIMER ST
PEACE ST
BENJOHNST O N R D
V I R GI N I A C ATES
R D
MIRANDY AVE
K I N G J A M E S
R D
K
I
N
G
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
S
T
CODY
LN
M
U
R
R
A
Y
S
T
KI
N
G
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
T
ORAN
G
E
HEI
G
H
TS
LO
OP
BARRACKSRD
LEN A PEETRL
Assignment of County Zoning to Areas Removed from Hillsborough ETJ
Urban Service Area
Remove from ETJ
Parcels
Agricultural Residential (AR)
City Limits
ETJ
Existing Commercial (EC5)
Public Interest District (PID)
Rural Residential (R1)
Overlays
Watershed Critical Areas
Water Supply Watersheds
Major Transportation Corridor
Special Flood Hazard Areas
·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (7/14/2014)
0 500Feet
1 in = 1,320 feet
Current Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map
37
Amendment Area
Amendment Area
Hillsborough
Efland
Orange County Zoning
0 2,000Feet1 in = 1 miles
.AR
AS
CC3
City Limits
ETJ
EC5
EDB-2
EDE-1
EDE-2
EDH-1
EDH-2
EDH-3
EI
GC4
I1
I2
I3
LC1
NC2
PD-I1
OI
PD-OI
PDCGC4
PDHR2
PDHR4
PDHR5
PDHR8
PID
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
RB
Streams
Water Bodies
Amendment Area
Overlays
Watersheds
Efland-Cheeks Highway70 Overlay District
Major TransportationCorridor
Stoney Creek Basin
Special Flood HazardAreas Orange County and Planning and Inspections Department.This copy printed September 30, 2014. Map is for reference use only.Contact Planning staff for verification of data.
38
Attachment 3
ZONING COMPARISON
RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R1) and AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (AR) DISTRICTS
09/12/2014
DISTRICTS R-1
RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
AR
AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT PURPOSES
The purpose of the R-1 District is to provide
locations for rural non-farm residential
development, at very low intensities, in areas
where the short and long-term solutions to
domestic water supply and sewage disposal
shall be individual wells and ground absorption
system.
The purpose of the AR District is to assist in the
preservation of land suitable, as a result of
location, existing farming operations, soils and
topography, for agricultural, silvicultural or
horticultural uses and to protect such uses from
the adverse effects of incompatible land uses.
DISTRICT APPLICATION
Where designated Rural Residential by the
Comprehensive Plan; and where urban
services, including water distribution and
sewage collection mains, are not likely within
10-20 years.
Where designated Agricultural Residential by
the Comprehensive Plan; and where urban
services, including water distribution and
sewage collection mains, are not likely within
10-20 years.
STANDARDS R-1 AR
Minimum lot size 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet
Minimum lot width 130 feet 150 feet
Minimum front setback from r-o-w 40 feet 40 feet
Minimum corner side setback 40 feet 40 feet
Minimum side setback 20 feet 20 feet
Minimum rear setback 20 feet 20 feet
Maximum height 25 feet, with 2 feet of additional height allowed
for one foot increase of the required front and
side setbacks
25 feet, with 2 feet of additional height allowed
for one foot increase of the required front and
side setbacks
Minimum gross land area R-CU, NR-CU: 80,000 square feet R-CU, NR-CU: 80,000 square feet
Minimum required open space ratio R-CU NR, NR CU: .84 R-CU NR, NR CU: .84
Minimum required recreation space ratio R, R-CU: .031 R, R-CU: .031
Minimum required livability space ratio R-CU: .75 R-CU: .75
Minimum required pedestrian/landscape ratio NR, NR-CU: .21 NR, NR-CU: .21
Density The density permitted based on the Watershed
Protection Overlay District
The density permitted based on the Watershed
Protection Overlay District
Differences in permitted uses *See attached permitted use table *See attached permitted use table
Indicates difference in standards or uses
39
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
SECTION 5.2: TABLE OF PERMITTED USES
5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses – General Use Zoning Districts
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
AGRICULTURAL USES
Agricultural Processing Facility ~ * * * *
Agricultural Processing Facility, Community ^ * * * * *
Agricultural Services Uses * *
Cold Storage Facility A * * *
Community Farmers’ Market ^ * * * * * *
Composting Operation, no grinding A
Composting Operation, with grinding ~ A
Cooperative Farm Stand ^ * * * *
Equestrian Center A
Farm Equipment Rental, Sales and Service ~ * * * * *
Farm Supply Store * * * * *
Feed Mill ~ * * *
Greenhouses with On Premises Sales ^ * * * * * *
Meat Processing Facility, Community ^ * * * * *
Meat Processing Facility, Regional ~ A
Non-Farm Use of Farm Equipment ^ * *
Stables, Commercial ~ B B B B B B
Stockyards / Livestock Markets ~ *
CHILD CARE & EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Center in a Residence for 3 to 12 Children * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-5
40
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
Child Care Facilities B B B B B B B B B * * * * * *
Libraries * * * * *
Non-Profit Educational Cooperative A
Schools: Dance, Art & Music * * * * * *
Schools: Elementary, Middle & Secondary A A A A A A A A A A
Schools: Vocational * * * * *
Universities, Colleges & Institutes * * * * * *
COMMERCIAL USES
Banks & Financial Institutions * * * * *
Beauty & Barber Shops * * * * *
Country Store * * *
Drive In Theaters ~ *
Funeral Homes ~ * *
Garden Center * * * * *
Hotels & Motels ~ * *
Junkyards ~ A A A
Kennels, Class II ~ ^ B B B B B B
Laundry & Dry Cleaning Services * * * * *
Massage, Business of * *
Microbrewery with Minor Events ^ B B B B
Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs * * *
Offices & Personal Services, Class 1 * * * * * * * * *
Offices & Personal Services, Class 2 * * * * * * *
Offices & Personal Services, Class 3 * * * *
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-6
41
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
Repair Service Electronic & Appliance * * * *
Restaurants: Carry Out * * * *
Restaurants: Drive In * * *
Restaurants: General * * * *
Retail, Class 1 * * * * *
Retail, Class 2 * * * *
Retail, Class 3 * *
Rural Guest Establishment: Bed & Breakfast ^ * * *
Rural Guest Establishment: Bed & Breakfast Inn ^ B B
Rural Guest Establishment: Country Inn ^ A A
Storage of Goods, Outdoor ~ * * * *
Storage or Warehousing: Inside Building * * * * * *
Studio (Art) * * * * * * * *
Taxidermy ^ B * * * * *
Tourist Home * * * * *
Wholesale Trade ~ * * * * * * *
Winery with Minor Events ^ B B B B
EXTRACTIVE USES
Extraction of Earth Products ~ A A A A A
GOVERNMENTAL USES
Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Governmental Protective Services (Police & Fire
Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire
Departments
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-7
42
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
Military Installations (National Guard & Reserve
Armory) ~ * * * *
MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLY & PROCESSING
Assembly and Packaging Operations Including Mail
Order Houses, But Excluding On-Premises Retail
Outlets
* * * * *
Industrial, Heavy ~ *
Industrial, Light ~ * * * *
Industrial, Medium ~ * *
Microbrewery, production only ^ B * * *
Printing & Lithography * * * * * *
Sawmills ~ *
Winery, production only ^ B * * *
MEDICAL USES
Health Services: Over 10,000 Sq. Ft. ~ *
Health Services: Under 10,000 Sq. Ft. * * * * *
Hospitals ~ * *
Veterinary Clinic B * * * * * * * * * *
Veterinary Clinic, mobile B B * * * * * * * * * *
Veterinary Hospitals * * * * * * *
RECREATIONAL USES
Botanical Gardens & Arboretums * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Camp/Retreat Center B B B
Golf Driving and Practice Ranges B * * *
Parks, Public & Non-Profit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-8
43
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
Recreational Facilities (Non-Profit) B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Recreational Facilities (Profit) * * *
Golf Course A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
RESIDENTIAL USES
Dwelling; Mobile Home * * * * * * * * * * *
Dwelling; Multiple Family * * * * * * * * *
Dwelling; Single-Family * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dwelling; Two-Family * * * * * * * * * * * *
Family Care Home * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Group Care Facility B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Rehabilitative Care Facility * * *
Residential Hotel (Fraternities, Sororities, and
Dormitories) ~ A A A A A
Rooming House * * * * *
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunication Tower – Stealth (75 feet or
shorter) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Telecommunication Towers (Over 75 feet and under
200 feet) B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Telecommunication Towers (200 feet and higher) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
TEMPORARY USES
Buildings, Portable B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Temporary Mobile Home (Custodial Care) B B B B B B B B B B
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-9
44
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
Temporary Mobile Home (Use during
construction/installation of permanent residential unit
and for 30 days following issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy)
* * * * * *
AUTOMOTIVE / TRANSPORTATION
Bus Passenger Shelter * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bus Terminals & Garages ~ * * * *
Motor Freight Terminals ~ * * *
Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair (Body Shop) ~ * * *
Motor Vehicle Repair Garage ~ * *
Motor Vehicle Sales / Rental (New & Used) Δ1 * * * * * *
Motor Vehicle Services Stations * * * * *
Parking As Principal Use, Surface or Structure * * *
Petroleum Products: Storage & Distribution ~ * * *
Postal & Parcel Delivery Services * * *
UTILITIES
Elevated Water Storage Tanks B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Public Utility Stations & Sub-Stations, Switching
Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water & Sewage
Treatment Plants
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Electric, Gas, and Liquid Fuel Transmission Lines B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Solar Array – Large Facility B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
Solar Array – Public Utility A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
WASTE MANAGEMENT
1 See Section 5.15.1 for special standards
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-10
45
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.2: Table of Permitted Uses
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
* = PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE Δ = SUBJECT TO SPECIAL STANDARDS
USE TYPE GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~ Use may not be permitted as a Conditional Use District; See Section 5.1.4(E)
^ Allowed as more than one principal use if located on a bona fide farm (see Section 6.2.5)
Landfills (2 Acres or More) ~ A A A A A A A
Landfills (Less Than 2 Acres) ~ B B B B B B B
Waste Management Facility; Hazardous & Toxic ~ A A A
MISCELLANEOUS
Accessory Uses * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Airports, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L ~ A A A A A A
Assembly Facility Greater Than 300 * *
Assembly Facility Less Than 300 * *
Cemetery B * B B B B B B B
Church * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union
Clubhouses * * * * * * * *
Community Center B B B B B B B B B * * * *
Crematoria ~ * * *
Historic Sites Non-Residential/Mixed Use A A A
Kennels, Class I * * * * * *
Research Facility ~ * * * * * * *
Research Lands & Installations, Non-profit *
Rural Heritage Museum B B B B
Rural Special Events ^ * *
Special Events (Less than 150) * * *
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-11
46
Attachment 4
1
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND/OR OTHER ADOPTED COUNTY PLANS
Orange County has initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas affecting approximately 500-
acres located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and
Hillsborough Townships. This amendment assigns County zoning to properties that are to be
removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), which is to become
effective October 1, 2014.
Properties are to be zoned to County zoning districts, which in these cases include:
Agricultural Residential (AR) and Public Interest District (PID) (portions to include Watershed
Protection, Special Flood Hazard, and Major Transportation Corridor Overlays). The Parcel
Identification Numbers (PIN) of the twenty-two parcels included in this amendment are:
9864212218 9864294255 9864165305 9854989358
9864111534 9864012864 9864175152 9864135926
9864015589 9864074274 9864210925 9864111926
9864122219 9864028637 9864312586 9864155705
9864124872 9864138329 9864319480
9864224688 9864069297 9854980353
The Planning Board finds:
• The requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been
deemed complete, and
• 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 documentation within the record denoting that
the rezoning is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and/or other
adopted County plans.
The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
• Supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life.
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.
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient,
and responsive.
47
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.
• Further implements the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement
(2009 and as amended 2014), consistent with the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County
Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan and established Town Urban Service
Area, and
• Supports the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement and
Map.
The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because:
• Fifty-six percent (56%) of the amendment area consists of Public/Quasi-
Public/Institutional (i.e. Duke Forest, Assoc. for the Preservation of the Eno River Valley,
State of NC, NCDOT, Krishna Temple, etc.) existing land uses and 19% of the
amendment area is under the Present Use Value program, and
• The existing land use activities in the area support the rezoning of properties to the
Agricultural Residential (AR) and Public Interest District (PID) general use zoning districts
as well as the extension of Watershed Protection, Special Flood Hazard, and Major
Transportation Corridor Overlays, and
• The proposed zoning districts include permitted uses such as single-family residential,
church, day care, bed and breakfast, government use, cooperative farm stand,
greenhouse, parks, research lands, which provide an appropriate balance between
development rights and environmental protection, and
• The proposed zoning districts and overlays are found in the vicinity, and
• It is consistent with the character of the area, existing development trends, and will
minimize the potential for incompatible land uses in the future, and
• It promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by furthering the goals and
objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Board hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed zoning atlas amendment.
______________________ ________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair Date
48
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 8, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Requiring Neighborhood
Information Meetings for Special Use Permit Applications
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Outline Form
(UDO & Zoning 2014-12)
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Proposed UDO Text Amendments
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2592
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director initiated Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments requiring a neighborhood information meeting
(NIM) for all Special Use Permit (SUP) applications.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing
where staff indicated the amendment was in response to concerns that a NIM was not held in
advance of the review of an SUP application at a public hearing.
The proposed amendment would require a NIM be held 45 days prior to a public hearing where
a SUP was scheduled for review. The applicant would be required to mail notices 14 days, and
post a sign on the property 10 days, prior to the meeting.
For additional background, including a synopsis of comments from the quarterly public hearing,
please refer to Attachment 1. Agenda materials from the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public
Hearing can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140908.pdf.
Attachment 3 contains the proposed amendments with additions shown in red text and
proposed deletions are shown in red strikethrough text as well as footnotes documenting the
rationale for the proposed modification. Modifications incorporating comments from the public
hearing are denoted in green text.
Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development
Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior
to the Planning Board’s recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the
Planning Board 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.
49
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendment is reasonable and in the public interest,
contained in Attachment 2 and proposed text amendments contained in Attachment 3.
For additional information please refer to Section B.1 and 2 in Attachment 1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1.
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 Statement of Consistency and proposed
UDO text amendments in time for the November 18, 2014 BOCC meeting.
50
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2014-12
Require a Neighborhood Information Meeting for all Special Use Permit Applications.
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Future Land Use Map:
From:
To:
Zoning Map:
From:
To:
Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Section(s): 1. Section 2.7 Special Use Permits,
2. Section 2.9.1 (D) Neighborhood Information Meeting –
Conditional Use Districts, and
3. Section 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication Uses.
Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated text amendment(s) to require a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) be
held for all Special Use Permit (SUP) applications prior to the public hearing. The
proposal would also modify the timeline for the holding of a NIM for Conditional Use
Attachment 1 51
2
applications.
Originally staff had anticipated amending existing NIM requirements for Conditional
Zoning District (CZD) applications, as detailed within Section 2.9.2 (D) of the UDO.
Staff determined, however, there was no need to revise existing timelines as CZD
applications are not reviewed through the quasi-judicial hearing process (i.e.
requiring sworn testimony and competent material evidence) and there was no need
to provide additional time to adjacent property owners to understand the review
process or prepare for the public hearing.
At the May 27, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing several BOCC members expressed
concern over the lack notification/information on SUP applications in advance of a
scheduled public hearing.
The review of SUP applications are carried out in a quasi-judicial process requiring
the presentation of sworn, expert, testimony and competent material/substantial
evidence by both those in favor and in opposition to a given application. Decisions to
approve or deny an application are based on this evidence. Hearsay or
unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
Currently, the SUP review process requires adjacent property owners receive written
notice of a public hearing, via certified mail, a minimum of 15 days prior to a
scheduled public hearing. Given the complexity of the review process the concern is
this is insufficient time to allow for adjacent property owners to gather information, or
secure the necessary experts, to effectively participate in the review process.
At the public hearing staff recommended amending the existing permit review
process for future SUP applications to require the holding of the aforementioned
meeting in an effort to inform local property owners of the project and provide
educational information on the nature of the proceedings, including detail on what
constitutes ‘competent material evidence and testimony’, and the required findings
that have to be made to issue a permit.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners’.
The amendments are necessary to ensure Orange County residents and property
owners are provided advance notice of submitted SUP applications, have an
opportunity to review the project before a scheduled public hearing, obtain an
understanding of the required review and approval processes, and have sufficient
time to gather information and/or secure experts to aid them in the review of the
project.
Having a NIM 45 days prior to the public hearing, as discussed and recommended at
the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing, the application submittal deadline
and review process will be extended by approximately 50 to 60 days to
accommodate the meeting and review schedule.
52
3
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 6 – A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open,
efficient, and responsive.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
June 17, 2014
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8, 2014
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
June 17, 2014 – BOCC members approved the legal advertisement for the
September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing.
STAFF COMMENT: the BOCC authorized staff to move forward with the
proposed amendments consistent with the timelines identified herein.
July 2, 2014 – Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
STAFF COMMENT: the ORC reviewed this item at its July 2, 2014
meeting where the following comments/questions were made:
• Will this increase the cost of a Special Use Permit application?
STAFF COMMENT: Yes. The applicant will have to pay for the
mailing notifying residents of the NIM. Approval of this amendment
will require an amendment to the Orange County Fee Schedule to
capture this fee.
• How will this amendment impact applications for telecommunication
towers?
STAFF COMMENT: Currently property owners within 1,000 feet of
a parcel of property where a telecommunication tower is proposed
are notified of a balloon test. This test, which occurs anywhere from
6 weeks (Class B application – 75 to 199 ft. tall tower) to 11 weeks
(Class A application – 200 ft. and over) prior to a public hearing.
The purpose of this test is to show interested parties how the tower
will ‘look’ on the property by flying a dirigible at the maximum
proposed height of the tower. Staff, who already attends this test,
intends to utilize this test as serving as the NIM and will be available
to provide information on the process.
53
4
Staff will require the applicant to amend the letter notifying
applicable parties of the test, which they are already required to
send and pay for, that the meeting will also serve the function of
reviewing the application review process.
• Who runs the meeting?
STAFF COMMENT: Staff calls the meeting to order to review the
application review process and then turns it over to the applicant to
discuss the project.
September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing. This item was reviewed at the
hearing where the following questions/comments were made:
• BOCC and Planning Board members indicated they believed
holding a NIM 30 days prior to the public hearing, where a special
use permit was set for review, would not provide sufficient notice to
adjacent property owners of the hearing or review process.
There was consensus that holding the NIM 45 days in advance of
the public hearing would be more appropriate.
STAFF COMMENT: The change has been incorporated. This will
increase the time currently associated with the submittal and review
of special use permit application by approximately 50 to 60 days.
• A BOCC member suggested the NIM be held in the evening rather
than during the day.
STAFF COMMENT: The UDO does not specify the time (i.e. day or
evening) a NIM is held. Departmental policy has been to hold the
meeting during normal business hours.
Staff reminded the Board that complaints have been received over
the holding of similar meetings during normal business hours, as
people who want to attend them work, as well as at night, as people
do not drive at night or the meeting conflicts with family activities or
with an individuals work schedule.
No matter when the hearing is held there is the potential for
criticism.
• A BOCC member suggested that staff provide periodic updates on
the Planning Department website on applications being submitted
and where such applications are in the review process.
STAFF COMMENT: Information shall be provided as suggested.
• A BOCC member asked staff to clarify current NIM requirements.
STAFF COMMENT: A meeting is held:
1. 14 days prior to the Planning Board review of a Major
Subdivision Concept Plan application,
2. 14 days Prior to the submittal of any Zoning
54
5
Compliance Permit application proposing a
governmental use,
3. 14 days prior to a public hearing where a Conditional
Use District or Conditional Zoning District is scheduled
for review.
• A BOCC member suggested a NIM for a Conditional Zoning District
application be held consistent with other similar processes being
discussed.
STAFF COMMENT: Conditional Zoning District applications are a
reviewed as a legislative item. There is no expert testimony or
evidence required as part of its review. There is no need for an
applicant or a concerned property owner to hire ‘experts’ to testify
about the projects compliance or non-compliance with County
regulations.
The current proposal is intended to address a concern that local
property owners be provided an opportunity to learn about the
special use permit process (i.e. what constitutes competent,
material, evidence) and have sufficient time to prepare.
Given the review and action on Conditional Zoning District
applications staff does not believe there is a need to change current
regulations.
October 8, 2014 – Planning Board Meeting.
November 18, 2014 - Receive Planning Board recommendation.
d. Other
N/A
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
a. Planning Board Review:
July 2, 2014 – Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
October 8, 2014 – Recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
N/A
c. Local Government Review:
Review of the proposal by the Town(s)
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro consistent
with the Joint Planning Agreement
(JPA) as the amendment will impact
projects in the Rural Buffer. Items
were sent on July 31, 2014.
At this time we have received no
written comments. Town of Carrboro
55
6
staff has verbally indicated they have
no concerns over the proposal.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement was published in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
e. Outreach:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Modification of existing language will not require the outlay of additional funds by the
County. Processing of the amendment shall be handled by staff utilizing existing
budgeted funds.
The amendment will require that applicants absorb additional expenditures for
advertisement of the NIM (i.e. certified letters) for all SUP projects as well as their
attendance. The Orange County Fee Schedule will need to be amended to
incorporate these costs.
There will also be an increase in staff workload with respect to preparing, sending out
notices, and staffing the NIM potentially impacting Departmental budgetary outlays.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
The amendments are in response to concerns related to the processing of SUP
applications, specifically a lack of advance notification to local property owners/residents
of the project. These amendments are designed to promote additional notification of a
SUP project in advance of a scheduled public hearing and provide an opportunity for
local residents to comment on a project as well as receive an explanation on the SUP
review process.
As previously indicated the application submittal deadline will have to be increased to
accommodate a NIM being held 45 days prior to a public hearing.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please refer to Attachment 3 the proposed language
General Public:
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other: Staff asked County’s current telecommunication consultant to review
and comment on the amendments as they relate to our telecom
program. Our consultant had no concerns.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Current Planning Supervisor
(919) 245-2597
mharvey@orangecountync.gov
56
1
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) to require a neighborhood information meeting prior to the review of Special Use Permit
applications at a public hearing.
The Planning Board finds:
a. The requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete; and,
b. 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 is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof including but not limited to, the
following:
Chapter 5 – Land Use Element – Section 5.6 Goals – Land Use Goal 6:
A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and
responsive.
c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
1. Increases the opportunity for the general public to become more aware of,
and directly involved in, the County’s planning program.
d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Provides an opportunity for interested residents and property owners to
understand a project, obtain more understanding of the review process, and
provide comments in advance of the public hearing.
2. Promotes an open, transparent, and responsive permit review process.
The Planning Board of Orange County hereby recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed UDO text amendment.
______________________ ________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair Date
Attachment 2
57
1
ORDINANCE APPROVING
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS
REQUIRING NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETINGS
FOR ALL SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) requiring a neighborhood information meeting prior to the review of Special
Use Permit applications at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the amendment is intended to address a concern that local residents and
property owners are not being provided adequate time to understand, and prepare for, the
review of Special Use Permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the County has determined existing language within the UDO needs to
be modified to ensure a more transparent and open project review process; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the 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 sufficient documentation within the
record denoting that the zoning text amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as amended, as detailed within a previously adopted Statement of
Consistency, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning text amendment is reasonable
and in the public interest as detailed within a previously adopted Statement of Consistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange
County Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended as depicted within the attached
pages.
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
Attachment 3
58
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
59
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details the proposed text amendments requiring a neighborhood
information meeting be held prior to the review of all Special Use Permit applications before a
public hearing. The amendment package also proposes the re-numbering and reformatting of
Section 2.7 to accommodate the new standards.
As the number of affected pages/sections of the existing UDO are being modified with this
proposal, staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded
classifications:
• Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to
the UDO.
• Red Strikethrough Text: Denotes existing text proposed for deletion.
• Green Underlined Text: Denotes modifications made following the September 8, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing.
Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional
information/rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review.
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included
within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large “X” through it to denote that
these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes
from previous sections ‘spill over’ onto the included page. Text with a large “X” is not proposed
for modification.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of
the text/sections downward.
Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/Ordinances.asp
60
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-17
(4) For Class A Special Uses 26 copies of the site plan, and for Class B Special
Uses 10 copies of the site plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina land
surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or engineer, which shall contain the
information listed in Section 2.5.
(5) If the application involves a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 26 copies of the Plat
prepared in accordance with Section 7.14 shall be provided.
(6) A list of all parcels located within 500 feet of the subject parcel and the name and
address of each property owner, as currently listed in the Orange County tax
records.
(7) Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development.
(8) For Class A Special Uses 26 copies and for Class B Special Uses 10 copies of
the Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement, if
required by Section 6.16.
(9) Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated
with the permitted activity, which shall be by some method other than open
burning.
(10) Statement from the applicant indicating the anticipated development schedule for
the build-out of the project.
(11) Statement from the applicant in justification of any request for vesting for a period
of more than two years (five years maximum).
2.7.4 Staff Review
(A) The Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the application by qualified
representatives of the County and other agencies or officials as appropriate.
(B) The Planning Director shall submit the analysis to the Board of County Commissioners
and the Planning Board, in the case of Class A Special Uses, or the Board of Adjustment,
in the case of Class B Special Uses.
(C) The appropriate Board reviewing the application shall receive and enter the analysis into
evidence during the public hearing. The analysis shall be subject to examination by all
interested parties and the Planning Director shall be subject to cross-examination
regarding the analysis.
(D) The Planning Director shall not make a recommendation on the general findings detailed
within Section 5.3 of this Ordinance
2.7.5 Neighborhood Information Meeting
(A) Before a Public Hearing may be held a Special Use, the applicant is required to schedule,
with the assistance of the Planning Department 1 a minimum of one neighborhood
information meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner
input and comments on the proposed development project and allow staff an opportunity
to explain the review process associated with the request. 2
(B) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the Orange
County Planning Department, which shall utilize Orange County Land Records data, and
1 County Attorney recommends the green strike through text be deleted.
2 During the review of a Class A Special Use Permit application at the May 27, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH)
it was suggested there should be a neighborhood information meeting held prior to the public hearing to allow the
developer to explain the project to surrounding property owners as well as allow staff to review the process by
which Special Use Permits are processed (i.e. quasi‐judicial hearing procedures). This amendment will address the
concern(s) expressed by BOCC and Planning Board members during the May QPH.
61
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.7: Special Use Permits
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-18
shall mail certified notices of the meeting date and time to each property owner within
500 feet of the property for which a Special Use has been requested.
(C) The applicant shall mail notice of the meeting a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of
the meeting.
(D) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and time of the
meeting a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.
(E) The meeting shall be held a minimum of 453 days prior to the date of the Public Hearing.4
(F) Neighborhood information meetings for telecommunication facilities shall be held in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5.10.8 (B) (2).
2.7.52.7.6 Notice Requirements for Class A Special Use Permits
(A) The Planning Director shall give public notice of the date, time and place of the public
hearing to be held to receive comments, testimony and exhibits pertaining to the
application for a Special Use.
(B) Such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County
once a week for two successive weeks, with the first notice to be published not less than
ten days nor more than 25 days prior to the date of the hearing. In computing the notice
period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be
included.
(C) The Planning Director shall post on the affected property a notice of the public hearing at
least ten days prior to the date of said hearing.
(D) Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to all adjacent property owners not less than
15 days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose property
lies within five hundred feet of the affected property and whose names and addresses are
currently listed in the Orange County tax records.
2.7.62.7.7 Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits
Notice Requirements for Class B Special Use Permits shall follow the procedures in Section
2.12.6.
2.7.72.7.8 Nature of Proceedings
(A) The review of Special Use Permit applications shall be conducted during a public hearing
by the decision-making board.
(B) The review of a Special Use Permit application is a quasi-judicial process, where the
Board responsible for rendering a decision acts much like a panel of judges. The Board
hears factual evidence and sworn testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing, and
then makes findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence.
(C) The chair or presiding officer of the hearing shall swear all parties intending to present
evidence or testimony during the hearing.
(D) The chair or presiding officer may take whatever action is necessary to limit testimony to
the presentation of new factual evidence that is material to the application, to ensure fair
and orderly proceedings, and to otherwise promote the efficient and effective gathering of
evidence. Such actions may include:
3 Staff has changed the timeframe for holding the neighborhood meeting consistent with BOCC and Planning Board
direction from the September 8, 2014 public hearing denoting it in green bold text.
4 Typically, neighborhood information meetings are required to occur 14 days prior to a public hearing. Staff is
recommending 30 days to ensure there is adequate time for adjacent property owners/residents to receive
information related to the quasi‐judicial review process and secure the necessary experts to argue for/against a
specific project.
62
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-26
(C) Text amendments to this Ordinance for stormwater provisions shall comply with the
requirements in effect for any other text amendment.
SECTION 2.9: CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
2.9.1 Conditional Use District (CUD)
(A) Generally
(1) Any use permitted under the CUD process shall conform to all applicable
development regulations for the corresponding general use zoning district as well
as any specific development standards outlined within this Ordinance.
(2) The Board of County Commissioners, in reviewing a CUD application, may
impose such reasonable conditions upon approval of a CUD request as will
afford protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, ensure that
substantial justice is done, and ensure equitable treatment.
(3) Only those conditions mutually agreed to by the applicant and the Board of
County Commissioners may be imposed on a CUD application.
(4) Within the Economic Development Districts (EDDs), there are specific uses that
require approval of a CUD. These uses are noted on the Table of Permitted
Uses – Economic Development Districts (Section 5.2).
(B) Applications
Applications to establish a CUD shall be submitted to the Planning Director and shall be
processed in accordance with the procedure(s) for:
(1) Zoning Atlas amendment (Section 2.8),
(2) Class A Special Use Permit (Section 2.7), and
(3) The provisions of this Section.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CUD application form, an applicant shall also submit the
following information:
(a) A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5
including the following:
(i) A detailed description of the proposed use of property including
an outline of the proposed operational characteristics of the
proposed development,
(ii) A detailed traffic survey, regardless of the estimated number of
trips per day, prepared in accordance with all applicable North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) requirements
or standards as well as Section 6.17 of this Ordinance,
(iii) The appropriate environmental document prepared in
accordance with Section 6.16; and
(iv) A landscape plan showing the location of on-site significant
trees; proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any
proposed treatment of any existing natural features.
(b) A summary of utility services, including processing of wastewater.
(c) A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal; and
(d) Any other information identified during the pre-application conference
deemed essential to demonstrate the project’s compliance with these
regulations.
63
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-27
(2) 26 copies of the application package required in (1) above shall be submitted by
the applicant.
(3) The Planning Board and/or Board of County Commissioners may request
additional information in order to evaluate and properly process the application
for a CUD.
(D) Neighborhood Information Meeting
(1) Before a Public Hearing may be held on an accepted application for a CUD, the
applicant is required to schedule, with the assistance of the Planning
Department, a minimum of one neighborhood information meeting. The purpose
of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on
the proposed development project.
(2) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the
Orange County Land Records departmentPlanning Department 5 and shall mail
certified notices of the meeting date and time to each property owner within 500
feet of the property for which a CUD has been requested.
(3) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the
proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting meeting6.
(4) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and
time of the meeting a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.7
(4)(5) The Neighborhood Information Meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 45 8 days
prior to the date of the Public Hearing where the application is scheduled for
review and public comment.
(E) Review and Evaluation of Application
(1) All CUD applications shall be reviewed and acted upon in accordance with the
review procedures for Class A Special Use Permits (Section 2.7).
(2) The following shall be considered when evaluating an application for a CUD:
(a) The policies and objectives of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,
particularly in relation to the use, proposed site, and surrounding area;
(b) The policies and objectives of any adopted Small Area Plan(s) relating to
the area; and
(c) The potential impacts to the surrounding area including, but not limited,
to: traffic, storm water drainage, compatibility of land use activities, and
land values.
(3) The Board of County Commissioners may attach reasonable and appropriate
conditions to the location, nature, and extent of the proposed use. Such
conditions may address the following:
(a) The characteristics of the proposed use and its relationship to
surrounding property and existing land uses,
(b) The proposed support facilities, such as parking, screening and buffer
areas,
(c) The timing of the proposed development,
5 Planning staff already provides this service during the pre‐application conference related to a Special Use or
Conditional Use project. The proposed amendment is designed to ensure local regulations mirrors current
practice.
6 County attorney recommended change denoted in green underlined text.
7 Staff inadvertently left out the requirement for posting of a sign advertising the neighborhood meeting. This
corrects the error.
8 We are changing the timeframe to 45 days.
64
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-29
(1) Changes to approved plans and conditions of development shall be treated as
changes to the zoning atlas and shall be processed as an amendment to such as
contained in Section 2.8.
(2) The Planning Director may approve minor changes without going through the
amendment process. The Planning Director, at his/her discretion, may elect not
to allow any proposal as a minor change and will forward the detailed application
for changes to the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for
consideration in accordance with the procedures outlined herein.
(3) A minor change is one that will not:
(a) Alter the basic relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
property,
(b) Alter the approved land uses,
(c) Increase the density or intensity of development, and/or
(d) Decrease the off-street parking ratio or reduce the buffer yards provided
at the boundary of the site.
2.9.2 Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
(A) Generally
Only those uses listed on the Table of Permitted Uses in Section 5.2 for a specific
Conditional Zoning District and detailed in Section 3.8 of this Ordinance shall be
developed.
(B) Applications
Applications to rezone property to a CZD shall be submitted to the Planning Director and
shall be processed in accordance with the procedure(s) for:
(1) Zoning Atlas amendment (Section 2.8),
(2) Site plans (Section 2.5) for CZDs that require a site plan, and
(3) The provisions of this Section.
(C) Submittal Requirements
(1) In addition to the CZD application form, an applicant shall also submit the
following information:
(a) A site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.5 of
this Ordinance, except for MPD-CZ applications (see (C)(2) below).
(b) A detailed description of the proposed use of property including an
outline of the proposed development.
(c) A detailed traffic survey, regardless of the estimated number of trips per
day, prepared in accordance with all applicable North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NC DOT) requirements or standards as
well as Section 6.17 of this Ordinance.
(d) The appropriate Environmental Document prepared in accordance with
Section 6.16.
(e) A landscape plan showing the location of on-site significant trees;
proposed screening, buffers, and landscaping; and any proposed
treatment of any existing natural features.
(f) A summary of utility services, including processing of wastewater.
(g) A schedule of construction of all elements of the proposal.
65
Article 2: Procedures
Section 2.9: Conditional Districts
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-30
(h) Any other information identified during the pre-application conference
deemed essential to demonstrate the project’s compliance with these
regulations.
(2) In lieu of the requirements in (1)(a) above, an application for a Master Plan
Development (MPD) CZD shall include the requirements in Section 6.7. The
requirements of (1)(b) through (1)(h) above are applicable for MPD-CZ
applications.
(3) 26 copies of the application package required in (1) and (2) above shall be
submitted by the applicant.
(4) The Planning Board and/or Board of County Commissioners may request
additional information in order to evaluate and properly process the application
for a CZD.
(D) Neighborhood Information Meeting 9
(1) Before a Public Hearing may be held on an accepted application for a CZD, the
applicant is required to schedule, with the assistance of the Planning
Department, a minimum of one neighborhood information meeting. The purpose
of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on
the proposed development project.
(2) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the
Orange County Land Records department and shall mail certified notices of the
meeting date and time to each property owner within 500 feet of the property for
which a CZD has been requested.
(3) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the
proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting.
(4) The Neighborhood Information Meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior
to the date of the Public Hearing where the application is scheduled for review
and public comment.
(E) Review and Evaluation of Application
The review, processing, and evaluation of a CZD application is a legislative process
subject to judicial review using the same procedures and standards of review that apply
to general use district zoning decisions.
(F) Approval and Conditions
(1) The Board of County Commissioners shall take action on the application to
rezone the property in accordance with the procedures outlined within Section
2.8.
(2) The applicant or the County may recommend that reasonable and appropriate
conditions be attached to the approval of the application
(3) Conditions and site-specific standards shall be limited to those that address the
conformance of the development to County ordinances, the adopted
Comprehensive Plan, or any other relevant plans that address the impacts
reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed development. Any such
conditions may address:
(a) The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding
property,
9 Originally staff had anticipated amending this section to require a neighborhood information meeting to be held
30 days prior to a public hearing to review a CZD application. As the review of this type of application does not
involve a Special Use Permit and is completed through a legislative review process (i.e. no sworn expert
testimony), staff has determined existing review requirements are sufficient.
66
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-93
(2) Attendees shall include all carriers and tower companies who have either filed
applications the previous year or anyone who has expressed an interest in filing
an application to construct a telecommunication support facility within the County.
(3) The County shall notify each party of the date, time, and place of the meeting no
later than 30 days prior to the meeting.
(4) Those individuals/firms intent on submitting development applications are
expected to attend the meeting. While a lack of attendance will not prevent the
submittal of an application, it will prevent the applicant’s ability to participate in
the discussions outlining the areas of concentration for the location of
telecommunication support structures for that given year.
(D) Applications for the development of telecommunication support structures shall be
processed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
5.10.4 Existing Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures
(1) Telecommunications equipment as accessory uses may be placed on existing
wireless support structures in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(2) Notwithstanding the other provisions of Section 5.10, telecommunications towers
in existence as of December 10, 2002, may be replaced with a wireless support
structure of equal or less visual impact after approval by the Planning Director.
However, if the proposed new wireless support structure would not be consistent
with the minimum standards under Section 5.10, replacement must be approved
as provided for in this Ordinance.
5.10.5 Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures and Equipment as Principal or
Accessory Uses
(A) Wireless telecommunications support structures shall be permitted as a principal or
accessory use in accordance with the Table of Permitted Uses and as follows:
(1) On property owned by the County or any public entity, except those designated
as historic properties or sites, the County may, in its sole discretion as the owner
of the property, authorize the application and use of County property after the
applicant executes a lease agreement acceptable to the County.
(2) Wireless telecommunications facilities, as part of existing utility poles shall be
permitted as an accessory use. Wireless facilities shall be constructed as part of
the existing utility poles or as replacements for the existing utility poles. No
freestanding towers constructed exclusively for personal wireless services shall
be permitted within utility easements.
(3) The placement of new wireless telecommunications support structures shall be in
accordance with the Table of Permitted Uses, except as permitted in the Master
Telecommunications Plan (“Plan”) or by Section 5.10.6 of this Ordinance.
5.10.6 Administrative Approval of Certain Telecommunication Facilities
(A) Applicability
The following telecommunication facilities may be approved administratively by the
Planning Staff provided that all of the provisions contained in Section 5.10 are met:
(1) New stealth telecommunications wireless support structures up to 75 feet in
height that are sufficiently disguised so as to minimize visual impact;
(2) Any wireless support structure less than 75 feet in height;
(3) Any wireless support structure less than 200 feet in height located on property
that is owned or leased by Orange County; and
67
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-94
(4) Any wireless support structure less than 200 feet in height on which the owner of
such facility permits the County to collocate its wireless facilities on the structure
at no charge to the County when the location of such facility is of benefit to the
County as determined in the sole discretion of the County.
(5) A written decision approving or denying an application for administrative approval
of a telecommunication facility under this section shall be issued no later than 45
days following the submission of a complete application.
(6) Collocation applications meeting the following requirements:
(a) The proposed additional facility will not increase the overall height and
width of the tower or wireless support structure to which the wireless
facilities are to be attached consistent with Section 2.7.14 of the
Ordinance.
(b) The proposed additional facility will comply with applicable regulations,
restrictions, or conditions, if any, applied to the initial wireless facilities
placed on the tower or other wireless support structure.
(c) The proposed additional wireless facilities comply with all federal, State,
and local safety requirements.
(d) The proposed additional facility does not exceed the applicable weight
limits for the wireless support structure.
(B) Submittal Requirements
All applications for telecommunication facilities that are eligible for administrative
approval shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the standards of Section
5.10.8 of this Ordinance.
(C) Neighborhood Information Meeting 11
(1) For all administratively approved wireless support structures, excluding
collocations, a neighborhood information meeting shall be scheduled in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5.10.8
5.10.7 Antennas Not Located on Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures
(A) General Standards
(1) To minimize adverse visual impacts, stealth antenna types shall be preferred. If
a non-stealth antenna is proposed, the application shall be required to
demonstrate, in a technical manner acceptable to the Planning Director, why the
stealth antenna (i.e. an antenna incorporated into the architecture of the building
or fully screened from view from sight proximate to the antenna) cannot be used
for the particular application. This does not preclude a combination of the
various types of antennas.
(2) Antenna dimensions shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. A
statement shall be submitted, prepared by a professional engineer competent to
evaluate antenna choices, to certify the technical need for the required
dimensions.
(3) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the Inspections Division, the
application shall provide evidence that the wireless telecommunication support
structure or antennas are in compliance with FAA regulations. Where an
antenna will not exceed the highest point of the existing structure upon which it is
to be mounted, such evidence shall not be required.
11 Staff is adding language to ensure all administratively approved towers will comply with the same neighborhood
information meeting requirements as any other regulated wireless support facility.
68
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-100
engineer certification statement shall include certification that the
structure can support the load superimposed from the wireless support
structure. All wireless support structures shall have the capacity to
permit multiple users; at a minimum monopole wireless support
structures shall be structurally designed to accommodate four users and
self-support/lattice or guyed wireless support structures shall, at a
minimum accommodate three users.
(B) General Submittal Requirements – Special Use Permits
In addition to the general submittal requirements detailed herein, and the specific
submittal requirements for all Special Use Permit applications detailed within Section 2.7
of this Ordinance, applicants shall be required to adhere to the following:
(1) Overall Policy and Desired Goals
The overall policy and desired goals for Special Use Permits for wireless
telecommunications support structures shall be promoting and encouraging,
wherever possible, the following:
(a) Alternatives to constructing new wireless support structures, including
but not limited to the collocation of wireless telecommunications
equipment and mitigating the visual effect of a wireless
telecommunication support structure to an extent not commercially
impracticable; and
(b) The placement, height and quantity of wireless telecommunications
towers and equipment in such a manner, including but not limited to the
use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques, to minimize adverse
aesthetic and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other
facilities adjacent to, surrounding, and in generally the same area as the
requested location of such wireless telecommunications support
structure, which shall mean using the least visually and physically
intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impracticable
under the facts and circumstances.
(2) Balloon Test
(a) The applicant shall, at least six weeks prior to a Class B Special Use
Permit public hearing and at least 11 weeks prior to a Class A Special
Use Permit public hearing, conduct a balloon test whereby the applicant
shall arrange to fly, or raise upon a temporary mast, a minimum of 10’3”
in length, brightly colored red or orange balloon at the maximum height
of the proposed new wireless support structure.
(b) The balloon test shall be flown for at least four consecutive daylight
hours starting sometime between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. on the dates
chosen.
(c) A notice of the dates (including a second date in case of poor visibility,
weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial date), times, and location
of the balloon test shall be mailed, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, by the applicant, to all persons owning property within 1,000
feet of the subject parcel no less than 14 days in advance of the first test
date. The data contained within the office of Orange County Land
Records shall be used as the primary source for determining which
residents are to receive notice of the balloon tests.
This notice shall also inform local residents that a neighborhood
information meeting shall be held the day of the balloon test so that the
applicant can explain the proposal and Planning staff, including the
69
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.10: Standards for Telecommunication Facilities
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-101
County’s telecommunications consultant, can explain the Special Use
Permit review process. 12
(d) The primary date shall be on a weekend (excluding legal holidays), but to
prevent delays in the processing of the application, and in case of poor
weather or atmospheric conditions on the initial date, the secondary
date may be a weekday.
(e) The applicant shall inform the County Planning Staff, in writing, of the
dates and times of the test at least 14 days in advance.
(f) The applicant shall also post a sign on the subject property, and
directional signs posted at locations to be determined by Planning Staff.
The signs shall measure no more than nine square feet in area and no
less than four square feet in area, giving the contact information of the
County Planning Department, the proposed dates, times, and location of
the balloon test. The signs shall be posted to meet the same time limits
as provided for in the balloon test notification as stated above.
(3) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required herein as well as Section 2.7, the following
shall be submitted as part of the application:
(a) A site plan showing the following:
(i) The entire site (including property boundary lines) and size of all
existing structures within 500 feet of the site,
(ii) Existing and proposed structures on site,
(iii) The fall zone of the tower,
(iv) Existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five
feet and
(v) Any officially designated floodways and floodplains, or the
presence of alluvial soils.
(b) Plans, and elevations for all proposed structures and descriptions of the
color and nature of all exterior material, along with the make, model, and
manufacturer of the proposed structure, maximum antenna heights, and
power levels.
(c) A Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan drawn at the same scale as
the site plan, showing the existing and proposed trees, shrubs, ground
cover and other landscape materials. This plan shall minimize adverse
visual effects of wireless telecommunications support structures and
antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening and
innovative camouflaging techniques.
(d) Evidence that the applicant has investigated the possibilities of placing
the proposed equipment on an existing wireless support structure. Such
evidence shall consist of:
(i) A listing of all wireless telecommunications support structures
within a two mile radius of the proposed wireless support
structure site and a listing of all wireless support structure, utility
poles and other structures in the vicinity of the proposed facility
12 As we currently require a balloon test be held prior to a public hearing reviewing a telecommunication
application, staff believes it is reasonable to hold a neighborhood information meeting at the same time on‐site so
that interested parties can not only visualize the height of a proposed tower but ask questions related to the
review process.
70
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 8, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 10
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Public Hearing Process
Changes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Discussion Points Between Planning
Board Chair and Planning Staff
INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Perdita Holtz, Planning, 245-2578
Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2592
PURPOSE: To discuss the public hearing process changes presented at the September 8,
2014 quarterly public hearing and provide either input or a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC). A report on the topic will be prepared for the November 6,
2014 BOCC meeting.
BACKGROUND: The quarterly public hearing materials (available at
http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140908.pdf) provide background on this issue and are not
included as part of this item in order to minimize the length of the materials included. The
discussion that occurred at the public hearing can be viewed at http://orange-
nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=754. As was briefly discussed at the
public hearing, some points of the process are related to policy and do not need to be written
into the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) while other aspects of the process do need to
be included in the UDO. If there are concerns or questions about whether particular points are
policy-related or necessary for the UDO, staff (Planning and Attorney’s Office) can assist in
making this determination.
At the conclusion of the public hearing there were three points of consensus among BOCC
members:
1. Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process.
2. Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members at public hearings.
3. Public hearing legal ads do not necessarily need to be Consent Agenda items, circulation
via e-mail is likely OK. (Note that this is an internal process component that is not written
into the UDO and does not require Planning Board involvement).
The original impetus regarding this topic was as follows:
1. Remove the Planning Board as an official board at the public hearing (e.g., do not require
a quorum of Planning Board members).
2. Increase the frequency of public hearings (currently held 4 times per year on dates
specifically set aside only for public hearings).
71
Because these two points necessitate changes in existing process, additional discussion has
arisen. The most important points to consider are:
• Does the Planning Board recommendation occur before or after a BOCC-only public
hearing?
• Does increasing the frequency of public hearings cause too great a change in BOCC
meeting agenda internal processes and potentially impact BOCC meetings/calendars
too much?
• What is the role of the Planning Board in quasi-judicial matters (Special Use Permits) if
the Planning Board is no longer an official board at the public hearing?
• Additionally, a separate text amendment related to neighborhood information meetings in
advance of Special Use Permit applications has raised questions about how the public
can be more involved in matters prior to the public hearing.
In analyzing this topic, Staff believes it may be helpful to breakdown future discussion based on
the type of decision being made:
1. Legislative
a. Comprehensive Plan Text
b. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
c. UDO Text
d. Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments (general use districts and conditional
zoning districts)
2. Quasi-Judicial
a. Class A Special Use Permits (SUP)
3. Legislative/Quasi-Judicial Mix
a. Conditional Use District (a rezoning that also requires a Class A SUP)
At the present time, Orange County’s process is generally the same for these three different
(from a legal perspective) types of public hearings. However, the process can be different for
each type if the local government so chooses. Quasi-Judicial matters have very specific legal
requirements whereas there is significant discretion in Legislative matters.
Staff compiled a list of public hearing items since May 2011 (the date was chosen because the
UDO was adopted in April 2011) to determine the breakout of the types of items Orange County
has considered in recent years and the initiator of the item (Application by an Individual or
County-initiated). The following table illustrates the information:
Summary by Application Type/Initiator
Total Legislative Quasi-Judicial Legis./ QJ Mix
Applicant 16 (24%) 8 6 2
County 50 (76%) 50 - -
Totals 66 58 (88%) 6 (9%) 2 (3%)
Planning staff met with Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck on September 25 to discuss this
topic. The most salient points discussed during this meeting are included in Attachment 1 and
may be helpful in framing thoughts. Additionally, an internal County staff meeting comprised of
Planning staff members, the County Manager, the County Attorney, and the Staff Attorney
occurred later in the day on September 25. The preliminary staff recommendation resulting
from this meeting is as follows:
72
1. In regards to quasi-judicial matters, suggest having the Board of Adjustment handle all
Special Use Permit applications.
a. Currently, the Board of Adjustment hears and decides Class B SUP applications
while the BOCC hears and decides Class A SUP applications, with a
recommendation made by the Planning Board on Class A SUPs.
b. Implementing this idea would result in the BOCC making policy decisions (e.g.,
standards Special Use Permits have to adhere to) while the Board of Adjustment
would apply those policies.
c. Implementing this idea would remove the Planning Board from making a
recommendation on an SUP application.
2. Remove the existing requirement for a joint BOCC/Planning Board public hearing.
a. Implementing this idea would remove the Planning Board as an official board
(quorum required) at public hearings.
3. Write the process regulations so that the Planning Board gives its recommendation (on
Legislative items) prior to the BOCC-only public hearing.
Staff also believes that if #1 does not occur consideration should be given to removing the
Planning Board from Class A SUP matters. This idea becomes particularly relevant if the
Planning Board no longer attends the public hearing as an official board.
The Attorney’s office intends to attend the October 8 Planning Board meeting and could
address questions Planning Board members have in regards to quasi-judicial or other legal
matters.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing staff will complete the necessary work required for this project.
Changing the public hearing process is not expected to cause significant financial impacts
(negative or positive). Legal ads and mailed notifications, if required, would have to be sent
regardless of the process. Internal work flow, both within the Planning Department and in other
County Departments that have involvement with agenda setting, may need to be
updated/changed. Initial meetings with these departments have indicated that necessary
changes can be accommodated.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Discuss proposed public hearing process changes.
2. Provide either input or a recommendation on what the public hearing processes
should be.
73
1
Synopsis of September 25, 2014 Meeting between Planning Board
Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning staff
Legislative Items
1. Current process of keeping the public hearing open in order to allow for written
comments only after the public hearing is awkward.
2. People realize the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is final decision maker
so they tend to address the BOCC and see the Planning Board (PB) more as
“middle management” since the PB is advisory only.
3. If there was a PB meeting early-on, before the public hearing, that was noticed (first
class mail notifications to adjoining property owners plus post a sign on the property
for map amendments), the PB could be involved in projects/amendments early in the
process. This could be a “win” on several points:
a. Would result in more notification time for the public and people are informed
of the process earlier.
b. The PB meeting (the public could comment) could be viewed as a “dry run”
for the formal public hearing and could help all “sides” frame their
thoughts/arguments better.
c. The PB meeting could help determine which items have high public interest
and which items have lower public interest. (The BOCC might get a taste of
public reaction before the public hearing).
d. Having the PB make its recommendation after it has heard the opinions of all
sides at its meeting would enable the BOCC to have more options for action
at the conclusion of the public hearing:
i. Close the public hearing the night of the hearing and either:
1. Vote that night (this would enable quicker decisions on the items
that have lower public interest [once called the “no brainers” by
a former PB member]).
2. Schedule the decision on an item for a future BOCC regular
meeting.
3. Send the item back to the PB for reconsideration if the BOCC
believes that new information came forward at the public
hearing that had not been considered by the PB at its earlier
meeting.
ii. In legislative matters, it is not necessary to leave the public hearing
open since comments can be made at all meetings. Statutes require
only that a public hearing that meets statutory notice requirements be
held.
74
2
e. The requirement for written comments only after the public hearing could be
dropped and the BOCC could hear from interested parties again at the
meeting they make a decision (if the BOCC opted not to vote the night of the
public hearing)
4. The PB Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) is involved early on in shaping any
County-initiated UDO text amendments, so any PB members who are interested in a
text amendment have fairly early “access.”
Quasi-Judicial Items
1. There are concerns about the Planning Board being involved in any
recommendation on quasi-judicial (QJ) items if they are not an official board (quorum
required) at the public hearing. There are ways around this concern but the
Planning Board will have to be very careful about how it allows public comment and
how that comment weighs into its recommendation.
2. QJ items involve a yes/no checklist of whether a project meets the requirements
spelled out in the UDO. By and large, review is relegated to determining whether a
specific standard is met or not and if all standards are met, the permit must be
issued.
a. If the PB is not in attendance at the public hearing, it should not make findings
on the requirements contained in Section 5.3.2(A)(2) which are:
a) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and
operated according to the plan as submitted;
b) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property
(unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not
maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and
c) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the
plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be
located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical
development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. The three points listed directly above are the main findings that must be made
in order to issue a permit and are the basis of much of the expert testimony that
is made at the QJ hearing.
3. Some PB members in the past have mused that going through the checklist felt a bit
like “rubber stamping” an approval.
4. If the PB is to remain part of the QJ process, consideration should be given to
having the PB make its recommendation prior to the QJ hearing in order to avoid
75
3
any confusion about whether evidence is being collected after the official QJ
hearing.
Legislative/Quasi-Judicial Mix
1. This is an awkward process in all North Carolina communities that use this type
of process.
2. In the mid-2000s, Statutes were amended to allow a new type of zoning
(conditional zoning districts, a purely Legislative process) that could negate the
purpose of the Legislative/QJ Mix.
a. In Orange County, these projects are:
i. Any requests for the Conditional Use District
ii. Subdivisions containing 41 or more lots in Rural Designated areas
iii. Subdivisions containing 80 or more lots in Urban Designated areas
3. The Staff Attorney has suggested that new conditional zoning districts could
replace this approval process. This is an idea that merits additional
consideration.
4. Resolution on how to handle the Legislative/QJ Mix process will be dependent on
decisions made on the individual processes, so discussion cannot be framed
until this occurs.
Conclusions
Mr. Hallenbeck will lead the Planning Board in discussing this matter at its October 8th
meeting and stated he believes discussion should strongly consider the following:
1. Have the PB recommendation come before the public hearing on Legislative
items.
a. Have PB involvement early on with notice (first class mail and a sign
posting) to adjoining property owners (in the case of map amendments).
b. Implement the idea of posting upcoming items on the Planning
Department website so people can be apprised of upcoming items earlier
and can attend the PB meeting to voice their comments. (This would be
particularly relevant in regards to text amendments since no mailed
notices occur with text amendments).
2. Remove the PB from the QJ process.
a. The PB would no longer make a recommendation on QJ matters.
76