HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 060315ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3-4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for June and July
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 1, 2015 Regular Meeting
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks
its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any resident fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting
until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair
will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
observed.
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
1
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on
a Major Subdivision Concept Plan (using the Flexible Design Option)
application (Henderson Woods) seeking to subdivide a 48 acre parcel
of property into 19 single-family residential lots with 21.2 acres (44% of
the site) held in common open space. The proposed subdivision is
located at the intersection on Erwin Road and Whitfield Road in Chapel
Hill Township.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
8.
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS: To make
a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments
that would modify allowable impervious surface area within the
county’s zoning jurisdiction through the installation of infiltration based
stormwater features. This item was heard at the May 26, 2015
quarterly public hearing
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS: To make
a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments
regarding the review and permitting of temporary health care
structures. This item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public
hearing
Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner
10.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
b. Orange Unified Transportation
11. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
MICHAEL HARVEY (919-245-2592).
2
June 2015
◄ May ~ June 2015 ~ July ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
BOCC 7:00 pm
Whitted Building -
Hillsborough
3
Planning Board *
7:00 pm WCOB
Lower Level 004
4
BOCC 7:00 pm
Budget Work
Sessions
Southern Human
Services Center –
Chapel Hill
5
6
7
8
BOA 7:30 pm
WCOB
Lower level 004
9
BOCC 7:00 pm
Budget Work
Sessions
Whitted Building -
Hillsborough
10
11
BOCC 7:00 pm
Budget Work
Sessions
Southern Human
Services Center –
Chapel Hill
12
13
14
15
16
BOCC 7:00 pm
Southern Human
Services Center –
Chapel Hill
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Notes:
* Planning Board attendance expected
3
July 2015
◄ June ~ July 2015 ~ August ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
ORC Meeting – Start
time - TBD
Planning Board -7:00
pm
WCOB Lower Level
004
2
3
HOLIDAY
4
5
6
7
BOCC – 7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg-
Hillsborough
8
9
10
11
12
13
Board of Adjustment
7:30 pm WCOB 004
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
BOCC – 7:00 pm
Southern Human
Services – Chapel Hill
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Notes:
4
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Concept Plan Application – Henderson Woods
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Application Package
2. Property and Vicinity Map
Patrick Mallett, Planner II (919) 245-2577
Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597
3. Notes from Neighborhood Information
Meeting (NIM)
4. Staff Comments and Correspondence
Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575
PURPOSE: To review and take action on a Major Subdivision Concept Plan application proposing
a 19 lot single-family residential subdivision in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and
Article 7 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning the current application are as follows:
Applicant(s)/Agents: Dr. Thomas Humphries and
Tom Hefner, Hefner Properties
1020 New Hope Church Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Owners: Humphries Family LLC Henderson Woods Inc.
4712 Whitfield Road 6315 Howie Mine Church Road
Durham, NC 27707 Waxhaw, NC 28173
Location: Intersection of Whitfield Road and Erwin Road. Please refer to
Attachment 2 for a map of the parcel.
Parcel Information: a. PINs: 9891-80-0703 and 9891-60-4884.
b. Size of parcel: 48 acres in area total.
c. Zoning of parcels: Rural Buffer (RB).
d. Township: Chapel Hill.
e. School District: Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools.
f. Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer.
g. Growth Management System Designation: Rural Designated.
5
h. Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer – Rural
Residential Area.
i. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: Varying topography
with a pond, meadows and heavy vegetation, primarily mixed
hardwoods, throughout.
There are jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional streams running
through the property.
The property is not encumbered by floodplain.
The property has been evaluated for jurisdictional wetlands.
Potential areas have been flagged and are pending final
determination by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
j. Roads: Vehicular access to the parcel is proposed via Whitfield
Road.
There is an existing private road through the property called
Shakori Trail serving existing properties to the north. A portion
of this existing right-of-way will be converted into a public street
terminating in a cul-de-sac along the eastern property. There
will be a gated access off of the cul-de-sac for those property
owners to the north who desire to continue to use this as their
access.
k. Water and Sewer Service: The property is not located within a
primary public utility service area according to the Water and
Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement
(WASMPBA).
Proposed lots are to be served by individual well and septic
systems.
Surrounding Land Uses: a. NORTH: Single-family residences on lots ranging in size from 4 to
10 acres; property owned by Duke Forest approximately 232 acres
in size all zoned RB.
b. SOUTH: Whitfield Road; single-family residences on property
ranging in size from 1.5 to 5 acres all zoned RB.
c. EAST : Erwin Road; single-family residences on lots ranging in size
from 0.7 to 5 acres all zoned RB. Note, some of these smaller lots
were created prior to County zoning.
d. WEST: Single-family residences on lots ranging in size from 2.4 to
10 acres all zoned RB.
Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a major
subdivision is as follows:
• First Action – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM).
Staff Comment – DONE. This meeting was held on April 7, 2015. Please refer to
Attachment 3 for a synopsis of the NIM.
6
• Second Action – The Planning Board reviews and takes action on the Concept
Plan application approving either the ‘conventional’ or ‘flexible development’ layout.
The Planning Board review begins on June 3, 2015. As a reminder, the Concept
Plan review is intended to allow Board members and the applicant to discuss the
nature of the project and identify possible solutions to concerns identified by staff or
surrounding property owners.
If approved the Concept Plan serves as a ‘roadmap’ for the developer with respect
to the acceptable lot and road layout as well as location of proposed/required open
space and recreation areas.
• Third Action – Once a concept plan is approved, the Planning Board reviews and
makes a recommendation on the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the project.
• Fourth Action – The BOCC reviews and takes action on the Preliminary Plat
application.
• Fifth Action – Once all construction activities have been completed, or appropriate
bonds have been approved, staff will sign off and allow the recordation of a Final
Plat allowing for the individual lots to be created.
Proposal: The petitioner has submitted a Major Subdivision Concept Plan application proposing to
develop a maximum of 19 single-family residential lots with an overall proposed density for the
project of 1 dwelling unit per every 2.52 acres of land area with approximately 21 acres of the site
dedicated as common open space. Lots range in size from 1.0 (smallest) to 1.68 acres (largest).
UDO and Joint Planning Land Use Plan Requirements: Per Section 2.15.2 (C) (2) (b) of the UDO,
major subdivision concept plan applications are required to submit both a conventional and flexible
development option.
The flexible development option involves the preservation of a minimum 33% of the total tract’s land
area as protected open space. Development of individual lots is then allowed consistent with three
‘flexible development’ subdivision classifications detailed within Article 7 Subdivisions of the UDO,
namely:
• Estate Lot Option: Characterized by lots having a minimum area of 4 acres where the
building envelope does not exceed 50% of the total lot area.
• Conservation Cluster Option: Characterized by lots clustered together with a potential
minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet. Allowable lot yield is based on compliance with
density limits denoted within Section 4.2.4 of the UDO and as found in Section 6 of the Joint
Planning Land Use Plan. This Cluster Option was amended in 2013-14 to allow for smaller
lot sizes so long as the density did not increase and a proportional amount of common open
space was provided.
• Village Option: Allows for mixed-use development including various residential options (i.e.
single-family, multi-family, townhome, etc.) as well as public/civic areas and non-residential
development. This option is expressly prohibited within the RB zoning district as detailed
within Section 7.13.2 (C) of the UDO.
Clustering of lots may be permitted as outlined within the UDO as well as in Section 6, Future Land
Use – Joint Planning Area of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan, which can be viewed utilizing the
following link: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/JPALUPDocument.pdf
7
As previously indicated, the applicant has decided to submit a conservation cluster flexible
development layout with proposed lots adhering to the 1 acre minimum lot size and proposing
approximately 21 acres of open space (44% of the total site). A summary of the proposal is as
follows:
Subdivision Type Number of
Lots
Average Lot
Size
Area in Open Space Open Space
Percentage
Flexible Development
Plan
19 1.22 acres 21.21 acres 44%
STAFF COMMENT – SUBDIVISION TYPES: The proposal is in accordance with the anticipated
densities for properties located within the Rural Buffer land use category as defined within the
adopted Comprehensive Plan, Rural Designated area as denoted on the Growth Management
Systems Map, and the requirements of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The applicants have
indicated they wish to pursue the flexible development option versus the conventional option, which
has the support of staff.
Roads: The proposal involves the creation of three new public road to service the project, each will
constructed to NC Department of Transportation (DOT) standards and contain sidewalks.
STAFF COMMENT - ROADS: Staff has determined that the proposed roadway construction
and layout is consistent with the requirements of the UDO. Staff and NCDOT have also
determined that the limited access to Erwin Road and the properties to the north are sufficient
for services and emergency services.
Utilities – Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells
and septic systems developed on each lot. The Concept Plan Sheet 6 denotes anticipated
locations for well and septic sites for the lots.
STAFF COMMENT - UTILITIES: Orange County Environmental Health has indicated that they
do did not foresee see any potential problems with the proposed layout with respect to finding
suitable soils to support septic tank development.
As of the writing of this abstract, the Health Department has not submitted any additional written
comments. Final approval of proposed lot layouts typically occurs at the Preliminary Plat
application review stage of the subdivision process.
Stormwater Drainage: Drainage will be engineered according to Best Management Practices
(BMP) at the time of permit application for construction. The property is subject to adopted
stormwater management guidelines. The Concept Plan currently anticipates improving the old
farm pond to serve as their primary BMP.
STAFF COMMENT - STORMWATER: Orange County Erosion Control has not submitted
comments at this time as there is no formal stormwater management plan required as part of
the concept plan submittal.
8
The applicant will be required to submit additional detail, with respect to the anticipated
stormwater management plan, as part of the Preliminary Plat application package for review and
comment.
Open Space: The plan denotes the maintenance of a 30-foot natural buffer along Erwin Road and
Whitfield Road as well as the preservation of existing vegetation around the perimeter of the project
as part of the proposed open space plan. Existing streams shall be buffered in accordance with
County stream buffer regulations. The applicant is also proposing a 100-foot building setback along
the perimeter of the project.
The total area reserved as common open space is approximately 21.21 acres (44% of the site). This
open space is a mixture of Primary Open Space (e.g. jurisdictional streams and steep slopes); and
Secondary Open Space (e.g. landscaped entry areas, amenities, perimeter areas and the pond).
The proposed open space is composed of fields and forested areas with existing, mature, vegetation
and trees with an approximate height of between 50 to 80 feet. All 19 lots are adjacent and have
access to some portion of an open space area.
STAFF COMMENT – OPEN SPACE: Staff has determined the proposed open space and land
use buffers meet the requirements of the UDO.
Land Use Buffer: As previously indicated the concept plan indicates there will be a 30-foot Type B
land use buffer along Erwin Road and Whitfield Road. The buffers are comprised of existing, dense,
vegetation composed of existing, mature, shrubs and trees with an approximate height of between
50 to 70 feet.
STAFF COMMENT – LAND USE BUFFER: Section 6.8.6 (D) of the UDO requires that this
project maintain a thirty (30) foot land use buffer separating the project from adjacent roadways.
Staff has determined the proposed open space and land use buffers meet the requirements of
the UDO.
Staff Generated Correspondence: Attachment 4 contains staff comments for this project as of
the date of abstract preparation.
Public Notification: Section 2.15.2 (D) of the UDO requires that each property owner within
500 feet be notified by regular mail of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff
mailed out letters on March 20, 2015 to the property owners within 500 feet of the property
concerning the April 7, 2015 NIM. Please refer to Attachment 3 for additional information on
the NIM.
JPA Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this project was sent to
the Town of Chapel Hill for review and comment on April 20, 2015. To date, Staff has not
received any comments.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.15.2 (E) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
‘prepare and submit a recommendation’ on the concept plan to the Planning Board for
consideration. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following:
1. The application has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of
Section 2.2 and 2.15.2 of the UDO.
9
2. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed
subdivision.
3. The proposal appears consistent with the various goals outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including:
a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and economy
consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program
and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
4. Staff has determined that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions and
goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement.
5. Staff supports the approval of the Concept Plan using the Flexible Development option as
illustrated in the Submitted Concept Plan and described in the submitted application
materials.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Concept Plan application for the Henderson Woods Subdivision, and
2. Approve the Flexible Development option and allow the applicant to proceed with the
development of a Preliminary Plan and application utilizing this layout.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
88
'
104'
110
'
110'
111'
115'
11
6
'
122
'
127
'
127
'
501'
134'
134'
136'
135'
139
'
150'
151'
152'
152'
16
2
'
163'
16
5
'
170'
177
'
179'
179'
186
'
190'
19
3
'
194'
4
9
8
'
1268'
235
'
2
3
8
'
2
4
5
'
246'
2
4
6
'
323'
249'
2
5
1
'
253'
25
6
'
26
1
'
26
2
'
26
6
'
45
2
'
304'
306'
7
5
3
'
333'
32
3
'
331'
332'
336'
34
0
'
348
'
1201'411'
3
9
8
'
40
2
'
408'
42
4
'
42
6
'
4
4
0
'
453'
5
2
9
'
47
3
'
52
2
'
5
3
2
'
537'
597'
974
'
7
3
8
'
1633
'
983'
1188'
1
2
1
2
'
2458'
RB
ERWI
N
R
D
HOLLOWROCKRD
SHAKO
RI
T
R
L
WH I T F I E L D RD
Jordan LakeUnprotectedWatershed
Soil: WSoil: ApC Soil: Ch
Soil: WmD
Soil: GlF
Soil: ApB
Soil: WsBSoil: WtC2
Soil: ApC
Soil: ApB
Soil: CrB
Soil: GeB
Soil: EnC
Soil: TaD
Soil: W
Soil: W
Soil: CfB Soil: GeCStreams (Deleted)USGS StreamSoils Survey StreamOC Updated StreamStream Buffer 80ft
Floodplain Buffer 80ftParcelsZoningWater BodyWatershed
Soils
100 YR Floodplain(Effective 02/02/07)Floodway(Effective 02/02/07)
500 Year Floodplains(Effective 02/02/07)·
0 100 200Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange CountyGIS and is for reference only.Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections.03/20/2015 - smschultz
Multiple Parcels
Site Assessment for PIN:9891-80-0703 and 9891-60-4884
Site DataZoning: RB - Rural BufferAcreage: 48.0 acresOverlay Districts: Jordan Lake UnprotectedPlat/Legal Description: PIN: 9891-80-0703 DB 5892 / PG 471 PlatBook 58 / PG 21 and PIN: 9891-60-4884 DB 2027 / PG 561 PlatBook 110 / PG 157Recorded Declarations/Covenants: Not Found
Zoning RequirementsMin. Lot Size: 87,120 sq. ft.Min. lot width: 130'Maximum height: 25'Building Setbacks:-Front (and Corner lots) = 40' from public rights-of-way-Side Setbacks = 20' from side lot lines-Rear Yard Setback = 20' from rear lot lines
Note: Lot size, building setbacks and stream buffers mayincrease based on Private Road Justification (UDO 7.8.5).
Environmental Features:-Stream buffers located on lots. Stream buffer is 80 ft (displayed)for northern stream, and 50 ft (SWID) for eastern stream.Waterbody buffer not required for pond, please see SWID fordetails.
Impervious Surface Limits: NA
Land Disturbance Thresholds1) Environmental Control Permit required if disturbing more than20,000 sq.ft.; and2) Stormwater Management Permit required if disturbing morethan 21,780 sq. ft. for residential structures.
Note: Surface Water Identification (SWID) was performed by theOrange County Engineering Erosion Control Division and issuedits findings on February 3, 2015
Date Site Assessment Completed: 3/20/2015 by SMS
20
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
HENDERSON WOODS
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2015
LOCATION: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING CONFERENCE RM 4.
TIME: 5:30-7:30PM
MEETING ORGANIZER: TOM HEFNER, HEFNER PROPERTIES, LLC
The applicant is seeking Concept Plan approval from Orange County Planning staff regarding a
proposed 19 lot Major Subdivision of a 48 acre tract of land at the intersection of Whitfield (S.R.
1731) and Erwin Roads (S.R. 1734).
Per Section 2.15 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), titled “Major
Subdivisions,” the required Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), was hosted by Orange
County Planning staff and presented by the developer on April 7, 2015. Approximately 20 adjacent
property owners and area residents attended the meeting.
Henderson Woods Major Subdivision Overview
Applicant: Dr. Thomas Humphries and Tom Hefner, Hefner Properties, Chapel Hill, NC
Location: Intersection of Whitfield Road and Erwin Road
PINs: 9891-80-0703; and 9891604884
Legal Description: DB 5892 PG 471; PB 58 PG 21; DB2027 PG 561; and PB 110 PG 157
Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB)
Overlay Districts: Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed
School District: Chapel-Hill Carrboro Schools
Utilities: Private individual Well and Septic Systems
Total Acreage: 48 acres
Proposed Lots: 19 lots
Density: One dwelling units per 2.52 acres
Access: Vehicular access to the subdivision is proposed via Whitfield Road. The 19 lots would be
served via a network of 3 public streets (built to public street standards). Private drives and access
easements are also provided to the adjacent property owners along Shakori Trail. This access
drive would be restricted to those adjacent owners and Emergency Services.
Proposal: Applicant is proposing a 19 lot major subdivision (Henderson Woods) with Primary and
Secondary Common Open Space. The request would utilize the Flexible Development Option,
which allows for minimum lots sizes of 1 acre with the provision of a minimum of 33% Open Space.
The proposal holds approximately 42% of the site in Primary and Secondary Open Space (20.35
acres). All lots are adjacent and have access to Primary and/or Secondary Open Space.
Attachment 3 21
Meeting Highlights:
Orange County Planning staff presented the 20 attendees with an overview of: the
application; the site; surrounding area; site environmental constraints, the zoning and subdivision
requirements and the tentative schedule for the plan’s review and approval or denial by the Orange
County Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Hefner, presented his site analysis, the Concept Plan, the basis for the design, plan
revisions based on meetings with Orange County staff, NCDOT recommendations, site
observations, environmental assessments and environmental and developments constraints
associated with the property. He then opened up the meeting to comments, ideas and questions
from the residents. Dr. Humphries was not present at the meeting.
The questions and concerns from residents centered on the following categories:
1. Vehicular Access and Traffic.
Residents expressed concerns about the potential for traffic congestion on Erwin and
Whitfield (especially during the AM and PM peak hours). Residents with access via
Shakori Trails were also concerned with maintaining their current legal access.
Residents who live off Turkey Farm Road also raised concerns that they would be
negatively affected by traffic
Orange County Planning Staff outlined the access, public and private street
standards, the merits of locating the proposed access onto Whitfield Road vs. Erwin
Road, the connections to Shakori Trails, and the internal circulation of the proposed
plan.
Mr. Hefner outlined his meetings with NCDOT, the site constraints, legal obligations
to provide access to Erwin Road for the two Shakori Trails homes, Emergency
Service Access. He also noted the AM and PM traffic patterns that had been
observed on Whitfield and Erwin Roads, and that the estimated amount of additional
cars (approximately 38 new cars) from the proposed new residencies would not
cause a harmful impact to the road network.
2. Lot Size, Density and Open Space .
Residents expressed concerns about the 1 acre minimum lot size, the number of
units, preserving the character of the area, the Rural Buffer, New Hope Creek and
Duke Forest.
Orange Planning Staff reviewed the UDO requirements, the perimeter setback and
buffers, the value of the Flexible Design Option with dedicated common Open
Space, the effective density (2.5 dwelling units per acre), and best planning practices
for environmentally sensitive design. Staff also noted that the site’s zoning and
watershed would allow for up to 24 dwelling units.
Mr. Hefner reviewed the market analysis, site constraints, the initial concept plans
which yielded 22-24 lots, the suitable soils, and steep slopes. He noted the desire to
preserve common areas in dedicated open space vs. 19 lots. In response to a
resident inquiry, he also noted that that any person with a lot can choose his/her own
residential builder.
3. Setbacks, Buffers and Tree Preservation.
Residents asked questions about setbacks, buffers and areas along the perimeter of
the project.
22
Orange County Staff reviewed the 100’ building setback, roadside buffer
requirements, as well as required tree save areas within the Primary Conservation
areas.
Mr. Hefner reviewed his plans to preserve most of the trees within the 100’ building
setback and to designate most if not all of the 100’ perimeter as dedicated open
space. He also noted the value of maintaining the open space areas within an HOA
vs. 19 lots.
4. Conventional vs. Flexible Design.
Residents asked questions the requirements and provisions of the Flexible Design
Option. Specifically.
Orange County Staff reviewed the provisions and requirements as well as the
benefits of the Plan (e.g. HOA ownerships and maintenance of the Open Space and
the fact that the entire perimeter of the project is controlled by one entity vs. 19
owners. It is also inherently a more sustainable and environmentally sensitive
design. Staff also reviewed the 1 acre min. provisions as allowed in the UDO and
other Joint Planning Agreements.
Mr. Hefner reviewed his conventional option for the site, the benefits from a
development and maintenance perspective and his commitment to exceed the
minimum requirements.
5. Trails and Connections to New Hope Creek and/or Duke Forest.
Residents asked questions about the possibility of trail connections to Duke Forest
and New Hope Creek.
Orange County Staff notes that trails of this nature would require additional
easements and improvements through numerous properties. Trails Access via
Whitfield may also cause additional off-street parking and traffic congestion issues.
Staff noted that public access is often encouraged but to the extent that it causes
harm and/or interference with open space that is intended to be more passive in
nature.
Jena Schrieber, Operations Manager for Duke Forest was in attendance and
indicated that they could consider such a request. However, it was unlikely
considering Duke Forest’s existing access points nearby and the strategy of directing
pedestrian access to strategic points of the Forest and New Hope Creek.
Mr. Hefner reviewed his conventional option for the site, the benefits from a
development and maintenance perspective, and his commitment to exceed the
minimum open space requirements. He also deferred to Duke Forest to make any
further determinations about additional public access points through their property.
6. Well and Septic
Residents asked questions regarding the nature of the suitable soils for the septic
systems and water supply for the wells. They also expressed concerns that the
development may impact their water quality and quality.
Orange County Staff reviewed suitable soils indicated on the plan and the fact that
the plan calls for individual wells and septic systems.
23
Mr. Hefner reviewed his plans for individual well and septic systems contained on
each lot. He also explained the hydro-geological composition of the area, the fact
that the area’s water is served by fractured granite water deposits, and that it is
unlikely that the wells associated with this development would draw from the same
water source(s).
7. Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Residents asked questions protecting the stream buffers, wetlands and the pond.
Orange County Staff reviewed the jurisdictional stream buffer requirements and the
fact that a Surface Water Identification (SWID) was performed and determined that
the existing pond was and drainage way form the dam was not jurisdictional. They
also pointed out that disturbing any jurisdictional wetlands greater than 1 acre on the
entire site would be subject to permitting and/or mitigate with the County and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Hefner reviewed his plans to preserve the pond, but rework it into a viable
amenity and storm water feature. He also indicated that he would have the site
evaluated for any jurisdictional wetlands.
8. Lighting.
Residents asked about the design and intensity of the street lighting.
Orange County Staff cited county’s required lighting ordinance, which restricts light
spillover, glare and intensity.
Mr. Hefner indicated that the projects restrictive covenants would likely prohibit free
standing lights of that the street lighting fixtures installed along the public streets.
Staff concluded the meeting with a summary of the next steps in the process. The meeting
was adjourned at approximately 1:45PM.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Impervious Surface
Regulations
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Outline Form –
Impervious Surface Amendments
(UDO/Zoning 2015-02)
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Proposed Amendment Package
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Harvey Planner III, (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2585
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director initiated
amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding impervious surface
regulations.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing
(materials available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf).
As indicated during the hearing the proposed amendment seeks to allow for a potential increase
in allowable impervious surface area on a given parcel of property through the development and
incorporation of an infiltration based stormwater feature, consistent with State allowances. For
additional background information please refer to Section B.1 of Attachment 1.
Please refer to Section C.1 of Attachment 1 for a synopsis of comments made at the public
hearing.
Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO any evidence not
presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s
recommendation. 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
Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
43
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
1. Deliberate on the petition as desired,
2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and
3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency and proposed
amendment package in time for the June 16, 2015 BOCC meeting.
44
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2015-02
UDO Text Amendment(s) allowing for the modification of impervious surface area
within Watershed Protection Overlay Districts through the installation of an infiltration
based stormwater system
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Land Use Element 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. 4.2.8 Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio
of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
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 modify existing regulations governing processes
Attachment 1 45
allowing for the modification of allowable impervious surface area.
There has been an increase in inquires and interest from local residents and property
owners with respect to increasing allowable impervious surface area on parcels of
property including:
• Increasing allowable impervious surface percentages in Watershed Protection
Overlay Districts in accordance with State standards,
• Allow additional impervious surface area on property based on the installation
of a stormwater feature, and
• Exempt gravel from being considered an ‘impervious surface area’.
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 address current concerns our impervious surface
limits are too restrictive and unnecessary limit development of property and to provide a
mechanism for modifying said limits consistent with current State policies.
Staff generated an information item on this topic, which was provided to the BOCC at
its March 3, 2015 regular meeting. Agenda materials from this meeting can be
viewed at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/March_3__
2015.pdf.
As detailed within this information item, in certain circumstances the State allows the
installation of a stormwater feature, commonly referred to as a Best Management
Practice (BMP), providing an opportunity for the installation of additional impervious
surface area.
At this time the State only recognizes the use/installation of permeable pavement as
a means of receiving additional impervious surface area on a parcel. The State is in
the process, however, of revising their policies with respect to the types of features
where additional impervious surface could be permitted based on the installation of a
BMP designed to capture and allow for the infiltration of stormwater. The result could
be the expansion of the types of features allowing for an additional allotment of
impervious surface area.
The proposed amendment(s) seeks to incorporate the use of infiltration
based/designed BMPs as a means of modifying allowable impervious surface area
within the County. This is consistent with current, and anticipated, State allowances.
The review of these requests will have to be done on a case-by-case basis with the
property owner assuming the responsibility for completing the necessary engineering
studies justifying the modification as well as the responsibility for the maintenance,
inspection, and upkeep of said BMP in perpetuity.
46
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques, and/or
incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
March 17, 2015
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
May 26, 2015
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
March 17, 2015 – Approved the UDO Amendment Outline Form.
April 1, 2015 – Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
May 26, 2015 – Quarterly Public Hearing.
During the public hearing the following questions/general comments were
made:
a. A planning board member indicated more effort needed to be taken
to ensure local property owners/developers are aware of the
easement and access requirements associated with the installation
of a BMP.
b. A Board member asked how maintenance requirements for an
installed stormwater feature would be formalized.
STAFF COMMENT: An operations and maintenance agreement
would be completed by the property owner and staff detailing the
perpetual maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater feature.
This agreement would be recorded within the Orange County
Registrar of Deeds Office and would run with the land meaning
future owners of the property would be bound to the agreement as
well.
c. A planning board member asked what would happen if a property
owner failed to properly maintain a BMP?
STAFF COMMENT: If the property owner fails to abide by the
agreement and maintain the system, enforcement action would be
taken by the County ranging from the issuance of fines, re-
establishment of a new BMP, or removal of the unmaintained
stormwater feature. This would include the removal of any
47
impervious surface area installed as part of the BMP.
d. A local resident expressed support for proposal and concern over
the process employed by developers to allocate impervious surface
area within their projects.
STAFF COMMENT: The concern is being reviewed.
e. A Board member asked if there were sufficient staff within Erosion
Control to complete required inspections of stormwater systems.
STAFF COMMENT: The Director indicated an additional Erosion
Control officer would be hired in 2016 to address the increased
workload for the Department. Additional staff, however, may be
necessary if more BMPs are installed throughout the County
requiring monitoring and inspection.
f. There was general discussion over OWASA’s review comments.
For more information on OWASA’s recommendation please refer to
Attachment 3 of the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing
package which can be viewed
at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf.
g. Staff informed the BOCC and Planning Board a comment from
Commissioner Barry Jacobs had been received suggesting the
proposed modification option not be applicable in Critical Watershed
Protection Overlay Districts (i.e. Upper Eno, Cane Creek, University
Lake Critical areas) to ensure water quality in these areas is not an
issue.
June 16, 2015 - Receive Planning Board recommendation.
d. Other
N/A
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
April 1, 2015 – Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC).
The ORC met on April 1, 2015 to review this item. There was general
discussion over the implications of the proposed amendment and the
process by which a property owner would obtain additional impervious
surface area.
June 3, 2015 – Recommendation.
48
b. Advisory Boards:
Commission for the Environment
(CFE). The CFE reviewed this item at
its April 13, 2015 regular meeting.
Comments from this meeting are
contained within the May 26, 2015
public hearing packet.
c. Local Government Review:
Staff transmitted the proposed
amendment to the Towns of Chapel
Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough for
courtesy review.
To date only the Town of Carrboro
has provided comments.
Staff transmitted the proposed
amendment to OWASA staff and
presented the item to its Board on
April 23, 2015.
Comments from this meeting are
contained within the May 26, 2015
public hearing packet.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement 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.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
The amendment will allow for an additional process, in accordance with State
regulations, allowing for the modification of impervious surface limits throughout the
County. While an engineer will be supplying an analysis of the proposed BMP and post
construction reports on its operation, staff time is still required to review and inspect the
General Public:
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
49
system. Inspection fees will be necessary to assist in cost recovery.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please refer to Attachment 3.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245-2597
mharvey@orangecountync.gov
50
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 allowing for the modification of established impervious surface limits with the
installation and perpetual maintenance of an infiltration based stormwater feature commonly
referred to as a Best Management Practice (BMP).
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 amendment 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 1:
Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with
the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life.
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.
Chapter 6 – Natural and Cultural Systems Element – Section 6.4.4 Natural
Areas, Wildlife, and Prime Forests – Natural Area Objective 4:
Encourage adequate stormwater runoff controls in existing developed areas
and require these controls for new subdivisions to protect sensitive
downstream aquatic habitat.
Chapter 8 – Services and Facilities Element – Section 8.4.2 Erosin Control and
Stormwater Management – Erosion Control Objective 1:
Continue to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater control,
as outlined within the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance,
Stormwater Ordinance, and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, to minimize
potential adverse impacts on the water quality.
c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
1. Allows for the placement of additional impervious surface area on a parcel
of property through the installation and perpetual maintenance of an
infiltration based stormwater feature. This feature, required to be designed
by an engineer, will capture and ‘treat’ runoff rather than direct it into
existing streams, waterbodies, or ditches thereby helping minimize the
potential adverse impacts on water quality.
51
2. Requires current, and future, property owners to maintain the integrity and
viability of the installed stormwater feature in an effort to guarantee water
quality in perpetuity.
d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Provides an opportunity for interested residents and property owners to
install additional impervious surface area, such as gravel, asphalt, and
buildings, on a property with the installation of an infiltration based
stormwater feature consistent with practices employed by the State of North
Carolina.
2. Allows for additional use of property while working to address concerns over
water quality.
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
52
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-5
(e) The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the
minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the criteria in (a)
through (d).
4.2.3 Land Use Restrictions
All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the following
exceptions:
TABLE 4.2.3 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
DISTRICT RESTRICTIONS
UNIV-CA
UNIV-PW
CANE-CA
U-ENO-CA
No new landfills are permitted.
No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except for commercial development, in
accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, located within established Nodes as
detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
No new golf courses are permitted
UNIV-CA
CANE-CA
U-ENO-CA
No residual (sludge/biosolids) application is permitted.
CANE-PW
U-ENO-PW
HYCO-PW
LITTLE-PW
BACK-PW
FLAT-PW
HAW-PW
L-ENO-PW
JORDAN-PW
No discharging landfills are permitted. Industrial use is limited to nonhazardous light
industrial uses characterized by low water use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic
water (25 gpd per employee) and water used for heating and air conditioning).
4.2.4 Residential Density
Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table in this subsection, or as required
by the underlying zoning district, whichever is less.
TABLE 4.2.4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY
UNIV-CA
UNIV-PW
1 du/five acres.
Lots of record existing on October 2, 1989 may contain up to, but no more than, five lots
with a density of one du/two acres. Contiguous lots of record existing on October 2, 1989
may be combined into one parcel for development. The number of two-acre lots and the
total number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the number of lots
which could be created from each lot of record.
CANE-CA
CANE-PW
1 du/ five acres
Lots of record existing on October 19, 1999 may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as
small as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of record existing on October 19, 1999 may be
combined into one parcel for development. The number of two-acre lots and the total
number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the number of lots which
could be created from each lot of record.
U-ENO-CA
LITTLE-PW 1 du / 2 acres
HYCO-PW
FLAT-PW 1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre)
U-ENO-PW
L-ENO-PW
HAW-PW
JORDAN-PW
BACK-PW
Maximum density is as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1 dwelling unit per
acre. Refer to Section 4.2.5.
53
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-6
4.2.5 Impervious Surface and Detention Pond Requirements for Residential Uses
TABLE 4.2.5.1: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV-CA
UNIV-PW
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for all lots which existed prior to 4/2/90, which are subject to impervious surface
limits as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious
Surface Ratios – Univ, Cane, and Little). [1], [2] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements. 1
Lots shall either be a minimum of 2 acres in area, exclusive of any right-of-way or access
easement, or created in accordance with established density regulations through the
subdivision process to qualify for additional impervious surface allocation as detailed in
Section 4.2.8 (C). 2
CANE-CA
CANE-PW
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots smaller than two acres which existed prior to 1/1/94, which are subject to
impervious surface limits as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for
Residential Impervious Surface Ratios – Univ, Cane, and Little). [1], [2]
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
Lots shall either be a minimum of 2 acres in area, exclusive of any right-of-way or access
easement, or created in accordance with established density regulations through the
subdivision process to qualify for additional impervious surface allocation as detailed in
Section 4.2.8 (C).
U-ENO-CA
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots smaller than five acres which existed prior to 6/1/2010, which are subject to
impervious surface limits as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for
Residential Impervious Surface Ratios – Upper Eno). [1], [2]
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
LITTLE-PW
6% impervious surface limit.
EXCEPT for lots which existed prior to 1/1/94, which are subject to impervious surface limits
as provided in the following Table (entitled Sliding Scale for Residential Impervious Surface
Ratios - Univ, Cane, and Little). [1], [2]
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
Lots shall either be a minimum of 2 acres in area, exclusive of any right-of-way or access
easement, or created in accordance with established density regulations through the
subdivision process to qualify for additional impervious surface allocation as detailed in
Section 4.2.8 (C). 3
1 Staff is editing existing notes throughout the Section to address existing typographical and reference errors. In
the existing text an asterisk (‘*’) in certain cases was used to denote information while in other cases it was not.
There was also a [1] used to identify certain watersheds requiring a BMP in the Neuse River Basin. Unfortunately
the watershed overlay districts identified are not in the Neuse River Basin. The proposed amendments address
these issues and clarify the essential information.
2 Green bold underlined language added on May 28, 2015 to address a concern of the Planning Director.
Specifically lots created through the cluster subdivision process would not be able to take advantage of the
proposal. We also changed out the term ‘parcel’ for ‘lot’ as the term ‘lot’ is already defined within the UDO.
3 Staff is suggesting language mandating a 2 acre minimum lot size, or that the lot was created in accordance with
established density regulations, in order for a parcel within identified watershed overlay districts to request a
modification of impervious surface area through the installation of a stormwater feature. The rationale for the
suggestion is that State regulations currently allow governing bodies to require either a 1 acre minimum lot size,
limited to a 6% impervious surface threshold, or a 2 acre minimum lot size limited to a 12% impervious surface
threshold. In these identified watershed overlay districts the County made a conscious decision to follow the more
restrictive option. We are recommending the condition to ensure those properties subject to a modification
request meet minimum State standards with respect to required lot size. Please refer to Attachment 2 for
additional information on State requirements associated with the establishment and enforcement of impervious
surface thresholds.
54
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-7
TABLE 4.2.5.1: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (RESIDENTIAL)
FLAT-PW
HYCO-PW
12% impervious surface limit for new and existing lots. [1], [2]
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
U-ENO-PW
BACK-PW
12% impervious surface limit for existing and new lots outside of Transition Areas as
designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. [1], [2]
[1] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
30% impervious surface limit for developments which exceed a density 1 du/acre within
Transition Areas as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. Structural BMPs are
required if impervious surface exceeds 12%.
70% impervious surface limit for residential uses developed at “high intensity” densities (R-
5, R-8, and R-13) in an Economic Development District as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high-density option) with structural BMPs if ISR
exceeds>12%.
L-ENO-PW
24% impervious surface limit with curb and gutter.
36% impervious surface limit without curb and gutter.
[1], [2] [1] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
70% impervious surface limit for residential uses developed at “high intensity” densities (R-
5, R-8, and R-13) in an Economic Development District as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high-density option), with structural BMPs required
when impervious surface exceeds:
24% (w/ curb and gutter); or
36% (w/o curb and gutter).
HAW-PW
JORDAN-PW
24% impervious surface limit. [1], [2]
[1] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
[1] BMP’s as mandated by the Stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are
allowed. Allowable impervious surface area may be modified in accordance with Section 4.2.8 of the UDO. 4
[2] Regardless of the proposed amount of impervious surface area, a stormwater feature/best management practice
(BMP) may still be required based on the proposed amount of land disturbance on a given parcel of property in
accordance with applicable Orange County Erosion Control and State Stormwater regulations. 5
(A) Hillsborough Economic Development District
(1) The Hillsborough Economic Development District is located within the Lower Eno
- Unprotected watershed. Within the Hillsborough Economic Development
District, as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
maximum impervious surface ratio is 50% with detention ponds.
4 This references the Section of the UDO where are now recognizing a State provision allowing for the additional
allotment of impervious surface area through the use of specific BMPs.
5 The County enforces land disturbance thresholds for erosion control and stormwater permits, specifically a
certain amount of land disturbance will require the submittal of either an erosion control permit and/or a
stormwater permit application. While a BMP may be installed on a parcel of property as part of a proposed
modification of allowable impervious surface area, the County also enforces standards requiring a BMP on
property being developed for residential purposes based on the proposed amount of land disturbance. This
requirement has nothing to do with the total amount of impervious surface area proposed or any request to
modify same. Land disturbance thresholds vary for each district. We are adding language to the UDO clarifying
when a BMP is required based on these existing disturbance thresholds.
55
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-8
TABLES 4.2.5.2 & 4.2.5.3: SLIDING SCALE FOR RESIDENTIAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS –
UNIV, CANE, LITTLE, AND UPPER ENO
LOT SIZE (ACRES) ISR SQUARE FEET LOT SIZE (ACRES) ISR SQUARE FEET
Cells in black DO NOT apply to the Upper Eno
6+ 5.0 3.1 9.8 13,234
6.0 5.0 13,068 3.0 10.0 13,068
5.9 5.1 13,107 2.9 10.2 12,885
5.8 5.2 13,138 2.8 10.4 12,685
5.7 5.3 13,159 2.7 10.6 12,467
5.6 5.4 13,172 2.6 10.8 12,232
5.5 5.5 13,177 2.5 11.0 11,979
5.4 5.6 13,172 2.4 11.2 11,709
5.3 5.7 13,159 2.3 11.4 11,421
5.2. 5.8 13,138 2.2 11.6 11,116
5.1 5.9 13,107 2.1 11.8 10,794
5.0 6.0 13,068 2.0 12.0 10,454
4.9 6.2 13,234 1.9 12.2 10,097
4.8 6.4 13,381 1.8 12.4 9,723
4.7 6.6 13,512 1.7 12.6 9,331
4.6 6.8 13,625 1.6 12.8 8,921
4.5 7.0 13,721 1.5 13.0 8,494
4.4 7.2 13,880 1.4 13.2 8,050
4.3 7.4 13,861 1.3 13.4 7,588
4.2 7.6 13,904 1.2 13.6 7,109
4.1 7.8 13,930 1.1 13.8 6,612
4.0 8.0 13,939 1.0 14.0 6,098
3.9 8.2 13,930 0.9 14.2 5,567
3.8 8.4 13,904 0.8 14.4 5,018
3.7 8.6 13,861 0.7 14.6 4,452
3.6 8.8 13,800 0.6 14.8 3,868
3.5 9.0 13,721 0.5 15.0 3,267
3.4 9.2 13,625 0.4 15.2 2,648
3.3 9.4 13,512 0.3 15.4 2,012
3.2 9.6 13,382 0.2 15.6 1,359
4.2.6 Impervious Surface, Detention Pond, and Lot Size Requirements for Non-Residential Uses
Unless otherwise noted in the Table below, minimum lot sizes shall be in conformance with the
underlying zoning district.
TABLE 4.2.6: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV-CA
UNIV-PW6 Same as Residential (See Table in subsection 4.2.5)
6 Staff is recommending modifying these provisions to ensure consistency amongst the various watershed overlay
districts. We believe it would be more appropriate to make the regulations more consistent with other, similar
overlay districts as denoted herein.
56
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-9
TABLE 4.2.6: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL)
UNIV-CA
CANE-CA
5-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record September 1,
2015 (University Lake) or October 19, 1999 (Cane Creek); AND
6% impervious surface limit.
[1], [2] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
U-ENO-CA
2-acre minimum lot size AND
6% impervious surface limit. [1], [2]
UNIV-PW
CANE-PW
5-acre minimum lot size with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record September 1, 2015
(University Lake) or October 19, 1999 (Cane Creek) (Amended 10-19-99); AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres in CANE-PW).
[1], [2[ BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
LITTLE-PW
2-acre minimum lot size AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND
a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (406 acres in LITTLE-PW).
[1], [2] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
U-ENO-PW
BACK-PW
70%
ISR in Economic Development, Commercial and/or Commercial- Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high-density option) with structural BMPs if ISR > exceeds 12%; AND
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers outside of Commercial and/or Commercial-
Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, with structural BMPs if ISR
> exceeds 12%; AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses outside of Commercial and/or Commercial-Industrial Nodes as
designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed
impervious surface requirements); AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND
A limit of 1,151 acres of non-residential use throughout U-ENO-PW (5.0%) and 163 acres throughout BACK-PW
(1%). [1], [2]
HYCO-PW
FLAT-PW
50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND
12% ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND
on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;AND
limit of 1% of the watershed for non-residential use (37 acres in HYCO-PW, 66 acres in FLAT-PW).
[1], [2] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
L-ENO-PW
70% impervious surface, with structural BMPs required when impervious surface exceeds:
24% (w/ curb and gutter); or
36% (w/o curb and gutter). [1], [2]
57
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-10
TABLE 4.2.6: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS
DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL)
HAW-PW
JORDAN-
PW
24% impervious surface limit.
[1], [2] BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements.
[1] BMP’s as mandated by the Stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are allowed.
[1] Allowable impervious surface area may be modified in accordance with Section 4.2.8 of the UDO.
[2] For non-residential developments a stormwater feature/best management practice (BMP) shall be required in accordance with
applicable local and State standards based on proposed land disturbance and/or a project exceeding impervious surface
thresholds as identified herein. 7
NOTE: Non-residential use impervious acreage limits in watershed with such limits are calculated using the actual amount of
impervious surface for non-residential uses throughout the watershed, not by the overall number of acres of non-residential
parcels located in a particular watershed.
(A) Hillsborough Economic Development District
(1) The Hillsborough Economic Development District is located within the Lower Eno
- Unprotected watershed. Within the Hillsborough Economic Development
District, as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
maximum impervious surface ratio is 50% with detention ponds.
4.2.7 Placement of Streets, Driveways, and Buildings
(A) Streets, driveways, and buildings or other structures shall be located, to the extent
reasonably possible, so as to take full advantage of the absorptive capacity of the soils
on which they are to be situated and to avoid the following environmentally sensitive
areas:
(1) Stream buffer zones as required by Section 6.13;
(2) Wetlands as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
(3) Land with slopes greater than 15%; and
(4) Natural areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats
of Orange County, NC.
(B) To avoid creating lots that will be difficult to build upon in compliance with the standards
of this Section, the preliminary plan shall show proposed building envelopes and
approximate driveway locations for all lots within subdivisions.
(1) A zoning compliance permit shall not be issued for the construction of buildings
or driveways outside the areas so designated on the preliminary plan unless the
Planning Director makes a written finding that the proposed location complies
with the provisions of this Section and Sections 6.13 (Stream Buffers) and 6.14
(Stormwater Management).
4.2.8 Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio
Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratios may be requested through one of the following
provisions:
(A) Through variance procedures of the Board of Adjustment, as described in Section 2.10.
7 Unlike residential development, State regulations require a stormwater feature for all non‐residential projects
exceeding established impervious surface thresholds for the watershed protection overlay district in which the
project is located. This is the reason why language for note 2 within Section 4.2.6 is different from the same note
in Section 4.2.5.
58
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-11
(B) Through approval and recordation of a conservation agreement, as provided in Article 4
of Chapter 121 of the N.C. General Statutes, between Orange County and a land owner
that prohibits development of land in a protected watershed in perpetuity, subject to the
following:
(1) A modification of the required impervious surface ratios may be approved
administratively but only to the extent that additional land in the same watershed
is conserved or protected from development.
(2) The land which will be subject to a conservation agreement must be adjacent to
the land proposed for development and for which a modification of the
impervious surface ratios is sought.
(a) As an example, a person owning a 40,000 square foot lot and subject to
a 12% impervious surface ratio would be limited to 4,800 square feet of
impervious coverage. If the person's plans called for 5,500 square feet
of coverage (a difference of 700 square feet), the recording of a
conservation easement on 5,833 square feet of contiguous property
would satisfy the impervious surface ratio requirements. (12% of 5,833
square feet is 700 square feet.)
(b) The conservation easement shall describe the property restricted in a
manner sufficient to pass title, provide that its restrictions are covenants
that run with the land and, be approved in form by the County Attorney.
(c) The conservation easement shall, upon recording, be in the place of a
first priority lien on the property (excepting current ad valorem property
taxes) and shall remain so unless, with the approval of Orange County, it
is released and terminated.
(d) Orange County shall require the priority of the conservation easement to
be certified by an attorney-at-law, licensed to practice law in the State of
North Carolina and approved to certify title to real property.
(e) Orange County approval of a release or termination of the conservation
agreement shall be declared on the document releasing or terminating
the agreement. The document shall be signed by the Orange County
Manager, upon approval of the Board of County Commissioners. No
such document shall be effective to release or terminate the
conservation agreement until it is filed for registration with the Register of
Deeds of Orange County.
(C) Through the installation of a stormwater feature, consistent with the minimum design
standards as detailed within the State BMP Manual.
(1) The proposed feature must be recognized by Orange County and the State as
allowing for an increase in impervious surface area through an infiltration
stormwater feature.
(2) Under no circumstances may impervious surface area be increased by more
than 3% of the total allowable area on the subject parcel through this process.
(3) The property owner shall provide a stormwater assessment, completed by a
licensed engineer, of the current property identifying its infiltration rates and
carrying capacity as well as a comprehensive soil assessment for the property.
(4) The development/design of the feature shall be in accordance with established
design criteria as embodied within the State stormwater manual and shall be
completed by a licensed engineer with expertiese in stormwater management. 8
Additional allowable impervious surface area shall be based on the soil
8 Language added to address OWASA concern(s) over the UDO explicitly requiring a licensed engineer, with
expertise in stormwater management, completed the design on the BMP.
59
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-12
composition of the property consistent with State regulations.
i.(5) The property owner shall be responsible for the completion and submission of a
stormwater operation/maintenance and access agreement detailing the perpetual
maintenance, inspection, and upkeep of the approved BMP in accordance with
County and State regulations.
The Planning Director shall cause an analysis to be made of the agreement by
qualified representatives of the Cointy and other agencies or offficials as
appropriate. Once approved, the document shall be recorded in the Orange
County Registrar of Deeds office.9
The property owner assumes all financial and legal responsibility for the
perpetual maintenance and upkeep of the approved BMP.
(6) The property owner shall assume all costs associated with the preparation and
recordation of new plat(s)/development restrictions detailing the allowable
impervious surface limit(s) for the property after the BMP has been approved by
the County.
4.2.9 Water Supply / Sewage Disposal Facilities
TABLE 4.2.9: WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL
UNIV-CA
UNIV-PW
Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to individual wells and on-site
septic tanks systems or individual on-site alternative disposal systems.
All Watershed Overly
Districts
No new treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot
from the source of wastewater generation; provided, however, off-site systems shall be
permitted in all Watershed Overlay Districts except the University Lake Protected
Watershed (UNIV-PW) and Critical Area (UNIV-CA) when located in a Flexible Development
subdivision approved in accordance with Section 7.13 of this Ordinance.
UNIV-CA
New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers,
or 300 feet from a reservoir or perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS
Quadrangle maps, whichever is further
CANE-CA
U-ENO-CA
New septic tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenances shall be located outside of any
stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the
USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 150 feet from a reservoir.
New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet
from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at
least 300 feet from a reservoir.
CANE-PW
CANE-CA
U-ENO-CA
Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to individual wells and septic
tanks or individual on-site alternative disposal systems; provided however, off-site systems
shall be permitted when located in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in
accordance with Section 7.13 of this Ordinance.
9 The County Attorney’s office has expressed concern over the language with this Section, specifically there is a
concern over liability issues due to the lack of defined standards associated with said review. Unfortunately we
have received numerous review comments from our planning partners (i.e. OWASA, the Towns, etc.) requesting
additional level of detail. While we understand the nature of the Attorney’s concern staff is finding it difficult to
make everyone comfortable.
60
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Temporary Health Care
Structures
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO)
Amendment Outline Form and Session
Law 2014-94
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Proposed Text Amendments
Ashley Moncado, Planner II 245-2589
Craig Benedict, Director 245-2575
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Planning Director initiated text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding temporary health care
structures.
BACKGROUND: On August 1, 2014, the North Carolina State Legislature adopted regulations
regarding the permitting of temporary health care structures in the state. These regulations allow
for temporary health care structures, 300 square feet or less, to be permitted as an a accessory
use in any single family residential zoning district on lots zoned for single family detached
dwellings if all the regulatory provisions outlined in Session Law 2014-94 are met. As a result,
staff is proposing to modify sections of the UDO to address the review and permitting of
temporary health care structures in order to be consistent with North Carolina General Statutes.
This item was presented for review and comment at the December 3, 2014 Ordinance Review
Committee (ORC) meeting. Agenda materials from that meeting are available at
http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/planningboard.asp.
The amendment was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. Staff addressed
some of the other accessory structure and housing options that are currently available in the
UDO in Attachment 1. Agenda materials from that meeting are available at
http://www.orangecountync.gov/150526QPHKC.pdf.
Attachment 1, the Amendment Outline Form approved by the BOCC on November 18, 2014,
provides additional background information on the proposal. Proposed text amendment
language can be found in Attachment 3 within a “track changes” format (red text for proposed
additions and green text for modifications made following the December ORC meeting).
61
Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the UDO any evidence not presented
at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation.
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
Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding
for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid from
FY2014-15 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing planning staff included in the
Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
1. Deliberate on the petition as desired,
2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and
3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency and proposed
amendment package in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC meeting
62
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2014-13
Temporary Health Care Structures
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Land Use Element 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): Section 5.5, Standards for Residential Uses
Section 10.1, Definitions
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 a text amendment to incorporate recent changes in State Law, specifically
Session Law 2014-94, related to the review and permitting of temporary health care
structures.
This item was presented at the December 3, 2014 Ordinance Review Committee
63
2
meeting for Planning Board review and comment. Following this meeting, staff made
one minor revision to the text amendment regarding signage pertaining to the
advertisement of a temporary health care structure.
1. 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 the permitting of a temporary health care
structure is consistent with recent changes in State Law. Session Law 2014-94,
adopted August 1, 2014, defines a temporary health care structure as a transportable
residential structure providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of
care for a mentally or physically impaired person that is primarily assembled at a
location other than its site of installation, is limited to one occupant who shall be the
mentally or physically impaired person, has no more than 300 gross square feet, and
complies with the North Carolina State Building Code.
The Session Law modifies standards related to the placement of a temporary health
care structure including, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Only one temporary health care structure shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of
land.
2. Temporary health care structures shall not require a Special Use Permit or be
subjected to any other local zoning regulations beyond those imposed upon
other accessory use structures.
3. Temporary health care structures shall comply with all setback require ments
and any maximum floor area ratio limitations that apply to the primary
structure.
4. Any person proposing to install a temporary health care structure must obtain
a permit and may be charged a fee up to $100 and a yearly renewal fee up to
$50.
5. A temporary health care structure may be required to connect to water, sewer,
and electric utilities and comply with all applicable state laws, local ordinances,
and additional regulations.
6. No signage shall be permitted onsite or on the exterior of the temporary he alth
care structure.
7. All temporary health care structures shall be removed within 60 days in which
the physical or mentally impaired person is no longer receiving care or is no
longer in need of assistance.
Based on regulations set forth in Session Law 2014 -94, the proposed amendment
will address the review and permitting of temporary health care structures in order to
be consistent with State Law. A copy of Session Law 2014-94 can be found at the
end of this form.
64
3
2. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
3. New Statutes and Rules
Session Law 2014-94 An Act Relating To Zoning Provisions For Temporary Health
Care Structures
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 18, 2014
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
May 26, 2015
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. This item was reviewed at the hearing
where the following comments were made:
BOCC Member Comment: The proposed text amendment is too restrictive as
presented. Additional uses should be explored and discussed to allow more
options for residents to accommodate mentally or physically impaired individuals
on their property.
Staff Response: Existing standards contained in the Orange County
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allow for additional options in
caring for mentally or physically impaired individuals on a temporary or
permanent basis. One option includes efficiency apartments, also known
as accessory dwelling units, which may be constructed as an additional
dwelling unit, accessory to a single family residence. The UDO also allows
for temporary mobile homes for custodial care purposes to be placed as an
accessory dwelling unit to an existing single family residence through the
Class B Special Use Permit process. Both of these options would allow
individuals to provide onsite care to impaired relatives. Standards outlined
in the UDO also provide for the creation of Family Care Homes and Group
Care Facilities. The UDO also allows for up to three unrelated persons to
live together in a dwelling unit. This would allow residents wanting to
provide care to impaired individuals who are unrelated to do so. If
warranted, planning staff can work with the Planning Board to explore
additional potential options to address this concern.
September 1, 2015 – Receive Planning Board recommendation
d. Other
65
4
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
December 3, 2014 – Ordinance Review Committee
June 3, 2015 – Recommendation to the BOCC
b. Advisory Boards:
c. Local Government Review:
The proposed text amendments were comments have been received.
submitted to the JPA Partners on
January 14, 2015. To date, no
d. Notice Requirements
Consistent with NC State Statutes – legal ad prior to public hearing
e. Outreach:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of county services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from FY2014-15 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning
staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required
to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Language within the Unified Development Ordinance will be consistent with recent
modification to State Law. The amendments will classify temporary health care
structures as an accessory use to single-family dwellings which means they can be
placed on the same lot as a single-family dwelling, subject to the standards proposed in
Section 5.5.9. A process to review, permit, and monitor compliance of these structures
will need to be developed by a multi-departmental team concurrent with ordinance
adoption.
General Public:
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other: Materials were distributed to other County Departments and/or
Divisions that may be interested or affected, including Building
Inspections, Aging, Health, Environmental Health, Social Services,
Emergency Services, and Tax/Land Records
66
5
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
See Attachment 3 for proposed language.
Primary Staff Contact:
Ashley Moncado
Planning Department
919-245-2589
amoncado@orangecountync.gov
67
68
69
70
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 allow temporary health care structures, 300 square feet or less, to be permitted as an
accessory use in any single family residential zoning district on lots zoned for single family
detached dwellings if all the regulatory provisions outlined in Session Law 2014-94 are met.
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 amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
c. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
1. Supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Chapter 4 – Housing Element – Section 4.6 Goals
Housing Overarching Goal: Opportunity for all citizens of Orange County to
rent or purchase safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing.
Housing Goal 2: Housing that is useable by as many people as possible
regardless of age, ability or circumstance.
d. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Provides a temporary, affordable, higher quality, and accessible housing
option for those in need.
2. Allows residents with mental or physical impairments to reside with their
families in order to receive the care they need.
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
71
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details the proposed text amendment to incorporate recent changes in
State Law with respect to temporary health care structures. The amendment package will
modify Sections 5.5 and 10.1 of the UDO 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 Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to the UDO
Green Text: Denotes modifications made following the December 3 ORC meeting.
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
72
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-48
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information
shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use:
(a) A description of the type facility planned, the number of occupants, and
the development schedule.
(b) A site plan showing existing and proposed contours. Proposed
buildings, parking, access, service, recreation, landscaped and screened
areas.
(c) Other criteria as set forth in sections 6.2.11 and 6.3.
(d) A statement concerning the provision of public services which shall
include fire, police and rescue protection.
(2) Standards of Evaluation –
(a) Adequate parking, access and service areas are provided for the site.
(b) Parking, service areas and buildings are adequately screened from
adjacent residential uses.
(c) Improved recreational facilities are provided for occupants.
(d) Other criteria as set forth in sections 6.2.11 and 6.3.
(e) Letters from public service agencies attesting to the adequacy of the
provision of public services such as fire, police and rescue.
5.5.9 Temporary Health Care Structures
(A) General Standards
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required in Section 2.4, Zoning Compliance
Permits, the following information shall be supplied as part of the application for
approval of this use:
(a) Documentation as to the relationship between the occupant of the
temporary health care structure and the occupant(s) of the existing single
family dwelling. One of the following types of relationships must exist:
(i) First or second degree relative – a spouse, lineal ascendant,
lineal descendant, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece and
includes half, step, and in law relationships
(ii) Relationship by marriage
(iii) Legal guardian relationship designated by Court of Law.
(b) Certification in writing from a North Carolina licensed physician stating
the necessity of direct care for an mentally or physically impaired
individual.
(2) Standards of Evaluation
(a) An existing single family residential dwelling must be located on the
same parcel as the temporary health care structure. Temporary health
care structures are classified as an accessory use to single family
detached dwellings.
(b) No more than one temporary health care structure per lot shall be
permitted.
(c) Temporary health care structures must meet all standards contained in
Section 5.5.1, Accessory Structures and Uses.
73
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.6: Standards for Commercial Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-49
(d) Occupancy of a temporary health care structure shall be limited to one
mentally or physically impaired individual, who is a North Carolina
resident and requires assistance with two or more activities of daily
living.
(e) No signage or advertisement promoting the temporary health care
structure shall be permitted on the exterior of the temporary health care
structure or on the property
(f) A temporary health care structure shall be required to connect to water,
wastewater, and electric utilities serving the principal structure on the
property.
(g) The Orange County Health Department, or the agency that provides
sanitary sewer and water services, shall approve water and wastewater
disposal facilities.
(h) All applicable state and local approvals and permits shall be procured
including, but not limited to, a zoning compliance permit, building
permits, and health department approval.
(i) Approval of the application shall not exceed one year. Annual renewal
shall require a new application and recertification from a licensed
physician stating the necessity of direct care.
(j) Any approved temporary health care structure shall be removed no later
than 60 days after the time the mentally or physically impaired person is
no longer receiving care or is in need of assistance. If the structure is
needed for a different impaired individual, the temporary health care
structure may continue to be used or be reinstated on the property within
60 days of its removal, subject to the requirements of this Ordinance.
(k) The caregiver shall allow inspections of the property by the County at
times convenient to the caregiver, during reasonable hours, and upon
prior notice for compliance purposes.
(l) A permit for a temporary health care structure shall be revoked by the
Planning Director due to failure of the applicant to comply with any of the
above provisions.
SECTION 5.6: STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL USES
5.6.1 Nightclubs, Bars and Pubs
(A) General Standards for Evaluation
(1) Buildings for nightclubs, bars and pubs shall not be located within 200 feet of a
residence.
5.6.2 Massage Business
(A) General Standards for Evaluation
(1) Must comply with the Ordinance for the Control of Massage and Massage
Establishments
(2) The submittal of construction plans for all existing and proposed buildings
housing the massage business. The construction plans shall include floor plans
and cross sections showing the proposed use of all portions of such buildings.
(3) For existing buildings, certification by the Orange County Building Inspector that
the structure(s) complies with the North Carolina Building Code and all related
construction codes.
74
Article 10: Definitions
Section 10.1: Definitions
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 10-56
Telecommunication Facilities, Wireless facility Stealth
A wireless support structure designed using stealth technology such that its primary purpose is, or
visually appears to be, something other than the support of telecommunications equipment, the apparent
purpose of the wireless support structure is customarily considered as accessory to a use that is allowed
in the zoning district, and the structure and its primary use comply with this Ordinance.
Telecommunication Facilities, Wireless support structure
A new or existing structure, such as a monopole, lattice, or guyed tower that is designed to support or
capable of supporting wireless facilities. A utility pole is not a wireless support structure.
Telecommunication Facilities, Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF),
Includes both Telecommunications Site and Personal Wireless Facility
A structure, facility or location designed, or intended to be used as, or used to support antennas or other
transmitting or receiving devises. This includes without limit wireless support structures of all types, kinds
and structures, including, but not limited to buildings, church steeples, silos, water towers, signs or other
structures that can be used as a support structure for antennas or the functional equivalent of such. If
further includes all related facilities and equipment such as cabling, equipment shelters and other
structures associated with the facility. It is a structure and facility intended for transmitting and/or
receiving radio, television, cellular, SMR, paging, 911, personal communications services (PCS),
commercial satellite services, microwave services, and any commercial wireless telecommunication
service not licensed by the FCC.
Temporary Health Care Structure
A transportable residential structure facilitating a caregiver’s provision of care for a mentally or physically
impaired person that is primarily assembled offsite, is limited to one occupant, has no more than 300
gross square feet, and complies with applicable standards of the North Carolina State Building Code.
Temporary health care structures shall not be installed on a permanent foundation. Temporary health
care structures are classified as an accessory use to single family detached dwellings.
Temporary Residential Mobile Home
A mobile home, intended for residential use for a limited period of time, for purposes of providing for
custodial care under a Class B Special Use Permit or providing temporary residential space during the
installation of a replacement mobile home or construction of a stick-built or modular residential unit on the
same lot, and for 30 days after the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the permanent unit. The
temporary mobile home is not attached to a permanent or semi-permanent foundation.
Temporary Use Building
A building, not intended for residential use, consisting of one or more modules constructed off the ultimate
site of use. The building is also not attached to a permanent or semi-permanent foundation.
Ten-Year Transition Land
Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban densities and/or intensities,
that are suitable for higher densities and/or intensities and could be provided with public utilities and
services within the first 10-year phase of the Comprehensive Plan update or where such utilities and
services are already present or planned. Non-residential uses implemented in accordance with small
area plans and/or overlay districts may be appropriate.
Tourist Home
A building or group of attached or detached buildings containing, in combination, three to nine lodging
units for occupancy for daily or weekly periods, with or without board, and primarily for occupancy by
transients, as distinguished from rooming houses, in which occupancy is primarily by residents rather than
transients.
Traffic Generation: Low
Uses which generate an average of less than 200 vehicle trips per day.
75