HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 1104151
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3 - 4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for November and December
• Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 23
3.
5 - 12
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 7, 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
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 13 - 40 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a
recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to
the text of the UDO regarding recreational land uses, including shooting
ranges. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly public
hearing and was discussed at the October 7, 2015 Planning Board
meeting.
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
8. 41 - 70 JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation
to the BOCC on amendments to the text of the Joint Planning
Agreement initiated by the Town of Chapel Hill regarding membership
of Transition Area residents on the Town’s Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment. This item was heard at the October 15, 2015
Joint Planning Public Hearing.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
9. 71 - 107 PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN FOR COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS’ ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT: To discuss the input form
for the annual BOCC planning retreat in early 2016. The annual report
informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory
boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning.
Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
10.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
b. Orange Unified Transportation
11. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578).
2
<October November 2015 December>
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Election Day ORC 6:00 and
Planning Board
7:00 pm
WCOB 004*
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted
Building
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Board of
Adjustment
7:30 pm
WCOB 004
BOCC Work
Session
7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
Center
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
Center
OUTBoard
7:00 pm
WCOB 004
Assembly of
Governments
7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
Center
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Quarterly
Public Hearing
7:00 pm
Whitted
Building*
Holiday/Offices
Closed
Holiday/Offices
Closed
29 30
Notes:
* Planning Board Member Attendance Required
WCOB = West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough)
3
< November December 2015 January >
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5
ORC (time
TBD) and
Planning Board
7:00 pm
WCOB 004*
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted
Building
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Board of
Adjustment
7:30 pm
WCOB 004
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Southern
Human
Services
Center
OUTBoard
7:00 pm
WCOB 004
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Holiday/Offices
Closed
Holiday/Offices
Closed
Holiday/Offices
Closed
27 28 29 30 31
Notes:
* Planning Board Member
Attendance Required
WCOB = West Campus Office
Building (131 W. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough)
4
DRAFT
1
MINUTES 1
PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 7, 2015 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 6
Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 7
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 8
Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, 9
At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large 10
Chapel Hill Township; 11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: None 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 15
Planning Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 16
17 OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Koch, PE Earth Centric Engineering, Inc.; Tom Heffner, Developer Heffner Properties, Inc.; 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 20
21
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22
a) Planning Calendar for October and November 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25
a) September 2, 2015 ORC Notes 26
b) September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting 27
28 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 29
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 30
31 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the minutes. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33
34
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 35
36
No changes to the agenda. 37
38 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 39
40 Introduction to the Public Charge 41
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General 42
Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 43
development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and 44
accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner 45
which considers the present and future needs of its residents and business through 46
efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and 47
welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of 48
responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decision, and 49
recommendations. 50
51 Public Charge 52
5
DRAFT
2
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board 53
asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the 54
Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any 55
resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to 56
leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum rail to be 57
restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to 58
this public charge is observed. 59
60 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 61
62
None 63
64 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation on a request to rezone an 65
approximately 9 acre parcel of property located at 4915 Hillsborough Road within the Eno 66
Township from Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1), Economic 67
Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection 68
Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District to Economic 69
Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection 70
Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. This item was 71
heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 72
73 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 74
75
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 76
77
Michael Harvey: There were no comments made at the public hearing by the public. We have provided, on pages 13 78
and 14 of the abstract, answers to the two questions asked at the public hearing concerning land use buffers and site 79
plan approval. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the statement of consistency enclosed in 80
Attachment 2 and the ordinance amending the zoning atlas in Attachment 3. We are asking you to make a 81
recommendation on this petition which will be presented to the BOCC at their November 5 meeting. 82
83
Pete Hallenbeck: We have a statement of consistency to vote on. Do I have any motions to approve the statement of 84
consistency? 85
86
MOTION made by Tony Blake to recommend approval of the statement of consistency. Buddy Hartley seconded. 87 VOTE: Unanimous 88
89 MOTION made by James Lea to approve the ordinance of approval. Herman Staats seconded. 90 VOTE: Unanimous 91
92 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a recommendation on a 93
Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Henderson Woods, located at the intersection on Erwin 94
Road and Whitfield Road in Chapel Hill Township. The Plat is consistent with the Concept 95
Plan Flexible Design Option reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in June 2015 96
The Plat shows 19 single-family residential lots on a 48 acre parcel of property with 21.51 97
acres (44.9% of the site) held in common open space. 98
99
Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 100
101
Patrick Mallett reviewed the abstract and presentation. 102
103
Tony Blake: On page 34, is that table looking at the perc sites on those lots? 104
105
6
DRAFT
3
Patrick Mallett: Yes the septic systems will all be contained on the lots; the wells may or may not. The goal is to have 106
every lot have an onsite septic and well. There are a few situations where that may not be the case. 107
108
Maxecine Mitchell: Will the access road from Erwin Road remain private? And will the landowners be able to use it? 109
110
Patrick Mallett: The access road is private and has access agreements with the existing property owners. The 111
easement will continue as it is currently aligned with the gravel road and will become a paved road with a gate that 112
will allow access for the property owners to continue use. 113
114
Lydia Wegman: Is there any comments from the neighbors we should be aware of? 115
116
Patrick Mallett: They have been resolved or were general questions regarding the nature of the request such as lot 117
size, density, rural buffer, and how does a cluster neighborhood work. There was one resident that had questions 118
about environmental sensitive areas so the applicant got the wetlands flagged and surveyed. The applicant is going 119
through the process for the wetlands permit with the state. 120
121
Paul Guthrie: I want to come back to septic and well. Looking at the preliminary sketch and the septic field areas and 122
wells, is everyone comfortable with the nature of the property and that there is sufficient separation to not overload 123
the groundwater areas around the wells? 124
125
Patrick Mallett: Based on the applicant’s experience they are familiar with the soils in the area and lay of the land. 126
There has been enough due diligence to figure out where to have the well sites and the available suitable soils for the 127
sceptics. 128
129
Paul Guthrie: I assume that with the areas drawn on the site plan that there is sufficient area for a single family septic 130
system? 131
132
Patrick Mallett: Yes, for the system and repair. 133
134
Paul Guthrie: You said the pond is pretty shallow which suggests to me there is not such pristine water. I was 135
wondering if that was thought about in terms of the overall plan? 136
137
Patrick Mallett: The pond is shallow because of sedimentation. I would say the waters are pretty clear. Environmental 138
Health has their rules and regulations that will have to be met. 139
140
Pete Hallenbeck: The key concept here is that Environmental Health has looked at this and they are happy with the 141
well positions. 142
143
Patrick Mallett: Yes, they have. 144
145
James Lea: How many homes will share wells? 146
147
Patrick Mallett: Environmental Health limits you to two. 148
149
James Lea: What happens when we have a drought when you are sharing one well? 150
151
Tom Heffner: Typically the deep wells put in subdivisions today are not affected by droughts. They are deep enough 152
to provide an adequate flow. On any lot that has shared wells I would go ahead and drill the well before we sell the lot 153
to determine the capacity of the well. The last thing we would want to happen is to sell someone a lot and they don’t 154
have water on it. 155
156
Tony Blake: Is there a well to be capped and a septic system to be abandoned? 157
158
7
DRAFT
4
Tom Heffner: Correct. The septic has already been abandoned and the well will be capped. Both of these are from an 159
existing home which will need to be removed. 160
161
MOTION made by Buddy Hartley to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Lisa Stuckey seconded. 162 VOTE: Unanimous 163
164 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 165
on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the existing public 166
hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related 167
items/amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly public 168
hearing. 169
170 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 171
172
Perdita Holtz reviewed the abstract. 173
174
Perdita Holtz: As a result of questions asked at the public hearing by the BOCC and Planning Board there have been 175
a couple of changes made to the version presented at the public hearing. These changes are shown in orange text in 176
the agenda package. 177
178
Paul Guthrie: How are you going to legally document that you have mailed the notices? 179
180
Perdita Holtz: The person that does the mailings in the department does a certification of mailing. State statutes do 181
not require certified mail. 182
183
Perdita Holtz: The BOCC asked for the Planning Board to provide input on whether you think a quorum of Planning 184
Board members is necessary to hold a public hearing or if the proposal should stay as it is stating the Planning Board 185
is expected to attend the quarterly public hearing, but a quorum is not necessary in order to have the public hearing. 186
187
Pete Hallenbeck: What does everyone think about whether or not Planning Board members should be required to 188
attend? I am inclined to go around the room and allow everyone to comment. 189
190
Laura Nicholson: A quorum is important. 191
192
Pete Hallenbeck: When you say a quorum is important, that means you do want it to be a joint meeting where the 193
Planning Board members are required to be there and therefore you have to have a quorum. 194
195
Laura Nicholson: That is my opinion. I think if you have that and make it clear then it should not be a problem. 196
197
Maxecine Mitchell: I am sort of leaning both ways, but I feel sometimes rushed to make it to a meeting in order to not 198
hold it up or be the reason the meeting can’t go forward. I would still come to the meetings because I agree they are 199
important for us to make decisions. 200
201
Buddy Hartley: I don’t think a quorum is necessary. 202
203
Paul Guthrie: I’m torn. The quorum is probably a good idea for the educational benefit for this group. The reason I 204
support a quorum is because we need to be engaged in some of the items that come through. My other thought is we 205
need a better idea defining what a quorum is. If four people were legitimately ill, this could set back a whole process 206
for months. I would support a quorum, but would like some discussion with legal counsel how you calculate the 207
quorum if some event occurs. 208
209
James Lea: I personally do not think a quorum is necessary. 210
211
8
DRAFT
5
Herman Staats: I think documents can be written to indicate Planning Board members are expected to be there 212
without legally requiring a quorum. I think a quorum is not needed, but members are expected to be there. 213
214
Lisa Stuckey: I completely agree with Herman and I would direct our attention to page 97 of the materials where we 215
have our date, time, and location of regular meetings and Section 4 on page 96. I think quarterly public hearings 216
should be added as a section on page 96 and it be stated Planning Board members are encouraged to attend, but 217
not required. 218
219
Tony Blake: I agree with Laura. I think it should be a requirement if we are going to be bound by quasi-judicial 220
testimony and provide input to the decision makers then we should attend the meeting. 221
222
Andrea Rohrbacher: I feel that the Planning Board members are expected to attend, but I do not want to hold us to a 223
quorum. Part of that is based on Commissioner Jacobs saying that as long as you have a quorum at the start of the 224
meeting you are okay. I brought up the point that sometimes the meetings go on extremely long and people have to 225
leave due to other obligations and the County Attorney stated you can’t take a vote if someone leaves if you require a 226
quorum. I do not want to see us in that position. I also think it’s difficult for staff because we have had quorum 227
problems in the past. Should be expected to attend, but a quorum does not have to be present to hold the public 228
hearing. 229
230
Lydia Wegman: I support requiring a quorum, but that is linked to my view that I prefer having the Planning Board 231
make its recommendation after the Public Hearing. I still do not like having the Planning Board make its 232
recommendation before the public hearing. If the outcome is that the Planning Board makes its recommendation 233
before the public hearing then I am comfortable going with expected to attend not required to attend. 234
235
Pete Hallenbeck: My view is that I do not want to have a quorum because in the past there have been too many 236
times that the meeting was held up. I like the change requiring at least the chair or vice chair attend the public 237
hearing. I agree with the concept we should encourage members to come and put something in the policies and 238
procedures that members are required to attend at least two quarterly public hearings a year or be dismissed in order 239
to make it clear what their expectation is. 240
241
Pete Hallenbeck: Let’s move on and deliberate on the amendments. I will open the floor to any comments anyone 242
has. 243
244
Laura Nicholson: I wanted to be clear about the mailings. Will it still be certified with 500 feet and regular mail for the 245
500 to 1000 feet? 246
247
Perdita Holtz: We are suggesting everyone get regular mail. Having to separate mailing list may be confusing in the 248
future. 249
250
Lydia Wegman: I am comfortable with first class mail, but would it be possible to put on the outside of the envelope 251
notice of public hearing so people are aware they are getting a notice from the county. 252
253
Pete Hallenbeck: Signs will still go up? 254
255
Perdita Holtz: Yes. 256
257
Lydia Wegman: I continue to be concerned about having the Planning Board make its recommendation before the 258
BOCC meeting. I think the recommendation should be made following the hearing so that the Planning Board can 259
hear all the evidence before making a recommendation. 260
261
Tony Blake: The thing that resonated with me was the intent to give the public the last word. It’s difficult for us to go 262
after the public hearing and still have the public give the last word. But I share your concern that we are making a 263
recommendation before we have heard all the evidence. 264
9
DRAFT
6
265
Herman Staats: If I remember at our joint meeting the BOCC was saying that if there was a case that came up and 266
there was a lot of discussion or disagreement they had the opportunity to send it back to us for more discussion. 267
268
Perdita Holtz: The BOCC does have the discretion to send legislative items back to the Planning Board as needed. 269
270
Herman Staats: Is it possible that our recommendation to the BOCC was that we would like to defer our 271
recommendation to after the public hearing? 272
273
Perdita Holtz: Depending on what the recommendation is. The recommendation can be for the Planning Board to be 274
given an extended amount of time to consider the manner, but you can’t say you have to send it back to us. 275
276
Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any other items in the proposal that people would like to discuss? If there aren’t then the 277
next step here is to make a recommendation on the statement of consistency. 278
279 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval of the statement of consistency. Buddy Hartley seconded. 280 VOTE: 9 – 2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed) 281
282
Tony Blake: If we are going to be part of the process and bound by the rules of quasi-judicial and ex parte 283
communication then we should be required to attend and that is the part that I find inconsistent. 284
285
Lydia Wegman: I feel that the Planning Board should be making its recommendation following the public hearing 286
because I am concerned with the Planning Board not hearing all the evidence that will go before the BOCC. I am 287
pleased to know the BOCC has the discretion to send something back to the Planning Board. In my perspective I 288
would prefer to have the guarantee for the opportunity of the Planning Board to consider an item after the public 289
hearing when I am confident all the evidence has been presented whereas I do not feel confident that is the case if 290
the Planning Board makes it recommendation prior to the BOCC meeting. Consistent with that my preference would 291
be if we continued to make our recommendation after the County Commissioners meeting that a quorum should be 292
required or the Board attest to hearing the BOCC public hearing so there is certification that the Planning Board is 293
knowledgeable about the evidence presented. The idea of having a preliminary Planning Board recommendation and 294
a subsequent or final Planning Board recommendation following the BOCC meeting is also one that makes sense to 295
me. 296
297 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the amendment package on pages 62 to 98 with amendments to page 92 298
regarding the expectations of Planning Board members regarding the quarterly public hearing and adding notice of 299
the public hearing to the outside of the mailing envelopes. James Lea seconded. 300
VOTE: 9 – 2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed) 301
302
Tony Blake: Same reasons, I believe it should be a requirement to be at the quarterly public hearing if we are bound 303
by the process. 304
305
Lydia Wegman: Same concerns I expressed previously. 306 307 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 308
on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land 309
uses, including shooting ranges. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly 310
public hearing. 311
312 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 313
314
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 315
316
10
DRAFT
7
Michael Harvey: We have a standard in here that stipulates a discharged shell be directed into a backstop which 317
would consist of concrete, steel, wood, or combination. The concern is can any consideration be given to a property 318
owner who locates a shooting area in low lying area and takes advantage of topography to reduce to scope of 319
backstop. Since topography can be altered I am worried about relying on that as a means of guaranteeing a 320
reasonable backstop. 321
322
Herman Staats: I have a shooting range on my property with an earth backstop. The shooting range I have built on 323
my property does not meet the definition of suitable. I believe it is safe and I think some consideration should be 324
given to these other factors despite my own personal range. The other issue I have is that concrete and steel are not 325
ideal for a backstop if you have ricochet issues and there needs to be some consideration for that as well. Lastly, this 326
broadly specifies shooting activities and does not address shooting clay pigeons in the air. 327
328
Tony Blake: I agree. Steel is very dangerous. 329
330
Michael Harvey: What I am hearing from comments is if we could reconfigure the back stop standards and provide 331
distinction for skeet shooting? 332
333
Buddy Hartley: I think the earth backstop is obviously your best option. 334
335
Tony Blake: The Sherriff’s letter seems to indicate that he has standards for backstops and for safe shooting and I 336
was wondering if it would be a good idea to coordinate with the Sheriff’s Department. 337
338
Michael Harvey: The Sheriff does not have ordinance for stablishing regulations for a backstop. What they do is go 339
out and make a determination if the activity is safe, but they do not have specific standards. The Sherriff has 340
reviewed this. Also I would like to remind the Board the proposed text amendment indicates target shooting activities 341
are governed by the Ordinance. I would interpret that to mean skeet shooting as well. 342
343
Lisa Stuckey: Are there any state laws on this? 344
345
Michael Harvey: There are state laws, but they do not get specific to the construction of a backstop. There is 346
nebulous language in the general statutes, but not definite state law regulating the backstop. 347
348
Paul Guthrie: Are there any considerations on what type of weapons are being fired? 349
350
Michael Harvey: No. From a land use stand point we do not have the legal authority to tell people they cannot shoot a 351
certain weapon. 352
353
Herman Staats: This language on page 123 is the distinction of the times per month for shooting? 354
355
Michael Harvey: Yes on page 123 we added language with the direction of the County Attorney indicating that if you 356
are a property owner and are discharging your gun on your property three days or less a month that is not going to 357
be considered an activity that warrants you to build a backstop. 358
359
Lydia Wegman: For clarification, someone could go out on their property three times a month and target shoot all day 360
long? 361
362
Michael Harvey: Unfortunately, that is exactly what that means. 363
364
James Lea: And not only can they target shoot, but they can shoot any gun they want? 365
366
Michael Harvey: They can shoot any gun they want anyway, period. 367
368
Lydia Wegman: Does this exemption also exempt them from the hours of the day. 369
11
DRAFT
8
370
Michael Harvey: Yes because it would not be considered a shooting activity per this ordinance. 371
372
Lydia Wegman: That is why I am concerned because this seems overly broad as an exemption. 373
374
Lisa Stuckey: Do you have to keep the bullets on the property? 375
376
Michael Harvey: Yes. 377
378
Lisa Stuckey: The exemption that was added is kind of confusing. What exactly is exempted? For three days you can 379
shoot your bullets into your neighbor’s yard? 380
381
Michael Harvey: We may need to add language that says all bullets must be kept on the property. 382
383
Michael Harvey continued review of abstract. 384
385
Michael Harvey: We are recommending that all rec facilities, private or public, have frontage on public roads. The 386
reason being you don’t want a facility in the middle of nowhere on a private road and create hardship for neighbors 387
who maintain that road. 388
389
Paul Guthrie: As long as the use is on the same land it can be anywhere from one foot to five thousand feet from the 390
road? 391
392
Michael Harvey: The property has to have frontage and that’s where access is going to have to be provided. 393
394
Michael Harvey: I am recommending to review the proposed standards based on comments received tonight 395
regarding the backstop and exemption and bring it back to you. 396
397
Pete Hallenbeck: I do not think we are going to be able to agree on a statement of consistency tonight. 398 399 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to bring this item back to the November Planning Board meeting. Tony Blake 400
seconded. 401 VOTE: Unanimous 402
403
AGENDA ITEM 11: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 404 A. Board of Adjustment 405
None 406
407 B. Orange County Transportation 408
None 409
410 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT 411
412
Motion to adjourn made by Lisa Stuckey. 413 ___________________________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair
12
1
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Recreational Land Uses
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Outline Form -
Recreation Amendments (UDO/Zoning
2015-04)
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Harvey Planner, III (919) 245-2597
Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2585
PURPOSE: To continue review of, and make a recommendation to the BOCC on, Planning
Director initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding
recreational land uses.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing
(materials available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/BOCCAgendaMinutes/150908.pdf ).
For background information on the proposal please refer to Section B.1 of Attachment 1.
This item was reviewed at the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting where staff received
the following comments:
1. Board members were concerned the required backstop included materials which could
cause bullets to ricochet (i.e. steel).
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified Section 5.7.1 (A) (2) eliminating references to
specific materials for a backstop and, instead, require the backstop to be ‘projectile
proof'.
2. A suggestion was made that proposed language be modified to require shooting
activities to occur in a low lying area of the property as a means of further keeping
projectiles on the property.
STAFF COMMENT: As indicated during the meeting relying on topography can be
problematic.
On one end of the spectrum you may have a property owner whose land may not have
sufficient slope to allow for shooting activities thereby requiring excavation. On the other
end of the spectrum topography can be altered after the fact creating a potential
Ordinance violation.
13
2
From staff’s standpoint it would be more prudent to rely on a projectile proof backstop
and strongly urge existing topography be taken into consideration with respect to its
location rather than to mandate same as a development standard within the Ordinance.
3. A comment was made the proposed text amendment did not adequately address skeet
shooting.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified the proposal to include language concerning
skeet shooting activities.
4. A Board member asked if the regulations would address the types of weapons that could
be discharged.
STAFF COMMENT: The County does not have the legal authority to restrict the type of
weapon that can be discharged from private property from a land use standpoint.
As indicated during the meeting the adoption of land use regulations governing the
discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local, State, or Federal
regulations concerning the discharge of firearms.
If, for example, it would be illegal to discharge a specific class of firearm on private
property under State law this amendment does not preempt enforcement of same by the
appropriate law enforcement agency.
5. There was general concern over proposed standards detailing the number of times per
month incidental shooting could occur on a parcel without being considered a regulated
shooting activity requiring the development of a backstop.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff understands the concern and has reduced the number of
times incidental shooting activities can occur per month from 3 to 2. There needs to be
some allowances made for a property owner who inadvertently engages in shooting
activities so that they are not faced with a notice of violation from the County.
Staff will also reiterate the adoption of land use regulations governing the discharge of a
firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local, State, or Federal regulations
concerning same.
If a property owner is discharging a weapon in such a manner creating a threat to public
safety (i.e. a property owner shooting at a neighbor’s house) action can be taken to
address the problem. This enforcement action can occur with or without the adoption of
the proposed land use standards.
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
proposed text amendment and further recommends approval of the:
i. Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 2, indicating the proposed text
amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, is reasonable, and
in the public interest, and
14
3
ii. The text amendment as contained in Attachment 3.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Continue deliberation on the proposed amendment as necessary,
2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation, and
3. Make a recommendation on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and the UDO
text amendment (Attachment 3) in time for the December 7, 2015 BOCC meeting.
15
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning-2015-04
Revision(s) of existing definitions and regulations governing the development of
recreational facilities within the County.
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Comprehensive Plan – Future 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(s):
1. 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses – General Use Zoning
Districts;
2. 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses – Economic Development
Districts;
3. 5.2.3 Table of Permitted Uses – Conditional Use Districts;
4. 5.7 Standards for Recreational Uses, and
5. Article 10 Definitions.
Other:
Attachment 1 16
2
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 revise existing regulations and definitions of
recreational uses.
While reviewing an issue with the Attorney’s office it was determined the County’s
existing definitions and classification methodology for recreation uses (i.e. relying on
the profit/non-profit status of said operation) was not appropriate and inconsistent
with acceptable legal practice. The regulation and permitting of recreational uses
should be based anticipated impacts of said use rather than on its ‘tax status’.
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’.
Recreational uses are defined as follows within the UDO:
• Recreation Use, Non-Profit: An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by a
not-for-profit corporation, according to the laws of North Carolina.
• Recreation Use, Profit: An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by an
entity other than a not-for-profit corporation.
Recreation Use, Non-profit land uses are allowed, through the issuance of a Class B
Special Use Permit (i.e. reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Adjustment) in:
1. All residential zoning (i.e. Rural Buffer (RB), Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural
Residential (R-1), Low (R-2), Medium Residential (R-3, R-4), and High
Intensity(R-5, R-8, and R-13) districts.
2. Commercial zoning (i.e. Local Commercial (LC-1), Neighborhood Commercial
(NC-2), Community Commercial (CC-3), General Commercial (GC-4), and Office
Institutional (OI)) districts.
3. All industrial (i.e. Light Industrial (I-1), Medium Industrial (I-2), Heavy Industrial (I-
3)) districts.
4. Within a Master Planned Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district.
Recreation Use, Profit is allowed within the Community Commercial (CC-3), General
Commercial (GC-4), and Light Industrial (I-1) zoning districts as a permitted use (i.e.
administrative review and approval by staff).
Within the Buckhorn and Eno Economic Development districts both Recreation Use,
Profit and Non-profit land uses are only allowed within both the Low and High
Intensity general use zoning designations with the review and approval of a
Conditional Use (i.e. rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit) application by the
BOCC. There are specific recreational land uses, including a golf driving range,
17
3
listed as a permitted use of property within these districts.
Staff has been working to address local resident concern(s) over the purported
development of commercial shooting ranges. Currently the County has no land use
standards governing the development of such uses (i.e. setbacks, development of
protective berms to absorb bullets, etc.).
Staff is proposing to over haul our current regulations by:
a. Establishing new definitions for recreational uses;
b. Reviewing the types of recreational land uses permitted in each zoning district
and suggesting revisions;
c. Developing new standards governing the development of recreational land
uses; and
d. Developing standards governing the discharge of firearms from both a
commercial business and personal enjoyment standpoint.
The amendments are necessary to address outdated regulations governing the
development of recreational land uses, update existing development standards and
requirements, complete a review of acceptable recreational land uses throughout the
County, and establish land use regulations governing the discharge of firearms.
Nothing within the proposed amendments will impact the development of
parks/recreational amenities by Orange County.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
Land Use Goal 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
May 5, 2015
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8, 2015. The amendment was reviewed at the September 8, 2015
18
4
Quarterly Public Hearing where the following questions/comments were made:
• There was general consensus that proposed amendments to the Buckhorn and
Eno Economic Development Districts permitted use table, allowing for
recreational facilities to be a permitted use of property within the high intensity
zoning designations (i.e. EDB-2 and EDE-2), are acceptable.
• A BOCC member asked why there were different setback standards for gun
ranges developed as an accessory use to a residential use of property or a
recreational facility.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommended a shooting range developed as an
accessory use to a residence observe a setback of 300 feet from all property
lines. For a shooting range developed as a recreational facility we
recommended a setback of 600 feet from all property lines.
The rationale for the different standards is based on the anticipated intensity
of use, with a private recreational amenity having a perceived lower potential
impact versus a facility designed to be used by the general public (i.e. more
weapons being discharged at any given time).
• A BOCC member asked what the typical minimum lot size would have to be to
comply with proposed setback standards for a shooting range.
STAFF COMMENT: A residential property would have to be roughly 8 ½
acres in area to accommodate a designated shooting area while a recreational
facility would have to be roughly 33 acres to accommodate a non-residential
outdoor shooting range.
• A BOCC and Planning Board member asked if the proposed setbacks for a gun
range would be sufficient to ensure bullets remain on the property.
STAFF COMMENT: Discharged projectiles can travel upwards of ½ mile or
farther depending on the caliber of the weapon.
If our goal is to rely solely on setback standards to ensure discharged
projectiles remain on the property, they would have to be more extensive.
Staff does not believe this option is consistent with concerns expressed at the
public hearing.
This proposal combines required setbacks with additional standards
mandating shooting and/or targeting activities be oriented in such a manner to
keep projectiles on the property and directed into a permanent backstop. This
is intended to mitigate the need for more restrictive setback requirements.
• Both BOCC and Planning Board members suggested hour limitations be
established concerning the discharge of firearms on residential property.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff will add language to the proposed text amendment.
• A BOCC member asked if we were being overly restrictive with the proposed
amendments as they relate to the discharge of firearms.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff understands the concern. The proposal is an
19
5
attempt to address complaints from property owners related to the discharge
of firearms on neighboring properties while protecting an individual’s right to
engage in shooting activity and/or discharge a firearm on their property.
• BOCC and Planning Board members suggested shooting ranges/facilities ought
to have similar setback requirements.
• A BOCC member asked staff to invite those individuals who had previously
submitted complaints and concerns over the discharge of firearms to the October
7, 2015 Planning Board meeting to express their concerns.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff will send out a meeting notice and copy of revised
text under review by the Planning Board.
• A BOCC member suggested revising Section 5.7.2 Recreational Facilities of the
proposed text amendment to combine recreational uses played on a court into a
single category.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff will combine the uses as suggested.
• A BOCC member asked why the proposed text amendments did not address the
number of people discharging a firearm at a given moment or limit the number of
times a firearm could be discharged in a given time frame.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff indicated such regulations would be difficult to
enforce and hard to verify as part of a land use enforcement investigation.
• A Planning Board member expressed concern the amendment would overly
restrict the use of private recreational accessory uses. Specifically there was
concern over staff’s statement a private recreational use could not be used by
neighbors/friends in the owner’s absence.
STAFF COMMENT: The amendment is an attempt to develop a threshold
making it easier to identify instances where a recreational land use is either a
private or a public amenity.
As indicated during the public hearing, staff is investigating complaints over
the purported establishment of public recreational facilities without required
permits (i.e. Class B Special Use Permit). As the ordinance is currently
written it is difficult to make a determination either way.
Our goal is not to overly regulate private recreational accessory uses but to
ensure we have an appropriate methodology to identify those instances where
such uses become, or are truly, a public recreational amenity requiring a
heightened permit review and approval process.
• A BOCC member asked for information from the Sheriff’s Office outlining what
regulations they are able to enforce and how they typically respond to a complaint
associated with the discharge of a firearm.
STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 2 for the Sheriff’s reponse.
20
6
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
May 5, 2015 – Approval of UDO Amendment Outline Form
July 1, 2015 – Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) (BOCC
receives materials)
September 8, 2015 – Quarterly Public Hearing
December 7, 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:
July 1, 2015 – Ordinance Review Committee (ORC). The ORC reviewed this
item at its July 1, 2015 meeting where the following comments/questions were
made:
• Could a resident, on his own property, sponsor a club in his name and
finance play on the field under this proposal?
STAFF COMMENT: As the Ordinance is currently written, and proposed,
the property owner would have to get a special use permit as the
proposed recreational land use is intended to serve the needs of the
general public or members of a club/organization.
• Could I develop a putting green on my property?
STAFF COMMENT: You can have a recreational facility on your property
and use it for recreational purposes, including a putting green.
When a recreational amenity is opened up for public use/access, however,
the nature of the use of property changes and becomes more than a
simple accessory use. Staff argues it becomes a recreational facility used
to satisfy the needs of the general public, which requires a heightened
level of permit review to operate.
• Could a farmer donate land to a non-profit organization to allow for the
development of a recreational facility?
STAFF COMMENT: Yes but they would have to obtain a Class B Special
Use Permit for the use. This is the current requirement and we are not
recommending a change to the existing process.
• Is the intent with this regulation to control the development of gun ranges
specifically?
STAFF COMMENT: The amendment seeks to make it easier to identify
21
7
instances where a recreational land use is a private or a public amenity.
The text amendment also proposes the adoption of new development
standards for recreational activities, including standards for shooting
ranges/facilities.
The proposed amendment is not solely geared to address the regulation,
or establishment, of gun ranges.
• Could a local homeowners association develop a recreational land use on
HOA owned property for local residents to take advantage of?
STAFF COMMENT: This text amendment will not preclude that. The
homeowners association would, however, have to amend the previously
approved subdivision final plat to incorporate the new recreation amenity
in accordance with the UDO.
• Will this proposed amendment impact County parks?
STAFF COMMENT: No.
October 7, 2015 – The Planning Board reviewed this item at its October 7, 2015
meeting where the following comments/questions were made:
1. Board members were concerned the required backstop included materials
which could cause bullets to ricochet (i.e. steel).
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified Section 5.7.1 (A) (2) eliminating
references to specific materials for a backstop and, instead, require the
backstop to be ‘projectile proof'.
2. A suggestion was made that proposed language be modified to require
shooting activities to occur in a low lying area of the property as a means
of further keeping projectiles on the property.
STAFF COMMENT: As indicated during the meeting relying on
topography can be problematic.
On one end of the spectrum you may have a property owner whose land
may not have sufficient slope to allow for shooting activities thereby
requiring excavation to create same. On the other end of the spectrum
topography can be altered after the fact creating a potential Ordinance
violation.
From staff’s standpoint it would be more prudent to rely on a projectile
proof backstop and strongly urge existing topography be taken into
consideration with respect to its location rather than to mandate same as a
development standard.
3. A comment was made the proposed text amendment did not adequately
address skeet shooting.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has modified the proposal to include language
concerning skeet shooting activities.
4. A Board member asked if the regulations would address the types of
weapons that could be discharged.
22
8
STAFF COMMENT: The County does not have the legal authority to
restrict the type of weapon that can be discharged from private property
from a land use standpoint.
It needs to be remembered the adoption of land use regulations governing
the discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local,
State, or Federal regulations concerning the discharge of firearms.
If, for example, it would be illegal to discharge a specific class of firearm on
private property under State law this amendment does not preempt
enforcement of same by the appropriate law enforcement agency.
5. There was general concern over proposed standards detailing the number
of times per month incidental shooting could occur on a parcel without
being considered a regulated shooting activity requiring the development
of a backstop.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff understands the concern and has reduced the
number of times incidental shooting activities can occur per month from 3
to 2. There needs to be some allowances made for a property owner who
inadvertently engages in shooting activities to not be faced with a notice of
violation from the County.
Staff will also reiterate the adoption of land use regulations governing the
discharge of a firearm does not impact the enforceability of other local,
State, or Federal regulations concerning same.
If a property owner is discharging a weapon in such a manner creating a
threat to public safety (i.e. a property owner shooting at a neighbor’s
house) action can be taken to address the problem.
This enforcement action can occur today with or without the adoption of
proposed standards.
b. Advisory Boards:
Orange County Parks Advisory Board
– DEAPR staff. Staff Transmitted
copies of the proposed text
amendments as part of peer review on
July 10, 2015.
As of this date we have not received
any comments.
c. Local Government Review:
Staff transmitted copies of the
proposed text amendments to our
planning partners in the Towns of
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough for their review and
comment on July 10, 2015.
23
9
The Orange County Sheriff’s office
was sent the proposed text
amendment on July 10, 2015.
As of this date staff has not received
any comments on the proposed
amendments from the Sheriff or our
planning partners.
d. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement was published in accordance with the provisions of the UDO.
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 FY2015-16 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
The amendment will revise existing, outdated, regulations governing the categorization
and development of recreational land uses and proposes the adoption of new
development standards.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
General Public: Consistent with NC State General Statutes and Orange
County Ordinance requirements.
At the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing the
BOCC requested staff invite individuals who previously
submitted concerns related to the discharge of firearms to
the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting.
Notices were sent on September 29, 2015 with a copy of the
proposed regulations for review at the October Planning
Board meeting.
Small Area Plan Workgroup:
Other:
24
10
Please refer to Attachment 3.
Primary Staff Contact:
Michael D. Harvey
Planning
(919) 245-2597
mharvey@orangecountync.gov
25
Attachment 2
1
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) to revise existing regulations governing the development of recreational land uses.
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.
1. The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the
following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
• Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site
environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural
resources, cultural resources, and community character.
• Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated
within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves
community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts,
supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
• Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent,
fair, open, efficient, and responsive.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Establishes a legally defensible regulation based on the impacts of a
specific land use rather than on its tax status.
2. Establishes uniform standards of development for recreational uses serving
either as an accessory, or principal, use of property.
3. Provides measurable thresholds with respect to what constitutes an
accessory or principal recreational land use to ensure equitable
enforcement of development standards.
4. Promotes public health, safety, and general welfare by furthering the goals
and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Board hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed UDO Text Amendments.
______________________ ________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair Date
26
Article 5: Uses
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
:
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e
s
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
–
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Page 5-8
TAB
L
E
O
F
PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
S
– GEN
E
R
A
L
USE
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
* = PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
A = CLA
S
S
A SPE
C
I
A
L
USE
B = CLA
S
S
B SPE
C
I
A
L
USE
∆ = SUB
J
E
C
T
T
O
SPE
C
I
A
L
STANDARDS
USE
TYP
E
GEN
E
R
A
L
USE
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
RB
AR
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
R1
3
LC
1
NC
2
CC
3
GC
4
EC
5
OI
ASEI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~
U
s
e
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
s
a
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
na
l
U
s
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
;
S
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
1
.
4
(
E
)
^
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
a
s
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
u
s
e
i
f
lo
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
a
b
o
n
a
f
i
d
e
f
a
r
m
(
s
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
.
2
.
5
)
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
G
u
a
r
d
&
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
Ar
m
o
r
y
)
~
*
*
*
*
MAN
U
F
A
C
T
U
R
I
N
G
, ASS
E
M
B
L
Y
& PRO
C
E
S
S
I
N
G
As
s
e
m
b
l
y
a
n
d
P
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
M
a
i
l
Or
d
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
s
,
B
u
t
E
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
O
n
-
P
r
e
m
i
s
e
s
R
e
t
a
i
l
Ou
t
l
e
t
s
*
*
*
*
*
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
H
e
a
v
y
~
*
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
L
i
g
h
t
~
*
*
*
*
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
M
e
d
i
u
m
~
*
*
Mi
c
r
o
b
r
e
w
e
r
y
,
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
y
^
B
B
*
*
*
Pr
i
n
t
i
n
g
&
L
i
t
h
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sawmi
l
l
s
~
*
Wi
n
e
r
y
,
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
y
^
B
B
*
*
*
MED
I
C
A
L
USE
S
He
a
l
t
h
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
:
O
v
e
r
1
0
,
0
0
0
S
q
.
F
t
.
~
*
He
a
l
t
h
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
:
U
n
d
e
r
1
0
,
0
0
0
S
q
.
F
t
.
*
*
*
*
*
Hospita
l
s
~
*
*
Ve
t
e
r
i
n
a
r
y
C
l
i
n
i
c
B
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ve
t
e
r
i
n
a
r
y
C
l
i
n
i
c
,
m
o
b
i
l
e
B
B
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ve
t
e
r
i
n
a
r
y
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
REC
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
USE
S
Bo
t
a
n
i
c
a
l
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
&
A
r
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
s
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ca
m
p
/
R
e
t
r
e
a
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
B
B
Go
l
f
D
r
i
v
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
R
a
n
g
e
s
B
*
*
*
Pa
r
k
s
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
&
N
o
n
-
P
r
o
f
i
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
27
Article 5: Uses
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
:
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e
s
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
–
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Page 5-9
TAB
L
E
O
F
PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
S
– GEN
E
R
A
L
USE
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
* = PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
A = CLA
S
S
A SPE
C
I
A
L
USE
B = CLA
S
S
B SPE
C
I
A
L
USE
∆ = SUB
J
E
C
T
T
O
SPE
C
I
A
L
STANDARDS
USE
TYP
E
GEN
E
R
A
L
USE
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
RB
AR
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R8
R1
3
LC
1
NC
2
CC
3
GC
4
EC
5
OI
ASEI I 1 I2 I3 PID
~
U
s
e
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
s
a
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
na
l
U
s
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
;
S
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
1
.
4
(
E
)
^
A
l
l
o
w
e
d
a
s
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
u
s
e
i
f
lo
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
a
b
o
n
a
f
i
d
e
f
a
r
m
(
s
e
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
.
2
.
5
)
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(N
o
n
-
P
r
o
f
i
t
)
1
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
*
B
*
B
B * B* B*
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
P
r
o
f
i
t
)
*
*
*
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
RES
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
USE
S
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
M
o
b
i
l
e
H
o
m
e
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
T
w
o
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Fa
m
i
l
y
C
a
r
e
H
o
m
e
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Gr
o
u
p
C
a
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
*
*
*
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
H
o
t
e
l
(
F
r
a
t
e
r
n
it
i
e
s
,
S
o
r
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
Do
r
m
i
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
~
A
A
A
A
A
Ro
o
m
i
n
g
H
o
u
s
e
*
*
*
*
*
TEL
E
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
Te
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
o
w
e
r
–
S
t
e
a
l
t
h
(
7
5
f
e
e
t
o
r
sh
o
r
t
e
r
)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Te
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
o
w
e
r
s
(
O
v
e
r
7
5
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
20
0
f
e
e
t
)
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
1 St
a
f
f
is
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
di
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
pr
o
f
i
t
an
d
no
n
‐pr
o
f
i
t
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
to
an
en
t
i
t
y
’
s
st
a
t
u
s
as a ‘non‐profit’ as being
a ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
fo
r
de
c
i
d
i
n
g
th
e
re
v
i
e
w
st
a
t
u
s
of
a gi
v
e
n
la
n
d
us
e
(i
.
e
.
st
a
f
f
re
v
i
e
w
,
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Us
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
,
et
c
.
)
.
Af
t
e
r
re
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
th
e
ma
t
t
e
r
with the Attorney’s office
st
a
f
f
ha
s
de
t
e
r
mi
n
e
d
th
e
ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
st
a
t
u
s
of
a re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
/
o
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
is
no
t
a re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
me
a
n
s
of
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
land use/permitting
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Wh
e
t
h
e
r
or
no
t
a re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
is
a fo
r
‐pr
o
f
i
t
en
t
i
t
y
or
no
t
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
of
sa
i
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
owners will be the same.
Fr
o
m
th
i
s
st
a
n
d
p
o
i
n
t
it
ma
k
e
s
mo
r
e
se
n
s
e
to
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
la
n
d
us
e
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
in
st
e
a
d
of
re
l
y
i
n
g
on
th
e
ta
x
st
a
t
u
s
of
a pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
owner when determining
th
e
vi
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
or
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
pe
r
m
i
t
re
v
i
e
w
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
(i
.
e
.
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
re
v
i
e
w
ve
r
s
u
s
a re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
a sp
e
c
i
a
l
us
e
pe
r
m
i
t
)
.
28
Article 5: Uses
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
:
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e
s
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
–
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Page 5-19
TAB
L
E
O
F
PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
S
– ECO
N
O
M
I
C
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
* = PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
A = CLA
S
S
A SPE
C
I
A
L
USE
B = CLA
S
S
B SPE
C
I
A
L
USE
C = CON
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
USE
(RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
& CLASS A SUP)
USE
TYP
E
GEN
E
R
A
L
USE
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
BUC
K
H
O
R
N
ED
D
ENO
ED
D
HIL
L
S
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
EDD
ED
B
-
1
ED
B
-
2
ED
E
-
1
ED
E
-
2
ED
H
-
1
ED
H
-
2
ED
H
-
3
EDH-4 EDH-5
#
S
h
a
l
l
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
o
n
Z
o
n
i
n
g
A
t
l
a
s
a
s
“
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
”
–
C
U
(
e
.
g
.
,
E
D
B
-
2
-
C
U
)
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
N
o
n
-
P
r
o
f
i
t
)
C#
C#
C#
C#
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(P
r
o
f
i
t
)
2
C#
B
C#
*
C#
B
C#
*
Re
p
a
i
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
C#
C
#
*
*
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
*
*
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
d
a
n
c
e
,
a
r
t
,
a
n
d
m
u
s
i
c
*
C
#
*
*
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
,
m
i
d
d
l
e
,
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
A
A
*
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
v
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C#
C
#
*
Ot
h
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
H
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
E
D
D
o
n
l
y
)
*
*
*
TRA
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
Bu
s
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
s
a
n
d
g
a
r
a
g
e
s
C#
*
Po
s
t
a
l
a
n
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
*
*
Ra
i
l
/
b
u
s
p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
*
*
*
*
*
Su
r
f
a
c
e
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
p
a
r
ki
n
g
a
s
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
u
s
e
(W
h
e
n
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
l
o
c
a
l
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
g
o
a
l
s
u
c
h
a
s
m
a
s
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
o
r
p
a
r
k
-
an
d
-
r
i
d
e
)
*
*
*
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
(
S
e
c
t
o
r
4
8
,
4
9
)
*
WHO
L
E
S
A
L
E
TRA
D
E
Wh
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
T
r
a
d
e
(
S
e
c
t
o
r
4
2
)
Du
r
a
b
l
e
G
o
o
d
s
(
s
e
e
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
e
l
o
w
)
*
•
A
u
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
t
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
(
I
n
a
n
en
c
l
o
s
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
)
*
*
2 St
a
f
f
is
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
re
v
i
e
w
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
fo
r
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
wh
a
t
ar
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
hi
g
h
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
districts. We
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
al
l
o
w
ce
r
t
a
i
n
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
d
us
e
s
as
a pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
us
e
of
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
in
th
e
s
e
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
an
d
do
no
t
be
l
i
e
v
e
it
wa
s
th
e
in
t
e
n
t
of
the County to require both
th
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a Cl
a
s
s
A Sp
ec
i
a
l
Us
e
Pe
r
m
i
t
an
d
a re
z
o
n
i
n
g
to
al
l
o
w
fo
r
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
th
o
s
e
la
n
d
us
e
s
fa
l
l
i
n
g
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
facilities designation.
29
Article 5: Uses
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
:
T
a
b
l
e
o
f
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
U
s
e
s
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
–
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Page 5-26
TAB
L
E
O
F
PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
S
– CON
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
* = PER
M
I
T
T
E
D
USE
USE
TYP
E
CON
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
ZON
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
S
AS
E
-
C
Z
MP
D
-
C
Z
MH
P
-
C
Z
REDA-CZ-1
NO
T
E
:
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
mu
s
t
l
i
s
t
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
u
s
e
s
fo
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
^:
U
s
e
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
o
n
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
u
r
a
l
B
u
ff
e
r
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
C
o
m
p
r
eh
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
.
Ve
t
e
r
i
n
a
r
y
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
*
*
REC
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
USE
S
Ar
t
s
,
E
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
(
S
e
c
t
o
r
7
1
)
Bo
t
a
n
i
c
a
l
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
&
A
r
b
o
r
e
t
u
m
s
*
Ca
m
p
/
R
e
t
r
e
a
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
*
Go
l
f
D
r
i
v
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
R
a
n
g
e
s
*
Gu
e
s
t
R
a
n
c
h
*
Pa
r
k
s
,
P
u
b
l
i
c
&
N
o
n
-
P
r
o
f
i
t
*
*
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
N
o
n
-
P
r
o
f
i
t
)
*
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(P
r
o
f
i
t
)
3
*
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
*
*
Ra
c
e
T
r
a
c
k
(
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
,
e
t
c
.
)
a
n
d
G
o
-
K
a
r
t
T
r
a
c
k
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
*
RES
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
USE
S
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
M
o
b
i
l
e
H
o
m
e
*
*
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
*
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
*
*
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
;
T
w
o
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
*
Fa
m
i
l
y
C
a
r
e
H
o
m
e
Gr
o
u
p
C
a
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
*
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
C
a
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
*
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
H
o
t
e
l
(
F
r
a
t
e
r
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
So
r
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
D
o
rm
i
t
o
r
i
e
s
)
Ro
o
m
i
n
g
H
o
u
s
e
TEL
E
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
3 Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
ch
a
n
g
e
s
he
r
e
ar
e
to
en
s
u
r
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
UD
O
.
30
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-37
(e) A statement for setting forth the length of time for which the request is
made. Approval shall not exceed one year.
(2) Standards of Evaluation
(a) The relationship between the occupants of the single family unit and the
mobile home is established.
(b) There is a certificate from a licensed physician (MD) stating the necessity
of direct care.
(c) The floor plan of the existing single family unit shows there is no
reasonable alternative to the mobile home.
(d) The proposed site plan shows the location and setbacks of the existing
single family unit, the mobile home, and driveways and parking areas.
The setbacks for all structures meet or exceed the requirements of the
district in which the lot is located.
(e) There shall be adequate lot area for each unit, according to the minimum
requirements of the zoning district in which the lot is located.
(f) Approval of the Orange County Health Department for water and
sewerage disposal facilities, or the approval of the appropriate agency
from which sanitary sewer and water will be supplied.
(g) Approval of the application shall not exceed one year. Renewal shall
constitute a new application.
5.4.5 Buildings for Temporary Use
(A) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit
(1) Submittal Requirements –
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information
shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use:
(a) Site plan showing all existing and proposed structures on the site,
existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five feet,
existing and proposed landscaping, parking areas, access points, any
officially designated flood plains, and other site details.
(b) A description of the exterior materials, color and construction details.
(c) Statement of proposed use and length of time building will be in use.
(2) Standards of Evaluation –
(a) The temporary building shall not be used for residential purposes.
(b) The temporary building shall not be used by operations offering drive-in
services.
(c) The use of the building shall be only for the period of time specified and
for the use specified.
(d) The proposed use is a permitted use in the district in which it is located.
SECTION 5.5: STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
5.5.1 Accessory Structures and Uses
(A) General Standards of Evaluation
31
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.5: Standards for Residential Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-38
(1) Accessory structures and uses, including recreational uses and amenities, 4shall
not be located in any required front open space and shall conform to the principal
setbacks of the district where located unless otherwise provided in this Section.
(2) An attached private garage, or carport, not exceeding 12 feet in height, may
occupy a portion of the required side open space, provided that this does not
result in a required side open space of less than 7% of the lot width, nor a total,
when combined with the required side open space of the lot immediately
adjacent, of less than eight feet.
(3) Mobile homes as accessory structures to residential uses are prohibited.
5.5.2 Efficiency Apartment
(A) General Standards of Evaluation
(1) There shall be no more than one efficiency apartment, whether detached or
attached, on any lot.
(2) The efficiency unit shall contains no more than 800 square feet of gross floor
area.
(3) The residential lot shall meet the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning
district in which it is located.
(4) The efficiency unit shall comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code including
minimum light/ventilation and room sizes.
(5) The efficiency unit shall be accessory to the principal dwelling unit and may be
attached or detached.
(6) The efficiency unit shall be served by an approved water supply and sanitary
facilities.
(7) The efficiency unit shall remain in the same ownership as the primary residence.
5.5.3 Home Occupations
(A) General Standards
(1) Submittal Requirements–
In addition to the completed application form, applicants for a minor or major
home occupation shall submit the following to the Planning Department:
(a) Minor Home Occupations
(i) A plot plan of the property on which the home occupation is to be
located. The plot plan shall show:
a. The location of the residence and/or accessory building
in which the home occupation is to be located in relation
to existing property lines and adjacent homes;
b. The location, number, and means of access to required
off street parking areas; and
c. The location and type of required landscaping and/or
screening.
(ii) A floor plan of the residence and/or accessory building in which
the home occupation is to be located showing the location, size,
4 Staff has always interpreted a recreational use (i.e. pool, basketball court, etc.) to be an customary accessory use
to a residential land use. We are adding language here to formalize this interpretation which will require such uses
to comply with established dimensional standards (i.e. setbacks).
32
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-64
from adjacent residentially zoned property.
(4) The site shall be located on a major road, as classified in the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan, unless permitted as an ASE-CZ.
(5) Parking shall not be located in the front yard space.
(6) Application materials shall include a comprehensive groundwater study, for
facilities expected to use more groundwater on an annual basis than an average
single family residence (which uses 240 gallons of water per day) built at the
highest density the existing zoning district would allow. For example, if the
existing zoning district allows a residential density of 1 unit for 2 acres and the
proposed use is on a six acre parcel (which could yield 3 residences), the
proposed use(s) may use three times the water used by an average single family
residence (or 720 gallons per day, on an annualized basis) before a
comprehensive groundwater study is required. The water usage rates of any
existing use subject to zoning regulations located on the same lot shall be taken
into account when determining if a comprehensive groundwater study is required.
Said study shall detail:
(a) The amount of water anticipated to be used on a daily, weekly, monthly,
and annual basis by regulated uses located on the parcel (e.g., water
usage by bona fide farm uses is not required to be included);
(b) An analysis of the amount of groundwater withdrawal considered to be
safe and sustainable in the immediate vicinity; and
(c) An analysis of whether other wells in the vicinity of the proposed use are
expected to be affected by withdrawals made by the proposed use.
SECTION 5.7: STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL USES
5.7.1 Recreational Uses as Accessory Uses5
(A) Residential Land Uses6
In addition to the requirements contained within this Ordinance, recreational uses
developed as an accessory use to a residence shall abide by the following:
(1) General Standards
(a) Accessory recreational uses shall not be open to the public or serve as a
recreation amenity for other lots.7
(b) Amenities, equipment, and/or facilities intended for spectators such as
bleachers or public address systems shall not be permitted.8
5 There have been issues in the past with property owners allowing for the use of recreation amenities on their
property to serve others. To address this issue staff is recommending the imposition of various standards to
ensure this use does not become some form of commercial operation.
6 Bold Green Underlined text added to address comments from the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
There was concern the regulations, as written, would prevent a church from developing a recreational amenity for
their congregation’s use. While staff does not believe this would be the case, we have added language clarifying
the section to address the concern.
7 Staff is not trying to say a property owner cannot have friends over who use a pool or basketball court. What we
are attempting to avoid is the de‐facto expansion of an accessory use on a parcel property to serve other lots
recreational needs or be open to the public like a non‐residential land use can be. Please note this will not prohibit
subdivision developer’s from establishing a recreational amenity for their projects. That is addressed in Section
7.11 of the UDO.
8 Staff has received concerns from various property owners over the years with respect to a private land owners
ability to erect amenities, primary athletic field lights, to expand the use of their accessory recreation use. Staff is
33
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-65
(c) Outdoor sports field lighting, as detailed within Section 6.11, shall be
prohibited.9
(2) Specific Standards10
(a) Shooting activities11
(i) All shooting or targeting activities, including skeet shooting12,
not otherwise exempted herein,13 shall be designed or
oriented to keep projectiles on the property.
(ii) Shooting activities occurring outdoors shall:
a. Be located a minimum of 300 feet from all property
lines, rights-of-way, or access easements;
b. Be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied
dwelling units external to the property; and
c. Be directed14 Direct all stationary target shooting
activities into a projectile-proof backstop consisting
of concrete, steel, earth, wood, or combination
thereof15 a minimum of 15 feet in height and 30 feet
in depth.16
(iii) Shooting activities occurring indoors shall:17
a. Be located a minimum of 100 feet from all property
lines, rights-of-way, or access easements, and
recommending language that would prohibit the installation/use of equipment allowing for the expanded use of a
recreation amenity beyond what is considered customary for a residential setting.
9 This would prohibit the erection of sports field lights for accessory recreational land uses developed to support a
residential recreational facility.
10 As written staff is still proposing to establish specific standards for target shooting activities as an accessory use
to a residence. There was some discussion at the public hearing to eliminate these standards, specifically setback
and backstop requirements, and enforce non‐residential target shooting activities only.
11 There have been issued associated with the discharge of firearms on private property, focusing on noise and
public safety issues. Staff is attempting to establish reasonable land use regulations to address safety concerns by
requiring discharged items remain on the subject parcel and for those areas where a gun is discharged to be set
distances from a property line and occupied dwelling units.
12 Bold Orange Underlined text added to address October 7, 2015 Planning Board comments the term ‘target
shooting’ did not specifically include or allow skeet shooting.
13 Bold Blue Underlined was language added in consultation with the County Attorney’s office designed to address
a concern from the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing proposed regulations could restrict the ‘incidental’
discharge of a firearm. This language has now been deleted.
14 Language deleted to address concerns from the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting that, as written, the
ordinance would not allow skeet shooting.
15 Bold Green Underlined text was eliminated to address concerns from the October 7, 2015 Planning Board
meeting, specifically staff is eliminating language defining the materials that could constitute an acceptable
backstop. In consultation with the County Attorney it was determined projectile proof backstop would be
sufficient.
16 Bold Green Underlined text represents a change to address comments from the September 8, 2015 Quarterly
Public Hearing and combines what was proposed to be Section(s) 5.7.1 (B) (1) (b) and (c) into 1 section. Staff has
decided to add language reducing required setbacks if shooting/targeting activities occur indoors to address BOCC
and Planning Board concerns over the possible impacts proposed setbacks would have on a property owner’s
ability to engage in target shooting activities.
17 Bold Green Underlined text represents additional regulations to address comments from the September 8, 2015
Quarterly Public Hearing to provide greater flexibility for those property owners who choose to erect an indoors
target range on their property with respect to required setbacks.
34
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-66
b. Be designed to keep the shot within the structure.18
(iv) All Shooting or targeting activities occurring outdoors shall
occur only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
daily.19
(v) Warning signs indicating shooting activities are occurring on the
property shall be posted at one hundred-foot intervals along the
perimeter of the property in accordance with Section 6.12.5.20
(vi) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed within Section 6.8,
shall be required around the perimeter of the portion of property
where outdoor target shooting activities, including skeet
shooting,21 occurs.22
(vii) The use of exploding shells, targets, or other similar materials
shall be prohibited.
(viii) Nothing within Section 5.7.1 shall be construed as limiting or
otherwise restricting hunting activities, the use of fireworks, the
incidental discharge of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm
in self-defense, or engaging in target shooting activities on
a parcel of property less than 2 days a month23.
(b) Motor Cross and Go-Kart Tracks24
(i) All tracks and/or paths shall be located a minimum of 100 feet
from a property line.
(ii) A track or path shall not cross over active septic fields.
(iii) A Type B Land Use Buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, shall be
required around the portion of the property where the track is
located.
(B) Non-residential Land Uses 25
18 Staff is not recommending the establishment of a standard with respect to an indoor projectile‐proof backstop.
We believe this can be addressed on a case by case basis.
19 Bold Green Underlined text represents additional regulations to address comments from the September 8, 2015
Quarterly Public Hearing where BOCC and Planning Board members recommended limiting the hours which target
shooting activities could occur.
20 Bold Green Underlined text represents clarifying language requested at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public
Hearing to ensure erected warning signs are consistent with established regulations.
21 Bold Orange Underlined text added to address October 7, 2015 Planning Board comments on incorporating
specificity for skeet shooting activities.
22 This will require either the erection of a land use buffer, or preservation of existing vegetation, around the area
of the property where shooting activities are occurring. Staff is recommending the installation of a buffer
regardless of shooting occurring indoors or outdoors as the buffer will assist with the possible reduction of noise
occurring from a discharged weapon.
23 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney’s office after the
Quarterly Public Hearing and is designed to ensure we are not limiting the lawful discharge of a firearm or
otherwise requiring compliance with development requirements for property owners who may engage in
incidental target shooting activities.
24 In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s staff received numerous complaints from local property owners over the use
of motorcycles and go‐karts on private property. We are amending existing regulations to establish setback and
land use buffer requirements to address these concerns.
25 Bold Green Underlined text represents a change to address comments from the September 8, 2015 Quarterly
Public Hearing clarifying development standards for recreational amenities developed by non‐residential land uses
such as a church.
35
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-67
In addition to the requirements contained within this Ordinance, recreational uses
developed as an accessory use to a non-residential land use shall abide by the
following:
(1) Uses shall not constitute Recreational Facilities.
5.7.15.7.2 Recreational Facilities
(A) General Standards of Evaluation
(1) The standards included herein shall be applied to the following for-profit
recreational facilities as a principal use of property.26
(a) Tennis clubs Sports played on a 27,
(b) Swim clubs,
(c) Racquet ball,
(d) Squash clubs,
(e) Pitch and putt courses,
(f) Amusement areas,
(g) Bowling alleys,
(h) Skating rinks,
(i) Shooting ranges,
(j) Billiard and pool halls, or other similar activities
(k) Rope climbing or obstacle courses,
(l) Go-kart or motor cross track,
(m) Exercise facilities including aerobic and yoga studios,
(n) Indoor athletic facilities and
(o) Other similar uses.
(2) The minimum lot area shall be two acres.
(3) Facilities may include such features as play and training areas, athletic field
lights, public address systems, parking for patrons and staff, storage/office
facilities, and restroom/locker facilities.
(3)(4) No building shall be closer than 20 feet from any right-of-way or property line or
than the minimum requirements of the district in which it is located. or 20 feet to
the public right of way or private property line, whichever is greater.
(4)(5) Outdoor athletic fields shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.11 and shall
be located a minimum of 50 feet from a property line.28
(6) All outdoor recreational facilities shall utilize a combination of screens, fences,
nets, berms, or vegetation to keep equipment on the property.29
(B)
26 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney’s office after the
Quarterly Public Hearing in an attempt to further distinguish a recreational facility, considered a principal use of
property, versus an accessory use.
27 Text moved to the definition of a Recreational Facility in Article 10.
28 This is a new regulation designed to protected adjacent property owners from the glare of outdoor lighting
generated by an outdoor recreational facility.
29 This regulation is designed to ensure any equipment used as part of an outdoor facility (balls, etc.) stays on the
property.
36
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-68
(B) Standards for Specific Uses30
(1) Shooting Ranges
(a) Shooting ranges, including skeet shooting activities,31not otherwise
exempted herein, 32shall be designed or oriented to keep projectiles on
the property.
(b) Outdoor shooting ranges shall:33
(i) Be located a minimum of 300 feet from all property lines,
street rights-of-way, or access easements;
(ii) Be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied dwelling
units external to the property; and
(iii) Have shooting activities Direct all stationary target shooting
activities into a projectile-proof backstop consisting of
concrete, steel, earth, wood or combination thereof, 34a
minimum of 15 feet in height and 30 feet in depth.
(iv) Operate only from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily.35
(v) Maintain a Type F land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8,
around the perimeter of the range.
(c) Indoor shooting activities shall:
(i) Be located a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines,
street rights-of-way, or access easements;
(ii) Be located a minimum of 500 feet from occupied dwelling
units external to the property; and
(iii) Direct shooting activities into a projectile proof backstop to
keep the shot within the structure.
(iv) Maintain a Type B land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8,
around the permiter of the property.
(d) Nothing in Section 5.7.2 (B) shall be construed as regulating hunting
activities or the operation of a shooting range developed for, and
exclusively utilized by, local, State, and/or Federal law enforcement
agencies.
(e) Nothing in Section 5.7.2 (B) shall be construed as regulating or
prohibiting:
i. Hunting activities or the operation of a shooting
range developed for, and exclusively utilized by,
30 These regulations would govern the development of commercial shooting ranges.
31 Orange Bold Underlined text added to address concern expressed at the October 7, 2015 Planning Board
meeting the ordinance would not allow skeet shooting.
32 Bold Blue Underlined text was a change made in consultation with the County Attorney’s office after the
Quarterly Public Hearing. To address concerns from the Planning Board it has been deleted.
33 Bold Green Underlined text represents a change to address comments from the September 8, 2015 Quarterly
Public Hearing to ensure setback/development standards for shooting ranges are similar regardless if they are for
private or public use.
34 Bold Green Underlined text was eliminated to address concerns from the October 7, 2015 Planning Board
meeting, specifically staff is eliminating language defining the materials that could constitute an acceptable
backstop. In consultation with the County Attorney it was determined projectile proof backstop would be
sufficient.
35 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney’s office after the
Quarterly Public Hearing to consolidate regulations governing outdoor shooting activities into a central section.
37
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-69
local, State, and/or Federal law enforcement
agencies.
ii. The holding of turkey shoots or other similar
activities conducted as a fundraiser or
community event so long as such activities
occur no more than three days in a given
calendar year on a parcel of property36,
iii. The incidental discharge of a firearm, the
discharge of a firearm in self-defense, or
engaging in target shooting activities on a
parcel of property less than 2 days in a given
month.37
(2) Outdoor Paintball
(a) Areas where outdoor paintball activities occur shall be a minimum of 50
feet from all property lines, street rights-of-way, or access easements.
(b) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, shall be required
around the perimeter of the portion of property where outdoor paintball
activity occurs.
(3) Pitch and Putt Courses
(a) Pitch and putt areas shall be located a minimum of 40 feet from all
property lines, street rights-of-way, or access easements.
(b) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed in Section 6.8, shall be required
around the perimeter of the portion of property where pitch and putt
course activity occurs.
(C) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following information
shall be supplied as part of the application for approval of this use:
(a) A description of the exact type facility planned, the amount of area,
including and number of members or participants expected, a site plan
showing siting and size of existing and proposed building.
(b) Access, parking, service and recreation areas for all planned facilities or
existing facilities.
(c) Plans, and elevation for all proposed and existing structures and
descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials.
(d) A landscape plan showing, at the same scale as the site plan, existing
and proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and any other landscape
materials.
(e) A signed statement from the owners or operators that there shall be no
activity allowed that will have adverse effects on adjacent property. The
statement shall also include a complete list of all recreational activities
that will take place on the site.
(2) Standards of Evaluation
36 Staff did not want to inadvertently prohibit what has become a lucrative fundraising opportunity for several local
organizations. As a result language was included to allow for turkey shoots and other similar activities to occur.
37 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney’s after the
Quarterly Public Hearing to ensure we are treating the discharge of a firearm consistently within the UDO.
38
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.7: Standards for Recreational Uses
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-70
(a) The property shall have direct frontage on, and obtain vehicular access
from, a public road.38
(a)(b) Lot size shall be adequate for the method of sewage disposal proposed,
and for the proposed recreational uses.
(b)(c) The site plan should show the boundaries of the site, the distances to the
nearest residential structures, proposed or existing access points,
parking and service areas, location of outdoor recreational facilities, and
location of existing or proposed buildings.
(c)(d) The landscape plan shall be at the same scale as the site plan and
should show how the facilities will be screened from the adjacent
properties, in addition to proposed or existing trees, shrubs and ground
cover.
(d)(e) Elevations of all structures and buildings. The structure shall be of such
a nature as to preserve the residential character of the area.
(e)(f) There are no adverse impacts on the adjacent roads or residential
property.
5.7.25.7.3 Golf – Driving and Practice Range
(A) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following shall be
submitted as part of the application:
(a) A site plan showing the following:
(i) All existing or proposed buildings, tee areas, lawn areas,
(ii) Distances to nearest residential structures,
(iii) Access road(s) to the site, with an indication of type of proposed
surface;
(iv) On-site parking and roads, with an indication of type of proposed
surface; and
(v) All other requirements as indicated in section 2.5.
(2) Standards of Evaluation
(a) Unless public sewer is proposed to be extended, the adequacy for the
method of sewage disposal will be determined by the lot size and soil
suitability. Appropriate letters from the Orange County Environmental
Health Department, local jurisdictions and/or the State Division of
Environmental Management shall be submitted to indicate preliminary
approval.
(b) The landscape plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from
the adjacent properties. A Type D 50 foot buffer, as indicated in Section
6.8, shall be observed around the perimeter of the property. This buffer
shall be located outside of the required dimensional area indicated in d.
below.
(c) The site plan, as required in Section 2.7, shall be reviewed by the
Orange County Recreation and Parks Director.
38 Staff is recommending this change in an attempt to ensure there is adequate access to a recreation facility and
to avoid the use of private roadways supporting such activities.
39
Article 10: Definitions
Section 10.1: Definitions
Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 10-32
Public Interest Area
Land which contains public or quasi-public uses such as state parks, research forests or known
archaeological or historical sites.
Public Safety Hazard and/or Nuisance
Anything, which is injurious to the safety or health of an Orange County neighborhood, or any
considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary
manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin.
Public Vehicular Areas
Street in a platted subdivision which are open for vehicular traffic and have been offered for dedication to
the public and where the offer for dedication has not been accepted.
Recreation Use, Non-Profit
An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by a not-for-profit corporation, according to the laws of North
Carolina.
Recreation Use, Profit
An indoor or outdoor recreation use owned by an entity other than a not-for-profit corporation.
Recreation Space
Exterior area appropriately improved for common recreational use. Part of total and livability open space.
Recreation Space Ratio
Recreation space ratio is the minimum square footage of open space in residential areas, suitable by
location, size, shape, access and improvements, required for each square foot of gross land area. This
area is a public or private exterior area improved for recreation of all residents, having a least dimension
of 50 feet, and average dimension of 100 feet and a minimum area of 10,000 square feet.
Recreation Vehicle (RV)
A self-propelled or towed vehicle, qualified to be licensed by the appropriate State Agency, and is built on
a single chassis, 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, providing
short term recreational living accommodations, designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling,
but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
Recreational Facility – For ProfitFacilities
Includes uses such as tennis clubs, swim clubs, racquet ball, squash clubs, pitch and putt courses,
amusement areas, bowling allies, skating rinks, shooting ranges, billiard and pool halls, indoor athletic
facilities and such similar uses A use of property occurring indoors and/or outdoors providing recreational
amenities, activities, or services39 to either the general public or to members of an organization,
club, or league for the purpose of leisure, physical fitness, training, competitive activities or for
compensation40. Activities shall include, but not be limited to: sports played on a court,
amusement arcades, bowling alleys, skating rinks, shooting ranges, billiard and pool halls,
paintball, rope climbing or obstacle courses, go-kart or motor cross tracks, exercise centers
including aerobic and yoga studios, athletic facilities, and gymnasiums.41
Reference level
The portion of a structure or other development that must be compared to the regulatory flood protection
elevation to determine regulatory compliance. For structures within Special Flood Hazard Areas
designated as Zone AE, the reference level is the top of the lowest floor.
39 Language within the definition was revised after the public hearing based on comments from the County
Attorney’s office in an attempt to make enforcement easier.
40 Bold Orange Underlined text added to address comments from the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting.
41 Bold Blue Underlined text represents a change made in consultation with the County Attorney’s office after the
Quarterly Public Hearing moving language previously found in Section 5.7.1
40
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Text Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement – Revise Existing Language
Regarding Transition Area Resident Representation on the Chapel Hill Planning Commission
and Board of Adjustment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. October 15, 2015 Joint Planning Public
Hearing Materials
2. Town of Chapel Hill PowerPoint
Presentation
3. Resident Comment Received
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, 245-2578
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on
amendments proposed by the Town of Chapel Hill to the Joint Planning Agreement regarding
Transition Area resident representation on the Town of Chapel Hill’s Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment.
BACKGROUND: The joint public hearing materials included in Attachment 1 provide the
background information for this item. This item was heard at the October 15, 2015 joint
planning public hearing and video of the hearing is available for viewing at: http://orange-
nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=972. Planning Board members are
encouraged to view the video prior to the Planning Board meeting (this item is the first ~30
minutes of the video).
The Town of Chapel Hill’s PowerPoint presentation used at the hearing is included in
Attachment 2. One resident spoke at the hearing and also submitted the comments contained
in Attachment 3.
Orange County Planning staff offers the following information as a synopsis of the most salient
points regarding this proposed amendment:
1. The Joint Planning Agreement currently provides for Transition Area resident
representation on the Town’s Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment. This
representation is in addition to the ETJ resident representation that is required by State
Statutes.
a. The primary reason the Joint Planning Agreement provides for this representation
is that the Town has permitting authority over the designated Transition Areas
(also referred to as “JPA Areas” in documents produced by the Town as this is
how the Town came to refer to its JPA Transition Areas over the years because
the Town also has Town-designated transition areas that are not subject to the
Joint Planning Agreement).
41
b. The BOCC appoints both the ETJ representative and the Transition Area
representative to the Town’s two advisory boards.
2. In October 2014, the Town extended its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) over the Rogers
Road area (in the northwest portion of the town on the map included in Attachment 1).
This action left the Town with 274 acres of Joint Planning Transition Area. The Town
estimates there is a population of approximately 297 persons within the remaining
Transition Area (includes children and adults).
3. The Town has two primary concerns regarding the existing language of the Joint
Planning Agreement:
a. The relative representation on the advisory boards of ETJ (required by Statute)
and Transition Area residents significantly exceeds the overall membership
number of the boards when compared to the entire population of Chapel Hill. For
example, on the Planning Commission two of the nine seats (22%) would be
occupied by persons representing only 6.7% of the total population in the Town’s
jurisdiction.
b. Recruiting willing adult volunteers from the remaining Transition Area to serve on
the two advisory boards could prove difficult and seats could remain vacant for
extended periods of time.
4. Two options were submitted by the Town for consideration:
a. (Option A) This option, recommended by the Town’s Planning Commission, would
replace the Transition Area seat with a Town of Chapel Hill resident. The ETJ
seat would remain since it is required by Statutes but it could be designated to
represent both the ETJ and Transition Area (although the representative would
have to reside in the ETJ in order to be in compliance with Statutes).
b. (Option B) This option would replace the Transition Area seat with either an ETJ
or Transition Area resident who would represent both types of areas. The BOCC
would have 90 days to appoint a representative, after which the seat could be
filled by the Town Council with a Chapel Hill resident. The BOCC would have the
opportunity to request more time to fill a vacancy if an appointment could not be
made within 90 days. This seat would be in addition to the statutorily required ETJ
seat.
Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends that Option B be
recommended to the BOCC as it is the better option for potentially having a Transition Area
representative on the Town’s advisory boards while implementing a reasonable solution should
recruiting a volunteer prove difficult.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board:
1. Discuss the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement as desired.
2. Make a recommendation to the BOCC in time for the December 7, 2015 BOCC
meeting.
42
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL COUNCIL
TOWN OF CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 15, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. C.1
SUBJECT: Text Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement – Revise Existing Language
Regarding Transition Area Resident Representation of the Chapel Hill Planning Commission
and Board of Adjustment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Town of Chapel Hill Planning Staff Report
Gene Poveromo, Town of Chapel Hill
Planning, 969-5069
Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning, 245-
2578
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning, 245-
2592
Trish McGuire, Town of Carrboro Planning,
918-7324
PURPOSE: To receive public comment on two proposed options to amend the Joint Planning
Agreement to revise existing language regarding Transition Area resident representation on the
Town of Chapel Hill’s Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
BACKGROUND: In the mid-1980s Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
adopted a Joint Planning Land Use Plan and accompanying Agreement that provided land use
planning for the area of the county commonly referred to as the Rural Buffer and for areas
designated as “Transition Areas” adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Transition
Areas were defined as areas in transition from rural to urban and were projected to be provided
with urban services (public utilities and other town services). The full plan and agreement is
available at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/Documents.asp.
In October 2014, the Town of Chapel Hill enacted an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
expansion ordinance that changed most of the Town’s designated Transition Area to ETJ.
Because there is relatively little Chapel Hill Transition Area remaining, the Town of Chapel Hill
has proposed two options for potential amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement regarding
Transition Area resident representation on its Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
The attached Town staff report provides further details on the options.
Amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement require a joint public hearing and approval by the
three governing boards of the jurisdictions that are parties to the agreement.
43
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Costs to hold a public hearing on this item have been paid from County
FY 2015-16 funds budgeted for this purpose. Necessary work has been accomplished using
existing local government staff. Enactment of the amendments is not expected to have a direct
financial impact on the local governments.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following social justice goal is applicable to this item:
GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staffs recommend that the governing boards:
1. Hear public comment on the proposed options to amend the Joint Planning Agreement.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Refer the matter to the local governments for decision in accordance with the following
schedule:
a. Orange County
Orange County Planning Board for recommendation – November 4, 2015
Board of County Commissioners for possible action – December 7, 2015
b. Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill Planning Board for recommendation – done on September 1, 2015
Town Council for possible action – November 9, 2015
c. Carrboro
Carrboro Planning Board for recommendation – November 5, 2015
Board of Aldermen for possible action – November 10 or 24, 2015
44
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
NORTH CAROLINA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carrboro Board of Aldermen
Chapel Hill Town Council
Orange County Commissioners
FROM: Mary Jane Nirdlinger, Chapel Hill Planning and Sustainability
Gene Poveromo, Chapel Hill Development Manager
SUBJECT: A Proposal to Amend Section 2.7 of the Joint Planning Area Agreement
Regarding the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Membership on the Chapel Hill
Planning Commission and the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment.
Recommended Action
• That the governing bodies consider the proposed amendment, recess the public hearing
and take action on the proposed amendment at their respective follow-up meetings.
Explanation of Recommendation
Joint Planning Agreement
• The Joint Planning Agreement requires that the Chapel Hill Planning
Commission and the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment include one
representative from the Joint Planning Area (JPA).
• Changing JPA representation on the Chapel Hill Planning Commission and
the Board of Adjustment requires the County Commissioners, the Carrboro
Board of Aldermen, and the Chapel Hill Town Council to unanimously agree
to amend the Joint Area Planning Agreement.
Context with Key Issues
Reducing the JPA land area
• On October 15, 2014, the Chapel Hill Town Council enacted an ordinance to
expand the Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdictional (ETJ) boundary. This expansion
was achieved by switching the J oint Planning Area (JPA) in the Roger’s Road
neighborhood to ETJ.
• This effectively reduced the JPA from 1,033 acres to 274 acres. A map of the
current ETJ and JPA areas is attached. The ETJ area outlined in red identifies the
area that was previously JPA prior to October 15, 2014.
• The expansion of the ETJ was undertaken in order to help fund a plan to expand
public sewer service into the Roger’s Road neighborhood.
45
• Tonight’s discussion is to consider if, due to the reduced area of the JPA and
associated reduction in residential population, the JPA representation on the
Chapel Hill Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment should be
amended.
Population Estimates
• The estimated 2013 population of the Town of Chapel Hill, is 59,635.
This represents population within Chapel Hill’s corporate limits in both
Orange and Durham County. While there is no formal population
estimate for the planning areas outside the corporate limits (ETJ and
JPA), it is possible to extrapolate a population in the ETJ/JPA based on the
number of dwelling units in those areas (According to the 2010 Census,
there are approximately 2.38 people per household in Chapel Hill).
• The chart below reflects the 2013 corporate limits population and the
extrapolated population for the new ETJ boundary and reduced JPA area.
Chapel Hill Area Population Estimate % of Population
Town Limits 59,635 93.3%
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 4,020 6.3%
Joint Planning Area 297 0.4%
Total 63,952 100%
Options for Consideration
Chapel Hill Planning Commission Recommendation (Option A)
• The Chapel Hill Planning Commission recommended amending the Joint
Planning Area agreement to replace the Joint Planning Area member on the
Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment with a Chapel Hill
Resident.
• The Chapel Hill Planning Commission based their recommendation on the fact
that the current ETJ/JPA population percentage (6.7%) is less that the
representative percentage (22%) of 2 seats on the Planning Commission. The
Commission noted that with one ETJ/JPA seat on the Planning Commission,
there is still almost double the population representation (11% vs.6.7%) on the
Planning Commission.
46
Other Options (Option B)
• Another option includes:
o Replacing the JPA seat with an ETJ or JPA resident within 90 days
of a vacancy, with an opportunity for the Chapel Hill Town Council
to appoint a Chapel Hill Town resident after the 90 day time period.
Next Steps
• Following tonight’s meeting, this matter will return to each governmental body
for addition consideration and possible final action. The schedule for these
future meetings is listed below:
o Carrboro Board of Aldermen – November 10 or 24, 2015
o Chapel Hill Town Council - November 9, 2015
o Orange County Commissioners – December 7, 2015
Notifications
• The Town of Chapel Hill sent a post card to all property owners in the Joint
Planning Area notifying them of tonight’s public hearing, as well as the
proposed amendment. The post card also noted the above listed meetings.
Attachments
• Draft Option A
• Draft Option B
• Copy of Section 2.7 (Representation of Transition Area Resident): page 15 from
the Joint Planning Agreement
• Chapel Hill Planning Commission Recommendation
• Map of JPA and ETJ
47
OPTION A
This option replaced the JPA seat on the Chapel Hill Planning Commission and the Chapel Hill
Board of Adjustment with a Chapel Hill Resident (new text underlined, deleted text strike
through)
Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents (Carrboro)
Chapel Hill shall revise its Land Development Ordinance and Carrboro shall revise its Land Use
Ordinance to provide that at least one resident of each the town's respective Transition area shall
be appointed to each the town's respective planning board and board of adjustment, in the same
manner as representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in each the
Town's ordinance.
48
OPTION B
This option provides a 90 day period in which the County Commission can fill a vacant JPA seat
with a JPA or ETJ resident. If the vacancy is not filled after 90 days, the Chapel Hill Town
Council may fill the vacant seat with a Chapel Hill Resident (new text underlined, deleted text
strike through)
(NEW TEXT)
Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents
Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill shall revise its Land Use Development Ordinance to provide that in
addition to one Extraterritorial Jurisdiction representative on the Planning Board and
Board of Adjustment that the County Commission appoints one additional representative
from the Joint Planning Area or the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. If an appointment by
the County Commission is unable to be secured within 90 days of a vacancy, the Town
Council may fill the vacant seat with a Chapel Hill resident. Chapel Hill shall notify
Orange County of any vacancies for which Orange County is to make an appointment,
within ten days of a vacancy. At the request of the County Commission, the Town
Council may extend the 90 day time limit.
Carrboro: Carrboro shall revise its Land Use Ordinance to provide that at least one r esident of
Town's Transition area shall be appointed to the Town's respective planning board and board of
adjustment, in the same manner as representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is
provided for in the Town's ordinance.
(DELETED TEXT)
Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents
Chapel Hill shall revise its Land Development Ordinance and Carrboro shall revise its Land Use
Ordinance to provide that at least one resident of each town's respective Transition area shall be
appointed to each town's respective planning board and board of adjustment, in the same manner
as representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in each Town's
ordinance.
49
Copy of Page 15 from the Amended April 7, 2015 Joint Planning Agreement
A. following a joint public hearing by the two governing bodies. With respect to property that is
located within the CJDA Transition area, changes in zoning classifications, including the
creation of or changes to the ‘floating’ conditional use districts designed to implement the
recommendations of the ‘Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro’s Northern Study Area’
(Village Mixed Use conditional use districts or Office/Assembly conditional use districts)
may not be made unless and until an ordinance approving such zoning map amendment has
been approved both by Orange County and Carrboro following a joint public hearing by the
two governing bodies. Requests for rezonings within the Transition areas that are filed with
the County shall be referred to the respective towns to initiate the amendment process.
B. Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall not become effective until approved
by the towns and an Orange County ordinance adopting the amendment is adopted by Orange
County.
Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents
Chapel Hill shall revise its Land Development Ordinance and Carrboro shall revise its Land Use
Ordinance to provide that at least one resident of each town's respective Transition area shall be
appointed to each town's respective planning board and board of adjustment, in the same manner
as representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in each Town's
ordinance.
ARTICLE 3. LIMITATIONS ON ANNEXATIONS
Section 3.1 No Annexation Into Rural Buffer
50
CHAPEL HILL PLANNING COMMISSION
The charge of the Planning Commission is to assist the Council in achieving the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan for orderly growth and development by analyzing, evaluating, and
recommending responsible town policies, ordinances, and planning standards that manage land
use and involving the community in long-range planning.
RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION
September 1, 2015
Recommendation: Approval Approval with Changes Denial
[noted by double-strikethrough text]
Motion: Michael Parker moved and Melissa McCullough seconded a motion to recommend
enactment of an ordinance, amending the Land Use Management Ordinance, and a resolution,
amending the Joint Planning agreement. The recommendation would replace the Joint
Planning Area member, on the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment , with a
Chapel Hill Resident, as noted below:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
Current Membership Proposed Membership
Community Design Commission Champion No Change
Environmental Stewardship Champion No Change
Housing Advisory Board Champion No Change
Transportation & Connectivity Board Champion No Change
3Chapel Hill Residents No Change
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Resident (ETJ) No Change
Joint Planning Area Resident (JPA) Change to an JPA, ETJ
or Chapel Hill resident
• The Commission also recommended that the JPA seat on the Board of Adjustment is changed to a
Chapel Hill resident seat (as recommended for the Planning Commission).
Vote: 7 - 0
Ayes: Neal Bench, Travis Clayton, Deborah Harris, Melissa McCullough,
Michael Parker, Amy Ryan, Elizabeth Weber
Nays: None
Discussion: T he Planning Commission based its decision on the current ETJ/JPA population
percentage as compared to Planning Commission member percentage (6.7%
versus 22% with 2 representatives and 11% with one representative). With one
51
ETJ/JPA Planning Commission member there is still almost double the
representation on the Planning Commission.
Prepared by: Neal Bench, Chair, Planning Commission
Gene Poveromo, Staff
52
CULBRETH RD
E ROSEM
A
R
Y
S
T
ESTES D R
COUNT
R
Y
C
L
U
B
R
D
MANNINGDR
DIX
I
E
G
A
R
D
E
N
D
R
S
A
G
E
R
D
MAR
K
E
T
S
T
HOMESTEAD RD
RALEI
G
H
R
D
E
EUBANKS RD
US 15-5
0
1
H
W
Y
N
HILLSB
OR
O
U
G
H
R
DNGREENSBORO
ST
MTCARMELCHURCH
RD
RALEIGHRD
M
T
M
O
RIA
H
R
D
EFRANKLINST
H
I
L
L
S
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
S
T
HIGH SCHOOL RD
S O U T H R D
ERWINRD
O
L
D
L
Y
S
T
RA
RD
N ESTES DR
WE AV ER DAIRY RD
FORDHAM
BLVD
SMITH
LEVEL
RD
N
C
O
L
U
M
B
I
A
S
T
POPERD
N
C
5
4
OLD DURHAM RD
SE
A
W
E
L
L
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
D
W H I TF IELD RD
M
A
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
ER
KING
JR
BLVD
N C H W Y 5 4 E A S T
D O G WOODAC
RE
S
D
R
MILLHOUS
E
R
D
N
M
E
R
R
I
T
T
M
I
L
L
R
D
SESTESDR
R
O
G
E
R
S
R
D
N
C
8
6
S
S
UNRISE R D
O
L
D
F
A
Y
E
T
T
E
V
I
L
L
E
R
D
SCOLUMBIAST
W MAIN ST
NC
5
4
S
M
I
T
H
L
E
V
E
L
E
X
I
T
Fordha
m
B
l
v
d
BENNETT RD
E P H E SUS CHURCHRD
US15501S
I40E
DAMAS
C
U
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
I 40
W
Legend
Chapel Hill Town Limits
JPA Joint Planning Agreement Jurisdiction
ETJ - Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Map Prepared by Chapel Hill GISPlanning and SustainabilitySeptember 2015
2,000 4,0000Feet.JPA
ETJ
ETJ ETJ
JPA
Chapel Hill Planning JurisdictionsSeptember 2015
53
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
October 15, 2015
Joint Public Hearing
Amending the Joint Planning Area
Agreement
54
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
Recommendation
•Consider the amendment
•Continue the Public Hearing
Chapel Hill Town Council
November 11
Carrboro Board of Aldermen
November 24
Board of Orange County Commissioners
December 7
55
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
Joint Planning Area Agreement
Amending JPA Resident
Membership on..
Town of Chapel Hill
•Planning Board
•Board of Adjustment
56
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
JPA Resident Membership
“…at least on resident of each town’s
respective Transition area shall be
appointed …planning board and board of
adjustment…”
TRANSITION AREA = JOINT PLANNING AREA
57
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
58
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
59
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
60
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
61
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
62
Chapel Hill
Planning Commission
Recommendation
•Amend the JPA Agreement and replace the
JPA seat on the Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment with a Chapel Hill
resident seat
63
Planning Commission
•“…current ETJ/JPA population (6.7%) as
compared to current Planning Commission
member percentage (22%).”
Chapel Hill Area Population
Estimate
% of Population
Town Limits 59,635 93.3%
Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction
4,020 6.3%
Joint Planning Area 297 0.4%
Total 63,952 100%
64
Other Options…
Make no
changes to
membership…
retain JPA seat
on Planning
Commission &
Board of Adj.
65
Another Option…
–Change the JPA seat to an ETJ or JPA seat
•County Commission appointment
–Seat can be filled by a Chapel Hill Resident if
unfilled for 90 days
•Town Council appointment
66
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | www.townofchapelhill.org
Recommendation
•Consider the amendment
•Continue the Public Hearing
Chapel Hill Town Council
November 11
Carrboro Board of Aldermen
November 24
Orange County Commission
December 7
67
QUESTIONS?
68
From:Donna Baker
To:Earl McKee; Bernadette Pelissier; Barry Jacobs; Penny Rich; Mia Burroughs; Renee Price; Mark Dorosin; Bonnie
Hammersley; Travis Myren; Perdita Holtz; Craig Benedict
Subject:Fwd: email...RE: a good compromise on option B JPA Membership
Date:Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:06:23 PM
All,
Please see email below from the Town of Chapel Hill as relates to the JPA meeting tomorrow
night.
Donna Baker
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Amy Harvey <aharvey@townofchapelhill.org>
Date: 10/14/2015 3:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Donna Baker <dbaker@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: FW: email...RE: a good compromise on option B JPA Membership
Good afternoon
For your information, please see email below as it relates to tomorrow’s Joint Planning Hearing.
Amy T. Harvey, CMC
Deputy Town Clerk
From: Jeanette Coffin
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:03 PM
To: Debbie Mozgala
Cc: Adam W. Jones ; David Alan Schwartz ; Gary Kahn ; Jessica Anderson ; Michael Parker ; Nancy E.
Oates ; Pam Hemminger ; Paul Neebe ; Amy Harvey; Carolyn Worsley; Catherine Lazorko; Flo Miller;
Jason Damweber; Ralph Karpinos; Roger Stancil; Sabrina Oliver; Donna Bell; Ed Harrison; George
Cianciolo; Jeff Deluca; Jim Ward; jim ward; jimward; Lee Storrow; Maria Palmer; Mark Kleinschmidt; Pat
Madej; Rae Buckley; Sally Greene; Town Council
Subject: email...RE: a good compromise on option B JPA Membership
Thank you for your correspondence with the Town of Chapel Hill. The Mayor and Town
Council are interested in what you have to say. By way of this email, I am forwarding your
message to the Mayor and each of the Council Members, as well as to the appropriate
staff person who may be able to assist in providing additional information or otherwise
addressing your concerns.
If your email is related to a development application or a particular issue being addressed
by the Council, your comments will be made part of the record. If applicable, we
encourage you to attend any public meetings related to the items addressed in your email.
Again, thank you for your message.
69
Sincerely,
Jeanette Coffin
Jeanette Coffin
Receptionist/Secretary
Town of Chapel Hill Manager’s Office
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(o) 919-968-2743 | (f) 919-969-2063
From: Debbie Mozgala [mailto:debbiedaisymozgala@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:39 PM
To: Town Council
Subject: a good compromise on option B JPA Membership
Hello,
I live in the JPA Chapel Hill map area. I would like to suggest a good compromise on the Option B for the
Joint Planning Area Membership. Please consider this compromise.
If we are to use Option B but to retain the title on the individual seats
on the Chapel Hill Planning Commission and Chapel Hill Board of
Adjustment as having JPA/ETJ status. Which means the persons
filling those seats, if they do remain vacant after 90 days of being
available to JPA or ETJ residents, those people would be responsible
to represent the interests of JPA/ETJ residents. The seat would retain
their titles as JPA/ETJ representatives, even if after this 90 day vacant
period lapsed and the seats were then filled by Chapel Hill residents.
If you you do not agree with this compromise, I, plus my neighbors would like to know why we would be
denied this representation in our own Town's government. And not just because we are outnumbered in
population and acreage. Our countryside landscapes of rolling hills of farms, woods, forest, fields,
creeks, streams, ponds add immeasurably to the aesthetic value and harmony of our Chapel Hill
Community as a whole. These peaceful lands cannot be held in comparison to the Town's lands that are
weaved with shoppes, traffic lights, cookie cutter neighborhoods upon a mixture of asphalt and cement.
JPA/ETJ areas are greatly different in form, and function than Chapel Hill In-Town Limits.The interests
and environments of the JPA/ETJ people need to have their own representative, because unless you live
there, you just don't get it and you won't understand what we want and why we want it.
Respectfully,
Debbie Mozgala
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
70
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 4, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 9
SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report / Work Plan for County Commissioners’ Annual
Planning Retreat
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Annual Report / Work Plan Form
2. UDO Implementation Bridge Status
Report
3. Small Area Plan Implementation
Status Report
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, 245-2578
PURPOSE: To provide an annual report and work plan input to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in preparation for its annual planning retreat.
BACKGROUND: Each year the County Clerk’s Office collects information from each of the
County’s advisory boards to prepare a report for the annual BOCC planning retreat in January.
The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory
boards/commissions, as well as proposed activities for the upcoming year.
Staff and advisory boards are asked to collaborate to complete the form that has been provided
by the Clerk’s Office and return by December 18. Proposed activities are to be consistent with
the goals of the BOCC.
The Annual Report / Work Plan form (Attachment 1) has been completed by staff for Planning
Board review and comment. Some topics of prime interest include:
1. Affordable and Senior Housing
2. Airport Regulations
3. Sexually Oriented Businesses Regulations
These topics are accented on the final three pages of Attachment 1.
Attachments 2 and 3 contain the updated status reports of the UDO Implementation Bridge and
small area plans. The UDO Implementation Bridge document and the various small area plans
are available on the Planning Department’s website:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/documents.php
The Planning Board is involved with approximately 40 - 60% of the work Planning Department
staff is responsible for (the percentage varies by year, depending on specific work being
completed in a given year). For the upcoming year, Planning staff will be working on some
71
items for which other advisory boards have primary responsibility. Examples of these tasks are
transit issues, transportation planning, and economic development issues (not related to the
UDO) in partnership with the Economic Development Department. Some work items the
Planning staff is responsible for do not go to an advisory board for a recommendation (for
example, water and sewer engineering, the annual report related to the Schools Adequate
Public Facilities ordinance [SAPFO], and a school impact fee study being completed this year).
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board:
1. Review the attached documents prior to the meeting.
2. Discuss members’ ideas about any additional activities to be worked on in 2016.
3. Either:
a. Approve the Annual Report and Work Plan Form in Attachment 1, or
b. Direct staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report /
Work Plan form and bring the final form back to the December 2, 2015
Planning Board meeting for approval.
72
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Planning Board
Report Period: 2015 calendar year for annual report; 2016 calendar year for
work plan
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT/ WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of Commissioners appreciates the dedication of all the volunteers on
their boards and commissions and welcomes input from various advisory boards
and commissions throughout the year. Please complete the following
information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background
materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this
form.
Board/Commission Name: Planning Board
Person to address the BOCC at work session- if applicable- and contact
information: Pete Hallenbeck, Chair, (919) 732-6551, pete@eflandfd.org
(please note the Chair is expected to change in January when the Planning
Board holds elections since Mr. Hallenbeck’s second term has expired so
he is not eligible for reappointment – the Chair at the time the work
session is held will address the BOCC)
Primary County Staff Contact: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; secondary
contact: Perdita Holtz, Planner III (Planning Systems Coordinator)
How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any
special meetings and sub-committee meetings? Once or twice per month (12
regular meetings + 4 Quarterly Public Hearings + special or sub-committee
meetings such as the Ordinance Review Committee [ORC] which meets
prior to the regular meeting several times a year).
Brief Statement of Board/Commission’s Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
Under the authority of NC General Statute, the BOCC created the Planning
Board to embark upon a continuing planning program, including but not
limited to the preparation and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan for
Orange County, in protection of the public health, safety, and general
welfare of present and future residents and businesses, landowners and
visitors. The duties of the Planning Board are listed in Section 1.6.3 of the
Unified Development Ordinance.
What are your Board/Commission’s most important accomplishments?
Within last 2 years:
• UDO text amendment to require a neighborhood information meeting
prior to public hearings for Special Use Permit applications.
• UDO text amendment to establish a new conditional zoning district for
Attachment 1 73
Agricultural Support Enterprises, both within the Rural Buffer and in the
remainder of County planning jurisdiction, and various accompanying
changes to the text.
• UDO text amendment to change standards related to home occupations
which liberalized the ability to have home businesses.
• Pleasant Green Woods Phase IV major subdivision concept plan and
preliminary plat.
• Triple Crown Farms major subdivision preliminary plat.
• Stroud’s Creek major subdivision concept plan and preliminary plat.
• Class A SUP for a solar facility in Cheeks Township.
More recently:
• UDO text amendments for revisions to the public hearing process to
enhance public input opportunities, streamline when possible, and
improve legal integrity.
• UDO, Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Atlas Amendments to adopt two
new zoning overlay districts in Efland that recognize community
character and add flexibility to target development.
• In 2015, two property-owner initiated applications for non-residential
rezonings were processed. The Planning Board reviewed these and
issued a recommendation to the BOCC on each application.
• UDO text amendments related to temporary health care structures.
• Henderson Woods major subdivision concept plan and preliminary plat.
• UDO text amendments related to impervious surface matters.
• Class A SUPs for a solar facility in Bingham Township and for Emerson
Waldorf School.
• UDO text amendments related to recreational land uses.
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually.
• Monthly Planning Board meetings
• Quarterly Public Hearings (4)
• Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings and special meetings as
required
• Review applications for ordinance amendments, major subdivisions,
and Class A special use permits and provide recommendations to the
BOCC
• Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative
procedures and other means for carrying out plans
• Coordinate with staff on ongoing planning updates, changes, and new
techniques
Describe this board/commission’s activities/accomplishments in carrying out
BOCC goal(s)/priorities, if applicable.
The Planning Board is involved in the ongoing implementation of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Potential projects listed in the “Implementation
74
Bridge,” such as updates to home occupation standards, continue to be
worked on as do small area plan implementation measures, such as the
Efland zoning overlay districts. The Implementation Bridge is a list of
topics that were raised during the UDO adoption process in 2010-11 that
further the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan through the
UDO.
The Planning Board also works with the BOCC, usually at an annual dinner
meeting prior to the quarterly public hearing in November, to discuss joint
goals (2009 and forward) and coordination with other advisory boards.
Describe the collaboration relationship(s) this particular board has with other
advisory boards and commissions?
The Planning Board includes members who also serve on the Orange
Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan
Implementation Focus Group, Commission for the Environment, and
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. There is also a position on the Board of
Adjustment for a Planning Board member but that position is currently
unfilled. In 2015, there was not direct collaboration with other advisory
board (e.g., joint meetings) but the Planning Board Chair attended the joint
advisory board training held by the BOCC/County Clerk.
If your board/commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory Board
involved in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process, please indicate
your board’s activities/accomplishments as they may relate to the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals or objectives.
(The Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, EDC, OUTBoard,
Commission for the Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture
Preservation Board, Affordable Housing Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council)
The processing of small area plan recommendations specifically addresses
an objective included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Following are
specific Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives that have been part of
the Planning Board’s recent work:
Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location,
pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County
services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s
population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan
element goals and objectives.
Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high
density residential and non-residential development with existing or
planned locations of public transportation, commercial and
community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e.,
water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and
75
sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural
resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable
densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where
adequate public services are available.
Objective LU-1.2: Evaluate and report on whether existing and
approved locations for future residential and non-residential
developments are coordinated with the location of public
transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate
supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer services, high-
speed internet access, streets and sidewalks).
Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a
program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural
character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and
balanced transportation system.
Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a
separation of urban and rural land uses, and direct new
development into areas where necessary community facilities and
services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan.
Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques
and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all
Comprehensive Plan goals.
Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair,
open, efficient, and responsive.
Objective LU-6.1: Undertake a comprehensive effort to inform and
involve the citizens of Orange County in the land use planning
process.
Objective LU-6.2: Maintain a cooperative joint planning process
among the County municipalities and those organizations
responsible for the provision of water and sewer services to guide
the extension of service in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan, the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning
Agreement and Land Use Plan, and the policies of the
municipalities.
Economic Development Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable
economic development that contributes to both property and sales tax
revenues, and enhances high quality employment opportunities for County
residents.
76
Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable
businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers.
Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation
planning that serves existing development supports future development,
and is consistent with the County’s land use plans which include
provisions for preserving the natural environment and community
character.
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2016 as they
relate to established BOCC goals and priorities.
If applicable, is there a fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff time, other resources)
associated with these proposed activities (please list).
The Board will continue its work in partnership with staff to further
implement recommendations contained within small area plans and the
UDO Implementation Bridge and to implement existing and new BOCC
priorities, some of which may emerge at the January 2016 BOCC retreat:
1. Airport Regulations: Work related to revising airport regulations began in
late 2015 and is expected to be completed in 2016.
2. Sexually Oriented Businesses: Work related to adopting regulations for
sexually oriented businesses is underway and is expected to be completed in
the first half of 2016.
3. Affordable and Senior Housing: On-going need for affordable housing
opportunities, including senior housing, in the county. The UDO amendments
currently being worked on related to temporary healthcare structures and
other custodial care options address a small portion of the larger affordable
and senior housing topic.
4. Emergency Access: Continue to work with appropriate staff/departments to
better ensure properties can be reached by emergency personnel (e.g.,
driveway width and clearance, bridge weight limit signage and sufficiency to
allow a fire truck to pass, gate width, curve radii sufficient for emergency
vehicles). Amendments currently being worked on related to private road
standards address a portion of this topic.
5. Clustering in Rural Areas: Consider rural village concepts. Examine
innovative septic systems whether in individual or community settings.
Clustering does not increase density in rural areas but creates a higher
percentage of open space.
6. Population Projections: Analyze regional population and employment
projections (including MPO 2040 and the development of the MPO 2045
MTP). Rationalize and offer ‘ground truth’ (i.e. what can realistically be built)
to the amount and location of new development noted from population
modeling (i.e. Community VIZ). Work with municipalities to aggregate their
77
projected ceiling density totals based on their densification efforts and create
composite countywide total by adding unincorporated projections. Use in
update to Comprehensive Plan Data Element.
7. New and/or Revised Zoning District: UDO text amendment to adopt a new
general use zoning district and/or “fine tune” existing ED zoning to match
locational attributes for targeted research and development industry and
applied light manufacturing. Consider appropriate mixed use areas (includes
high density residential) acknowledging the other areas will have a stronger
non-residential use program.
8. Parks and Recreation Dedications and Payment in Lieu Fees: Now that
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is complete, jointly work with the
Department of Environment, Agriculture, and Parks & Recreation (DEAPR) to
evaluate level of service standards and how they would be implemented
through the subdivision process included in the UDO. Also include hiking
and/or preservation corridors in the land use plan so land dedications can
occur where necessary.
9. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Work with the Manager’s office and Finance and/or
a consultant to analyze the impacts of development to County services
(revenues and expenditures) and to the cities as necessary.
10. Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to
legislative changes at the State level
11. Streamline Regulations: Continue to streamline regulations where possible
12. 2016 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2016 BOCC
retreat
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the
upcoming year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners’
attention?
1. Rural Enterprises: Determine need to address water & sewage disposal
issues in the Rural Activity Nodes to encourage development in these nodes.
Evaluate non-residential thresholds and determine if changes are necessary.
2. Mass Gathering/Special Events: Revisions to UDO regarding mass
gathering and special events (must wait until after Emergency
Services/Attorney’s Office enacts a Mass Gathering Ordinance)
3. Pre-zoning for Economic Development Projects: Continue to “prezone”
areas where possible to focus growth in appropriate areas with consistent
land uses, thereby improving the review and approval process.
4. Nuisance Ordinance: Consider a nuisance ordinance for Economic
Development, Commercial, and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity
Nodes and areas adjacent to these land use classifications to “protect” these
78
areas slated for economic development projects. In addition, consider these
“city-like” rules in “urban” transition land use classifications of the county to
protect existing community value.
5. Transportation Issues: Evaluate the need for better public transit in rural
areas, including senior citizen mobility. Determine if rural “transit oriented
development” could be hubs of transit located in the rural community nodes.
Accent focus on transit dependent populations and their connection to other
transit infrastructure.
79
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
1
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
Economic Development Ideas
page 11
Streamline procedures for Economic Development Districts and
commercial development applications. Consider expedited
processing for such applications.
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
page 11
Study what local private businesses need in order to expand and
thrive, and consider what regulatory changes could contribute to
that objective.
page 11 Consider different standards for application within Economic
Development Districts to encourage commercial development.
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations. Standards in the EDDs are still more rigorous than standards
in the Commercial and Commercial-Industrial Transition Nodes. It may
be desirable to review whether the standards should be different.
page 11 Create a predictable process for consideration of development
applications within Economic Development Districts.
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
page 11 Develop regulations for Rural Economic Development Areas.
A REDA conditional zoning district was adopted for the NC57/Speedway
area on June 5, 2012. Additional rural economic development areas are
not being contemplated at this time and are not supported by existing
small area plans.
Permitted Uses and Standards Ideas
page 12
Differentiate between suburban and rural character, and adjust
regulations relating to required features such as signing and
transportation improvements.
Will be considered as topics are brought forward for revision. For
example, changes to Outdoor Lighting standards, adopted Jan. 24, 2013,
has slightly different standards for urbanizing vs. rural areas. Home
Occupation standards (adopted May 20, 2014) have different standards
based somewhat on lot size.
Note: The ideas in the main body of the Implementation Bridge also appear in the Appendix, although they may be worded differently or
may combine several separate comments into one idea.
80
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
2
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 12
Review and adjust notification requirements to make more
appropriate to rural vs. suburban areas. (E.g., rural rezonings may
require larger areas of notification.
The revisions to the public hearing process, scheduled to be considered
for adoption by the BOCC on November 5, 2015, expand the notification
boundary from 500 feet to 1,000 feet for all actions that require mailed
notifications.
page 12 Revisit Conditional District provisions to consider restricting
locations in which they can be applied.
Because of adjustments made to conditional districts near the end of the
UDO adoption process, this item is DONE.
page 12 Revisit home occupation rules.Changes to Home Occupation standards were adopted on May 20, 2014.
page 12 Exclude government or municipal uses from residential zoning.
It is common zoning practice to allow public uses in residential zoning
districts. Staff does not recommend that government uses be excluded
from the residential zoning districts. Several years ago some government
uses required issuance of an SUP but due to case law that discouraged
governments from issuing themselves SUPs, the requirement was
removed. In October 2013, Orange County adopted requirements that a
Neighborhood Information Meeting be held prior to submission of a site
plan for governmental uses.
page 12
Add back language about required findings that was formerly
included for Planned Developments in the existing Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff believes the language is properly referenced within the Conditional
Use, Conditional Zoning, and Special Use Permitting processes and there
is no need to add repetitive language back into the UDO.
page 12 Differentiate between urban and rural character for regulations
such as signage and subdivision standards.
page 12
Review the full range of design standards that are currently
included in the UDO, to determine if adjustments would help to
promote County goals and objectives. (Note: the Appendix
contains 22 specific suggestions for review of standards such as
building height, lighting, signs, adult entertainment uses, road and
driveway requirements, hours of operation, and airport zoning.)
Environmental Ideas
81
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
3
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 13
Revise definitions and references to wastewater treatment
systems to avoid opening possibilities for extension of sewer
service into areas where the Land Use Plan contemplates no public
sewer service.
The Water & Sewer Management, Planning & Boundary Agreement
(WASMPBA) stipulates which areas of the county can be served by public
water and sewer systems. It may be desirable to consider policy
decisions on alternative (non-public) systems and opinion on these types
of systems may be diverse and there has been mention in recent years
about alternative systems being used to create economic development
opportunities in areas of the county that are not designated as "primary
service areas" in the WASMPBA.
page 13
Consider criteria for locations of sampling stations under the
Pollutant Monitoring Program. [Staff Note: this is synopsis the
consultant wrote in response to #43 and 44 below]
There could be a policy or separate criteria governing locations but staff
does not recommend that it become part of the UDO. One main issue is
that the criteria could change from watershed to watershed, issue to
issue. There really is no universal governing standard.
page 13 Consider establishing a mechanism for nutrient trading.
The State is examining the viability of a 'nutrient trading bank' where this
could occur. As of this date there is still no consensus at the State level
on the legality of such a program and, as a result, it is not currently
recognized. This should be viewed as a long term goal and we need to
wait and see what the State does in terms of establishing rules governing
such a transfer.
page 13 Adjust Section 7.8.2 to encourage roads to be laid out in a manner
that avoids significant natural features.
page 13 Develop guidelines for Transit Oriented Development.
Because mass transit facilities do not currently exist in Orange County's
planning jurisdiction and are not foreseen in the immediate future, staff
recommends that developing guidelines/standards for TOD not be
pursued at this time.
Procedural Ideas
82
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
4
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 14 Explore ways to shorten review and approval processes.
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Proposed revisions to the existing public
hearing process are scheduled for BOCC adoption consideration on
November 5, 2015. If adopted, the revised process could significantly
shorten the review and approval process.
page 14 Include metrics for approval time for each process.
Staff does not recommend that metrics be included in the UDO as the
UDO is regulatory in nature. As part of the materials developed in 2015
for the proposed revisions to the public hearing process, flow charts
showing potential timeframes were included in agenda abstract
materials.
page 14 Review telecommunication towers process.Staff considers this to be COMPLETED with the Telecom amendments
that were adopted on May 1, 2012.
page 14 Revisit roles and responsibilities of Planning Board vs. Board of
Commissioners for approval decisions.
This topic was touched upon during discussion about the revised public
hearing process. At this time, there does not seem to be support for
changing the existing roles and responsibilities.
page 14 Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should
add those as required notification mechanisms.
Rather than adding this to the UDO, staff would recommend that this
become a policy instead of part of an ordinance. The County maintains
electronic notification lists, which includes the ability to be notified when
BOCC agendas are posted to the County website. Additionally, in late
2014, the Planning Department started posting a list of current
development projects on its webpage so interested people can regularly
check the information for items of interest.
page 14
Reconsider public notification requirements for differences
between rural versus suburban locations (in terms of distance for
notice requirements).
The revisions to the public hearing process, scheduled to be considered
for adoption by the BOCC on November 5, 2015, expand the notification
boundary from 500 feet to 1,000 feet for all actions that require mailed
notifications.
83
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
5
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
page 14 Consider new ideas for public notification.
Rather than adding new requirements to the UDO, staff would
recommend that any new ideas become a policy instead of part of an
ordinance. The County maintains electronic notification lists, which
includes the ability to be notified when BOCC agendas are posted to the
County website. Additionally, in late 2014, the Planning Department
started posting a list of current development projects on its webpage so
interested people can regularly check the information for items of
interest.
page 14 Include more cross-references, on-line search mechanisms.The UDO is available electronically as a PDF document, which is
searchable using the Adobe PDF search feature.
page 14 Mention the Orange County / Town of Hillsborough Interlocal
Agreement.
Work on a joint land use plan was initiated in September 2012 and the
Joint Land Use Plan was heard at the Sep. 2013 QPH. Land Use
classifications and zoning were adopted on Nov. 6, 2014 for areas
affected by the Town relinquiching portions of its ETJ. Text will be added
to the UDO as necessary as items move through the adoption process.
page 14 Develop more guidelines for selection of school sites.
page 14 Mention the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and
Boundary Agreement.
page 14 Incorporate references to Animal Control Ordinance, align
definitions.
This was COMPLETED with recent amendments approved by the BOCC in
January 2012. Definitions are now the same with respect to a Class I and
Class II kennel from a Zoning and Animal Control Ordinance standpoint.
page 14 Include language to better differentiate between the different
types of residential zoning districts.
This is the purpose of the "Purpose", "Applicability" and "Dimensional
and Ratio Standards" sections of each of the zoning charts contained in
Article 3.
page 14 Reconsider treating withdrawal of an application as a denial.
APPENDIX LIST
84
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
6
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
1.
The size of a farm should be considered. Organic farmers, which
seem to be the trend, 10 acres in order to be called a farm is a bit
large for an organic farm. Considering farm income as a
requirement to be a farm is difficult because prices can vary so
much from income as a requirement to be a farm is difficult
because prices can vary so much from year to year that one year a
farmer can produce 300 bushels of corn and hardly breakeven
because prices are low and the next year the same farmer can
produce 120 bushels and make a lot because prices have gone up
substantially.
State legislation defines "bonafide farm" and the definition is based on
more than just size and/or single year income.
2.Agricultural Support Enterprises regulations need to be written.
Regulations pertaining to the area of the County's jurisdiction outside of
the Rural Buffer were adopted on May 20, 2014. Regulating that apply to
areas within the Rural Buffer were adopted on May 5, 2015.
3.Incentives for commercial development (expedited processes,
etc.).
The Economic Development Department has been working on an
incentive program. In regards to actual approval processes, Significant
amendments pertaining economic development were adopted on
February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate the process
until after a project has been processed under the revised regulations.
4.
Focus on the greatest value for the greater good of the entire
county with purposeful philosophy and policies to achieve the
economic resiliency and community diversity we desperately need
and require at this time.
5.Examine what our local private businesses need in order to expand
and thrive.
The Economic Development Department added a Business Retention
Economic Developer postion to the department in early 2015.
6.
Examine why successful businesses left Orange County, such as
Smith Breeden, Rho, Contact and BlueCross BlueShield’s
expansion, and determine what we need to do to have helped
them grow here.
The Economic Development Department added a Business Retention
Economic Developer postion to the department in early 2015.
85
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
7
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
7.
Economic development projects in the Economic Development
Districts should have a predictable and expeditious approval
process. Economic development projects in other appropriate
areas should have a similar approval process.
8.
Economic development approval processes and standards should
be revised by local business and planning professionals in
conjunction with UNC’s Planning, Business and Law Schools.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations. Revisions to the existing existing public hearing process are
scheduled for adoption consideration by the BOCC on November 5, 2015.
9.
An Economic Development Workgroup consisting of the BOCC,
Planning Board and Economic Development Commission should
meet Spring/Summer 2011 to examine expediting approval,
targeting industries, permitted uses, specialized zoning district by
SAP subarea and revised standards.
Significant amendments pertaining economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate
the process until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations. Revisions to the existing existing public hearing process are
scheduled for adoption consideration by the BOCC on November 5, 2015.
10.
Agricultural Support Enterprises/Rural Economic Development
Area, Speedway Small Area Plan and Transit Oriented
Development are important initiatives using Conditional Use
District structures should be important 2011 BOCC goals.
UDO amendments for Agricultural Support Enterprises outside of the
Rural Buffer were adopted on May 20, 2014. The BOCC adopted
regulations for areas within the Rural Buffer on May 5, 2015. A REDA
conditional district was adopted on June 5, 2012. TOD will need to be
looked at in the future (see "Environmental Ideas" above).
11.
Examine Durham’s American Tobacco Campus and American
Underground to create an Orange County campus that is walk-
able, diverse and attractive for mixed use including affordable
space for Incubation and Startup businesses.
12.Different landscaping standards may be needed for EDDs.
Some changes were made as part of the amendments adopted on
February 7, 2012. Staff recommends waiting to re-evaluate the
standards until after a project has been processed under the revised
regulations.
86
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
8
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
13.Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) regulations need to be
written.
A REDA conditional zoning district was adopted for the NC57/Speedway
area on June 5, 2012. Additional rural economic development areas are
not being contemplated at this time and are not supported by existing
small area plans.
14.Differentiate between urban and rural character -- applicable to
signage and subdivision impacts on transportation.
15.
Public notification requirements for public hearings and other
procedures that are more appropriate rural versus suburban
uses/districts (i.e., rural rezonings may require larger area of
notification).
The revisions to the public hearing process, scheduled to be considered
for adoption by the BOCC on November 5, 2015, expand the notification
boundary from 500 feet to 1,000 feet for all actions that require mailed
notifications.
16.Cluster development standards for suburban versus rural
developments.
Users should keep in mind that it is difficult to cluster development that
is not located on public water and sewer systems (or community well and
package treatment systems; package treatment systems are not
currently permitted in rural areas of the county).
17.Need updated Airport Regulations.Work on this topic began in late 2015 and is expected to be completed in
2016.
18.Regulating adult entertainment uses and nuisance related events
at these uses.
Work on adult entertainent uses is underway and is expected to be
completed in the first half of 2016.
19.Airport zoning, possibly as conditional zoning district.Work on this topic began in late 2015 and is expected to be completed in
2016.
20.Review telecommunications towers process.Staff considers this to be COMPLETED with the Telecom amendments
that were adopted on May 1, 2012.
21.
Section 2.5.3, No mention of lighting, natural areas inventory, solid
waste, or centralized recycling in requirements for information as
applications are submitted. Should be added.
22.Include hours of operation. Lighting comes to mind -- Section
5.14.2 (A) (1)
23.Add no fault well repair to requirements.
87
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
9
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
24.Need to revisit private road standards.
Transportation Planning staff has begun work on this topic. An Info Item
was included on the December 9, 2014 BOCC agenda and it was
discussed at the may 12, 2015 BOCC work session.
25.
There's a lack of land use criteria for reserving school sites. Need
some general guidelines (i.e. not in wetlands or on slopes greater
than X). Consult County School Joint Construction Standards.
26.Relation to adjacent properties is not addressed -- Section 7.13.3
(C) (1)
27.Is there any limit to building height? Flag for future.
The amendments pertaining to economic development that were
adopted on February 7, 2012 set a maximum height limit (see Section
6.2.2)
28.Are there provisions for shared driveways? It may be useful in
certain cases (i.e. along highways/major roadways).
The Efland-Cheeks Overlay District (ECOD) has provisions for shared
driveways. Additionally, the two Efland zoning overlay districts, adopted
April 7, 2015, have provisions for shared driveways.
88
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
10
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
29. & 30.
Many places in the UDO have a restriction on the height of a
building. While residential structures tend to have 9 to 12 feet per
floor, commercial structures can have as much as 15 feet per floor.
As the structure covers more area, the roof can have a substantial
amount of height to it if it is not a flat roof. Architectural details
such as facades and cupolas can affect the height. My comment is
this: Would it make more sense to specify the number of occupied
stories as a limit on the structure? An occupied story would not
include attic space or utility rooms- it would be space occupied by
people working in the structure. Page 3-44 and page 4-18 are
examples of where this specification occurs. Note that the height
limitations that change with additional setback could be used as a
maximum height such that either a (for example) 3 story limit
_OR_ the maximum height based on setback would be the height
limit for the building. An example of this setback based number is
found at the top of page 6-2. I would also add in (not sure where)
than any building whose height exceeds the apparatus or ladder
height restrictions of the fire departments which would respond to
a structure fire would be required to be sprinklered.
Building height is measured from the mean elevation to the mean height
between the eaves and roof ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs (e.g.,
height is not from the ground to the roof peak). As mentioned in #27
above, a maximum building height has been set since these comments
were made, regardless of how much additional setback is provided. The
maximum height is 75-feet unless the Board of Adjustment modifies the
height. Sprinkling of buildings is governed by the use of the building and
building codes. It should be noted that the same ISO rating system is
used for both the fire departments and building codes.
31.
There are various metal vapor lights, the most common being
Mercury and Sodium vapor. It would be nice to know why Mercury
is being singled out. In particular, is it the presence of Mercury (i.e.
environmental) or is it the use of a specific type of fixture such as
the yard lights utilities sell that is the concern. If the concern is
environmental, then would it not also apply to all fluorescent
lights which use mercury?
This issue was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
89
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
11
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
32.
We have incandescent, metal vapor, fluorescent (which is mercury
and a phosphorous), and LED. Each has a different lumens per watt
rating. If light is being regulated, lumens should be the standard.
Also, be aware that any light with a reflector will put out more
light in a certain direction than a light with no reflector. As such,
lumens is still a weak measure of light output but it is what is on
the packaging for all lights and is easier to work with than getting
into the amount of light energy per unit area type measurements
(candles). As a rule of thumb, incandescent runs 5 to 30
lumens/watt, and LEDs run 60 to 110 lumens/watt.
This issue was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
33.
The limits under section (c) "General Operations" and (e) "Use of
Accessory Structures" severely limit what a home occupation can
do.
Changes to Home Occupation standards were adopted on May 20, 2014.
34.
Somewhere in the Standards for Residential Uses or Development
Standards there should be a section that specifies minimum
residential driveway sizes of 12 feet wide by 14 feet vertical
clearance (already stated in 7.8.5 (B) (15) on page 7-32) for fire
apparatus. This is the cleared width of the driveway, not the width
of gravel or paving.
There needs to be a comprehensive re-assessment of existing
development standards with respect to roadway development (i.e.
private road justification) and access management. This review should
not be limited to ensuring access for emergency vehicles. Transportation
Planning staff has begun work on this topic. An Info Item was included
on the December 9, 2014 BOCC agenda.
35.
The travel-way width for Class B with 2 lots should be specified as
12 feet of cleared space, no standard for width of gravel or hard
surface.
Section 7.8.5 (D) of the UDO requires an improved travel width of 12 feet
for a Class B road (i.e. subdivisions between 3 and 5 lots) and an
improved travel width of 18 feet for a Class A road (i.e. between 6 and 12
lots). Anything over 12 lots needs to be developed to the NC DOT public
road standard. Transportation Planning staff has begun work on this
topic. An Info Item was included on the December 9, 2014 BOCC agenda.
90
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
12
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
36.
Under (5) (b): 16 feet should be 18 feet so that a passenger car can
be passed by fire apparatus. For Class B roads with 3 or more lots,
there should be an area 20 feet wide by 50 feet long every 1500
feet to that fire apparatus can pass each other.
Transportation Planning staff has begun work on this topic. An Info Item
was included on the December 9, 2014 BOCC agenda and it was
discussed at the may 12, 2015 BOCC work session.
37.
On (I), remove the word “incandescent” since LED lights are now
often used for holiday decorations. Low wattage is not defined,
but a typical nightlight/big Christmas tree bulb is 7 watts so you
could say any wattage under 10 watts. It would make more sense
to use a lumen rating, such as less than 150 lumens. On (J), first off
this should be a lumen limit, not watts. As the limit reads, this
looks like a total lumens for any given motion activated switch.
The lumens looks like it was derived from two incandescent 75
watt bulbs, probably flood lights. Note that if this is the case, the
maxim lumens should be 2400. There are many motion activated
systems where a sensor can turn on multiple light fixtures. So I
would re-word this to have a 2400 lumen limit per light fixture
controlled by the sensor. Finally, on this max lumens per fixture,
there are standard outdoor floodlight fixtures that take 3 bulbs.
For those fixtures, a reasonable max lumens would be around
3600. You could also add a limit of no one bulb can exceed a rating
of 2100 lumens (a 120 watt equivalent) if the intent is to avoid the
larger single bulb fixtures -- Section 6.11.3. This is where a
definition of “mercury vapor luminaries” is needed. As written,
this could mean that any standard fluorescent or compact
fluorescent light could not be used, since they are a mercury-
phosphorous based light.
This issue was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
91
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
13
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
38.
(C)(1) Some floodlight fixtures do not cover the bulb, the stop just
after the threaded base. I’d just stick with the 45 degree from
vertical. (c) (2) the “it will shine” is vague. Perhaps something like
“no more than 5% of the luminous energy shall shine towards
roadways, onto adjacent residential property or into the night
sky”. (C) (3) Same vagueness- what is the “main beam”? Do you
really want to say that no portion of the bulb shall be visible from
adjacent properties or the public street right-of-way? From an
enforcement point of view, a “Can’t see the bulb” is easy to verify
for both the owner and the inspector. Note that this is the
approach taken on page 6-97, 6.117 (3).
This issue was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
39.
All existing and proposed public transportation services and
facilities within A RADIUS of one mile of the site shall be
documented ( leave out “also”) -- Section 6.17(B) #(4).
40.
This whole section should be looked at with respect to goals and
objectives in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and Commissioners’ goals and objectives. County policies do
not always support the land development ordinances, particularly
with transportation issues. This is too vast a task to address at this
time, but I wanted to “tag” this Section for future study -- Section
7.8
41.
Move towards intense use of sites to save more of the site in open
space - cluster subdivisions. Cluster subdivisions require
community wastewater systems. Falls apart on political side.
Commissioners very wary due to system failures 20 years ago. Is
there a way to put this in the Ordinance ‘by right" if designed to
specific criteria? Take political part out.
The BOCC would have to make a policy decision on whether community
wastewater systems will be allowed.
92
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
14
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
42.
Need to update Lighting Standards. Height requirements for
outdoor light poles and potential impacts on County recreational
facilities is one of the areas that should be revisited.
This issue was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to
Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013).
43.
In the section concerning golf courses, Pollutant Monitoring
Program, I would suggest some thought be given to the locations
of the sampling stations for surface water, groundwater and
sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient sampling
locations as well as sampling locations down-gradient of some
potentially contaminating source or specific location?? I think this
section needs a bit of discussion as to what the objective is. In
addition, under (3) Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that
some description of approved analytical methods and minimum
detection limits would be helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA
HAL thresholds described in this section but I would be willing to
look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater
limits that may be worth considering for this section. [staff note:
this is in 5.7.3(G)]
There could be a policy or separate criteria governing locations. It should
not become part of the UDO. One main issue is that the criteria could
change from watershed to watershed, issue to issue. There really is no
universal governing standard.
44.
5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant
Monitoring- I would recommend that the responsible party also be
required to contact appropriate state regulatory officials if
thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also recommend that
the phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence --
Section 5.5. [staff note: this is now Section 5.7.3(G)(5)(b)]
45.
Compare Durham’s ordinance requirements for environmental
review of subdivisions with Orange County’s environmental review
process.
93
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
15
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
46.Nutrient trading.
The State is examining the viability of a 'nutrient trading bank' where this
could occur. As of this date there is still no consensus at the State level
on the legality of such a program and, as a result, it is not currently
recognized. This should be viewed as a long term goal and we need to
wait and see what the State does in terms of establishing rules governing
such a transfer.
47.Low Impact Design (LID).
48.Review thresholds and processes associated with the permitting of
wastewater treatment facilities.
49.Section 7.8.2, Public roads need to be laid out in a manner that
avoids significant natural and cultural features.
50.Transit Oriented Development (TOD) regulations need to be
written.
Because mass transit facilities do not currently exist in Orange County's
planning jurisdiction and are not foreseen in the immediate future, staff
recommends that developing guidelines/standards for TOD not be
pursued at this time.
51.Will staff be making recommendations to shorten any of the
processes?
Significant amendments pertaining to economic development were
adopted on February 7, 2012. Proposed revisions to the existing public
hearing process are scheduled for adoption consideration by the BOCC
on November 5, 2015.
52.
There is an unusual threshold requirement in the Subdivision
Regulations – the 21st lot of a subdivision kicks you into an Special
Use Permit (SUP) process. Needs to be looked at again – make part
of future changes. Planning Board should be able to approve 20
lots or less (without BOCC involvement).
These thresholds were debated at the time they were adopted (early
2000's). The BOCC will have to decide if it would like to change the
current process which requires BOCC approval of subdivisions containing
5 or more lots (generally; there are other criteria that also define
subdivisions).
53.Are there metrics and stats for approval time for each approval
process?
As part of the materials developed for the proposed public hearing
process revisions, scheduled for BOCC adoption consideration on
November 5, 2015, staff provided flow charts for each review/approval
process that shows the potential timeframe for review.
94
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
16
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
54.
After staff and advisory board review, project went through
County Attorney review. Lengthened the process. Why didn’t
County Attorney review occur concurrent with staff review?
Streamline.
This process has been streamlined via internal processes.
55.
A time-line chart for each land-use review process (re-zoning,
subdivision, permits, land use amendments etc.) should be made
showing who reviews each step and when.
A process chart was included in Article 2 of the UDO for many of the
processes.
56.Identify time lags and the reason - such as delays caused by review
board’s schedules.see #51 above
57.Identify how approval processes can be simple, efficient, and
short.see #51 above
58.
Examine other review and approval processes such as Durham’s
Development Advisory Committee (DAC) and Design District
Review Team (DDRT) which are efficient and streamlined.
59.
The members of the above DAC and DDRT are similar to Orange
County’s Development Advisory Committee (DAC) but have Rules
of Procedure, meetings, minutes and quorum requirements
consistent with state Statutes. This could replace our current
review approval processes when a rezoning application meets all
applicable standards.
Because a rezoning must be approved by the local elected officials, staff
believes that perhaps this commenter was referring to subdivision
approvals, not rezoning applications.
60.Where we have electronic means to notify the public, we should
add this as an expectation or requirement.
Rather than adding this to the UDO, staff would recommend that this
become a policy instead of part of an ordinance. The County maintains
electronic notification lists, which includes the ability to be notified when
BOCC agendas are posted to the County website. Additionally, in late
2014, the Planning Department started posting a list of current
development projects on its webpage so interested people can regularly
check the information for items of interest.
95
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
17
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
61.
As people become accustomed to this new document it will be
important to provide different kinds of helpful guidance for users
to find the sections of the document that are pertinent to their
needs. The “Comparative Table” is quite helpful, and is an example
of the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having
some kind of on-line search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps
that is already under development.
The UDO has been in use (and on-line) since April 2011 and staff has not
received complaints about the document.
62.At what point in time will we define metrics of whether the UDO is
succeeding?
63.
It would be really nice if the final document could be accessed and
indexed electronically rather than printed, a hyperlink format. For
instance, clicking on a term and the definition pops up.
The UDO has been available on-line in a PDF bookmarked format since
shortly after its adoption.
64.Identifying Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to UDO
updates.
All amendments that have been made to the UDO have included specific
Comprehensive Plan policies that support the amendment.
65.
No mention of Town of Hillsborough interlocal agreement. Add a
footnote or a new section. [Note: references to the Orange County-
Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement should be added when
Zoning/UDO-related items are formally adopted. At this point,
neither a joint land use plan nor joint development regulations
have been adopted].
Work on a joint land use plan was initiated in September 2012 and the
Joint Land Use Plan was heard at the Sep. 2013 QPH. Land Use
classifications and zoning were adopted on Nov. 6, 2014 for areas
affected by the Town relinquiching portions of its ETJ. Text will be added
to the UDO as necessary as items move through the adoption process.
66.Section 1.6.2 (A), Is a 1-year hiatus long enough?
67.Section 1.7.2, "Agriculture" should be mentioned somewhere
within the discussion of elements.
68.Section 2.2.7 (C), Why treat withdrawal of an application as
denial?
69.Section 2.2.8 (A), Shouldn't have to wait a year if withdrawn. 6-
months for withdrawal and 1-year for denial?
96
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
18
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
70.Section 2.15.3 (C) (4).- There is no deadline for agencies to
respond.
Although not formalized in the UDO, when the information is sent to
officials and agencies staff asks for responses by a certain date.
71.Section 2.15.2 (C) (5) - Not applicable if flexible development
option used.
72.Section 2.17, Need a process other than that of a major
subdivision for recombining existing lots.
73.Need language that will differentiate between the different types
of residential zoning districts.
This is the purpose of the "Purpose", "Applicability" and "Dimensional
and Ratio Standards" sections of each of the zoning charts contained in
Article 3.
74.
Regarding Impervious Surface Ratios and Sliding Scales, the two
tables should be combined into one. Need to understand
ramifications of any proposed changes --Section 4.2.5.
COMPLETED as part of UDO adoption process.
75.Some home occupations are permitted but not associated
storage? This needs clarification.Changes to Home Occupation standards were adopted on May 20, 2014.
76.Kennels and Riding Stables should be addressed separately. Should
they require a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit?
These two uses were uncoupled as a use category with an amendment
adopted on October 18, 2011. The question regarding which approval
process to use has not been resolved (currently require a Class B SUP).
77.Clarify how open space areas of golf courses are counted towards
meeting ordinance requirements.
97
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
19
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
78.
Change to require a to Class "A" Special Use Permit, which would
require BOCC approval rather than Board of Adjustment -- Section
5.9.5
This is in reference to Electric, Gas and Liquid Fuel Transmission Lines
which currently require a Class B SUP (approved by the Board of
Adjustment). A Class A SUP would have to be approved by the BOCC
(with a recommendation made by the Planning Board). The Class A
process is usually longer since it requires review at a quarterly public
hearing and then a meeting of the Planning Board whereas a public
hearing by the Board of Adjustment can be scheduled can occur any
month. The BOCC would have to make a decision on whether it would
like to change the approval process for this type of use froma Class B SUP
to a Class A SUP. Staff's opinion is, given the findings of fact are the
same, if an applicant demonstrates compliance with the provisions of the
UDO a permit must be issued, regardless of which decision-making body
issues the permit.
79.
Mention Water and Sewer Management and Planning Boundary
Agreement. Any system should be designed, planned, constructed
and maintained by the responsible entity as assigned through the
Agreement -- Section 7.13.4 (C) (1) (b)
80.
[Staff note: the comments in sage-colored boxes were made by
Animal Services staff] As I suspect you know, the
County’s Animal Control Ordinance includes kennel definitions and
a permitting process for Class I and Class II Kennels. The County’s
Zoning Ordinance also includes kennel definitions and process for
a kennel (or stable) to obtain a special use permit (which requires
one or possibly both of the permits issued Animal Control).
Planning staff believes the processes have been 'better coordinated' with
the approval of a UDO text amendment package in January of 2012. A
kennel is now a separate land use category from a stable.
98
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
20
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
81.There is a need to better coordinate (and dare I say, unify) these
ordinances. Some of the issues in regard to kennels include:
Planning staff believes the processes have been 'better coordinated' with
the approval of a UDO text amendment package in January of 2012. The
inherant problem is that one process is a land use management process
(Planning) and the other is focused on the care of the animal (Animal
Services). While we have addressed the majority of identified
contradictions, most notably the definitions, our processes will always be
somewhat unique given our different roles and responsibilities.
82.Different definitions of Class I and Class II permits Addressed by previous UDO text amendment approved in January of
2012 - Staff considers this item COMPLETE.
83.A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for
Class I as well as Class II kennel
Addressed by previous UDO text amendment approved in January of
2012 - Staff considers this item COMPLETE.
84.A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for
Class I under the Animal Control as well as the Zoning Ordinance
A Special Use Permit is not required for a Class I kennel under the
County's land management program. The Special Use Permit (which is a
specific legal term related to land use planning) process is only a land use
development process and is not required by other County
departments/agencies. Animal Services requires permits for Class I and II
kennels, which they handle administratively; they have never required a
'Special Use Permit' for a kennel.
85.Possible process improvements in the permitting process for
kennels requiring a special use permit.
86.
Also, I think we should consider whether site plans for “riding
stables/academies” should be subject to review by Animal Control.
One concern is the availability of staff expertise in this area.
Another concern is that there are no specific stable standards in
the County’s Animal Control Ordinances. By contrast, there are
such standards for kennels which require permitting.
Addressed by previous UDO text amendment approved in January of
2012 - Staff considers this item COMPLETE.
87.Clarify provisions for Outdoor events/activities, festivals, etc.
99
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been
renumbered.
21
Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment
88.Review language regarding Principal Uses and Principal Structures
(Arti [sic]
Staff believes this is in reference to Sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6. Changes to
these sections we made as part of the economic development related
amendments adopted on February 12, 2012.
100
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Water (Public or
Private)/Sewer
Update 1984 Efland sewer plan -
HIGH priority - sewer planning is
proceeding on a phase-by-phase
basis with a focus on areas non-
residential development is being
encouraged
Need Utility Service Agreement
with Durham - COMPLETE
Educate all residents living near
stone quarry of available well
testing services
Complete OAWS engineering
study - HIGH priority - there has
been insuffient funding and interest
in completing a comprehensive
study
Complete preliminary engineering
study for future master plan -
County and Durham staff are
working together on water and
sewer issues
Establish well monitoring program
Complete water and sewer master
plan for area - HIGH priority - see
two explantions above.
Encourage stone quarry to bring
their property into compliance with
zoning ordinance
Extend public water and sewer
throughout area - water and sewer
work in the area is proceeding with
a focus on areas non-residential
development is being encouraged.
Additionally, an agreement has
been reached with the City of
Mebane to have the City take over
the County's sewer system.
WSMPBA Map amendment to expand
Primary Service Area - MEDIUM
HIGH priority - COMPLETE
NOTE: Staff to
gauge interest in
implementing
WSMPBA related
items at Sept. AOG
Mtg. - COMPLETE
Add partners (Mebane & OAWS) -
Ongoing communications with
Mebane.
Map amendment if Watershed
Critical Area is adjusted (See
below) - MEDIUM HIGH priority -
COMPLETE
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
101
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Land Use Plan Text To allow mixed uses along US 70 -
- COMPLETE
Add Eno Mixed Use land use
category - staff is recommending
this measure not be pursued as
the existing categories fit the
needs of the area. There is no
advantage in adding additional
land use categories.
Add Rural Economic Development
Area (REDA) - A REDA conditional
zoning district was adopted on
June 5, 2012. A Land Use Plan
text and map amendment was not
necessary due to the way
conditional zoning districts work.
Amend Economic Development
land use category to include multi-
family - the purpose of this was to
allow multi-family uses in an area
that has since been changed to a
CITAN land use category (which
does allow residential uses
through zoning). Staff
recommends that this measure not
be pursued.
Combine 10 & 20-yr Transition to
form Efland Transition Area - staff
is recommending this measure not
be pursued as the existing
categories fit the needs of the
area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Add Efland Transition Area
Reserve and Mixed Use land use
categories - staff is recommending
this measure not be pursued as
the existing categories fit the
needs of the area. There is no
advantage in adding additional
land use categories.
Land Use Plan Map Apply Mixed Use land use
category (more than one instance) -
staff is recommending this
measure not be pursued as the
existing categories fit the needs of
the area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Change Commercial Node to Eno
Mixed Use - staff is recommending
this measure not be pursued as
the existing categories fit the
needs of the area. There is no
advantage in adding additional
land use categories.
Add Rural Economic Development
Area (REDA) - A REDA conditional
zoning district was adopted on
June 5, 2012. A Land Use Plan
text and map amendment was not
necessary due to the way
conditional zoning districts work.
102
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Combine 10 & 20-yr Transition to
form Efland Transition Area - staff
is recommending this measure not
be pursued as the existing
categories fit the needs of the
area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Change portions of Economic
Development to Mixed Use - staff
is recommending this measure not
be pursued as the existing
categories fit the needs of the
area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use
categories.
Apply Efland Transition Area
RReevaluate Watershed Critical
Area (Seven Mile Creek) and
amend if required - COMPLETE
Change Commercial/Industrial
Node to Economic Development -
staff is not recommending this
measure be pursued and the
requirements for the Economic
Development category are more
restrictive than the requirements
for CTAN/CITAN. Since the SAP
was adopted, additional CITAN
areas have been designated in the
planning area.
Delete Rural Neighborhood Node -
this had not been pursued
because of a focus on economic
development issues, but it can be
pursued in the future if desired.
Zoning Map and/or
text
Develop overlay plan and zoning
district to allow mixed uses along
US 70 - COMPLETE
Amend permitted use tables for
Eno EDD - This is a project that
could be pursued if review of the
existing zoning classifications
determines amendments area
necessary.
Create REDA conditional zoning
district and guidelines -
COMPLETE
Add Mixed Use land use category -
staff is recommending this
measure not be pursued as the
existing categories fit the needs of
the area. There is no advantage in
adding additional land use or
zoning categories.
Coordinate zoning text changes
with the City of Durham - This will
be done if changes are pursued.
Amend ordinances to prescribe
sustainable sustainable
groundwater use standards -
groundwater concerns are
addressed/included in the REDA
conditional zoning district.
103
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Develop design standards for
Efland Core Mixed Use area -
HIGH priority - COMPLETE -
Zoning Overlay districted adopted
in April 2015
Require new development or
rezoning approvals to limit
groundwater withdrawls to that of a
single-family dwelling (480 gpd) -
COMPLETE (included in REDA
conditional zoning district)
Reevaluate Watershed Critical
Area (Seven Mile Creek) and
amend if required - HIGH priority -
COMPLETE
Review the need to develop
regulations governing air quality
and requiring local air quality
permits
Ordinance amendments to
address parking lot design,
circulation, and access. - These
concerns in relation to
speedways/go cart tracks were
included in the amendments made
to Section 5.7.5 as part of the
REDA conditional zoning district
amendments.
Transportation Study road volumes and capacities
- County to communicate to DOT
Limit access near I-85/US70
interchange
Complete an entry corridor design
manual
NOTE:
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
currently being
prepared for OC,
which may provide
initial steps towards
implementing some
of these items.
Realign Efland-Cedar
Grove/Forrest Ave./Mt. Willing
road corridor - County to
communicate to DOT - Zoning
overlay districts adopted in April
2015 take this into account
Acquire property and develop a
welcome sign with landscaping
Connection from Hwy 70E to
Interstate connector identified and
constructed - County to
communicate to DOT - Zoning
overlay districts adopted in April
2015 take this into account
Add park-n-ride lot - MEDIUM
HIGH priority - project has been
added to the MPO transportation
planning process project list
104
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Bike lanes - County to
communicate to DOT
Evaluate feasibility of bike lanes
along Old NC10 and US70 -
shoulder has been widened,
although not an official bike lane
Sidewalk plan and sidewalks in
new developments - HIGH priority -
the BOCC considered "the
sidewalk issue" at a work session
in October 2011 and decided that
the County will not be "in the
sidewalk business" unless existing
limitations in funding and
maintenance in DOT
Rules/Procedures are revised
Complete a streetscape plan
(trees) - HIGH priority - while not a
formal plan, provision for trees in
buffers and landscaping was
included in the zoning overlay
districts adopted in April 2015
Preserve possibility for a
commuter train station
Preserve possibility for a
commuter train station
Provide bus service to area - a
Mebane/Efland/Durham bus route
began service in 2015
Provide bus service to area -
being considered through the
transporation planning process
Mace Rd planned to connect
through Lebanon - County to
communicate to DOT
Plan an Interstate pedestrian
overpass
Complete a Buckhorn Rd Access
Management Plan - MEDIUM
HIGH priority - COMPLETE
Adopt access management
program for US70 & Old NC10 -
Adopted in November 2014
Complete an Access Management
Plan for NC57 corridor
Housing Consider expedited review or
density bonuses for developments
offering smaller homes
Consider expedited review or
density bonuses for developments
offering smaller homes
Require a percentage of new
homes within a subdivision to be
affordable
Require a percentage of new
homes within a subdivision to be
affordable
Examine strategies to preserve
affordablity through neighborhood
preservation.
Existing residential dwellings shall
not be made non-conforming
under any new zoning designation
105
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Determine a percentage or
acreage limit on residential uses
within Eno Mixed Use area -
COMPLETE
Parks, Rec. & Open
Space
Require dedication of small
neighborhood parks - it is unlikely
that public parks will be required
due to maintenance requirements
and funding limitations to maintain.
However, this is something that
can be considered on a case-by-
case basis as a HOA amenity
when subdivision pland are
approved.
Preserve stream corridors and
create public accessible trails
among developed areas and Eno
River State Park and Duke Forest
Initiate dialogue with quarry
operator, Durham City/County, and
State to ensure proper end use of
property
Plan and implement a trail system
along McGowan Creek
When Seven Mile Creek Nature
Preserve opens, provide a
pedestrian/bicycle connection from
Efland
Monitor space at Efland-Cheeks
community center and expand
accordingly - Currently being done
by Parks & Rec. Dept.
Consider branch library at
community center
Communications Complete a Telecommunications
Plan and achieve cellular wireless
coverage countywide - MEDIUM
priority - the County has worked on
this issue and maintains a MTP
(Master Telecommunications Plan)
Complete a Telecommunications
Plan and achieve cellular wireless
coverage countywide - the County
has worked on this issue and
maintains a MTP (Master
Telecommunications Plan)
Work with service providers to
establish DSL and/or cable
Internet service in growth areas -
MEDIUM priority
Work with service providers to
establish DSL and/or cable
Internet service in growth areas
106
Attachment 3
Small Area Plan Implementation
(Gray Shaded Items are '09-'10 Work Plan as Approved by BOCC on August 24, 2009)
[Explanatory Comments in Red Added by Planning Staff September 2012; updated October 2013 and October
2015]
*Priorities provided per work of Efland-Mebane Implementation Focus Group.
Efland-Mebane*Eno EDD NC 57 Speedway
Small Area Plan Reccommendations
Consider asking service providers
to install generator backup instead
of battery at cellular switch sites -
MEDIUM priority
Consider asking service providers
to install generator backup instead
of battery at cellular switch sites
Intergovernmental Joint Planning Understanding or
Agreement with Mebane - Ongoing
communications with Mebane
Interlocal Agreement with City of
Durham for water/sewer service
and annexation process -
COMPLETE (annexation will be
voluntary only)
See also water/sewer above
107