HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 060618Approved 8/1/18
SUMMARY NOTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 6 , 2018
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS .
MEMBERS PRESENT : Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim
Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township
Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Adam Beeman,
Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative;
Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts,
Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley,
Little River Township Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT : Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large;
STAFF PRESENT : Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning
Supervisor; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II
AGENDA ITEM 1:Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting began immediately after the Planning Board meeting was adjourned.
AGENDA ITEM 2:UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS –
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARDS - To review proposed amendments to the UDO that
clarify existing regulations related to the enforcement of impervious surface standards on
subdivisions platted and developed before January 1,1994, and modify existing standards
governing the transfer of impervious surface area between parcels located within the same
watershed protection overlay district.
PRESENTER : Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Michael Harvey reviewed that while county-wide impervious surface standards were established
in 1994, such standards had existed for University Lake since the 1970s. He noted that county
regulations are, in many cases, more stringent than state standards. The county has spent
$80,000 and a 12-week intensive period with 20-hour weekends conducting inspections of
streams in the county to prepare to go before the state to argue that the state should not prevent
counties from regulating stream buffers to higher standards than the state’s. Orange County was
one of four counties that did so.
Michael Harvey said Orange County requires subdivision property owners to count the roads as
part of the property’s impervious surface. For example, for a 100-acre tract of land allowed to
have 500,000 square feet of impervious surface, if there is 200,000 square feet of road, then
there is 300,000 square feet left that can be impervious surface. That is done to avoid one lot in
that subdivided tract of land being overburdened with impervious surface area that is meant to
serve the communities. Before 1994, that wasn’t the case. The policy was enacted in 1999 with
some suggestions of following the policy between 1994 and 1999.
Michael Harvey continued to explain that there are subdivision projects that in some cases have
corner lots where the total impervious surface counts on that property. Over time, if the roadway
is expanded, the total impervious surface allowed on the lot shrinks. Also, the overlay districts
Approved 8/1/18
for the watersheds can change. While there are provisions in the UDO to address that change,
there are still older subdivisions from the 1970s through the 1990s where impervious surface
was not really thought about.
For example, David Turner on Grady Brown School Road wants to build a shed but because of
these rules, he can’t because he has road on three sides of his property. That example falls
under Part 1 of these proposed text amendments.
Part 2 of the text amendments is that the county has a procedure that allows the transfer of
impervious for lots adjacent to each other. While researching Mr. Turner’s inquiry, the Planning
Department decided this transfer procedure should not just be for adjacent properties but rather
within the watershed boundary.
Michael Harvey noted there are two proposals before the committee. Attachment 2 contains the
first proposal, which is to amend subsection F, Page 4-3 of the UDO, (Page 10 in the agenda
packet). This says roadways do not count as part of the impervious surface of a lot for
subdivisions prior to 1994. He reviewed that impervious surfaces include roof structures,
concrete, asphalt, gravel, storage sheds, carports, the building including the two-and-a-half-foot
eaves and gutter, and walkways. The state does not count pools but does count the concrete
around pools.
Lydia Wegman asked whether any analysis had been conducted regarding the effect this
amendment would have on stormwater runoff if every subdivision built prior to 1994 decided to
increase impervious surface. Michael Harvey answered if land is disturbed, a property owner
may have to meet stormwater standards and install a stormwater feature. It has to be handled
on a case-by-case basis.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said he thinks there will not be a flood of requests.
Randy Marshall asked what taking road surfaces out of the calculation does to an entire area
like Cane Creek.
Michael Harvey answered that the Planning staff believes it will be a negligible increase. The
county chose to be more restrictive than the state. For example, at University Lake the state said
choose a density limit of one dwelling per 2 acres and have a 12 percent impervious limit or
choose no density limit and a 6 percent impervious surface limit. The county chose the most
restrictive in most instances throughout the planning jurisdiction. University Lake was going to
be at a density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres and chose 6 percent impervious. The county
chose to be more restrictive than the state. Cane Creek critical watershed is limited to 6 percent
impervious surface. Cane Creek protected used to be 12 percent. In the mid-1990s, it was
changed from 12 to 6 percent. Little River, with a density of one dwelling unit per 2 aces, has a
limit of 6 percent impervious surface instead of the state’s allowed 12 percent.
Michael Harvey said these changes do not sabotage those efforts.
Approved 8/1/18
A Planning Board member asked does the state care that Orange County is more restrictive.
Michael Harvey answered that he does not think so, especially with the Falls Lake rules coming
into effect. Michael Harvey said data shows nutrient levels from Orange County are significantly
lower than other areas in the Triangle.
David Blankfard suggested reducing the count of the roadway by 50 percent instead of not
counting the roadway in a subdivision at all.
Patricia Roberts asked if there is time to figure out how much impervious surface we’re talking
about. Michael Harvey answered no.
Patricia Roberts asked if changing all the areas with a 6 percent limitation to 12 percent was an
option.
Adam Beeman asked if these areas are mostly built out and so the implication is likely to be an
occasional shed added to the impervious surface. Michael Harvey answered the subdivisions
are about 90 percent built out.
Alex Gregory said he thinks it is a good idea to not count the road for those subdivisions built
before 1994.
Michael Harvey summarized that he is hearing from the Planning Board that they are interested
in assisting people who live in subdivisions built before 1994 but want more options. And he is
hearing that not everyone wants to zero out the road (remove the road from the impervious
surface calculations).
Michael Harvey turned the committee’s attention to the transfer of impervious surface within a
watershed rather than between adjacent parcels.
Paul Guthrie asked whether the county keeps track of these agreements. Michael Harvey
answered that conservation easements are recorded with the Register of Deeds and the
Planning Department can keep track.
Kim Piracci said she has lived in places with much stricter water protection and she does not
have a problem with being strict about this. After all, it is water.
Patricia Roberts said she disagrees because 6 percent is so small. Putting up a small shed is
not going to change the watershed.
Michael Harvey noted there are elected officials who share both viewpoints.
Kim Piracci said she does not have a problem with zeroing out the roadway.
David Blankfard said he has a problem with that proposal.
Approved 8/1/18
Alex Gregory said he likes the option of transferring impervious surface within the watershed.
This discussion wrapped up at 7:57 p.m.
Michael Harvey shared some updates:
The Orange County Attorney’s office had supplied tweaks to the flag ordinance, stipulating that
a flagpole can be 20 feet from the property line and that the flag itself has a year to come into
compliance but the flagpole is grandfathered in.
Public hearings were held the previous night on four UDO text amendments that the Planning
Board had reviewed regarding mobile home parks and neighborhood information meetings.
Craig Benedict said the planning and community housing departments have been working
together to create an affordable housing vision. He would like to create a workgroup of Planning
Board members to work on this. There was then a brief discussion about affordable housing and
the closing of mobile home parks in the Chapel Hill area due to the rise in the land values.
Randy Marshall advocated for purchasing the land of some of the existing mobile home parks.
Craig Benedict said the land is too expensive, as in millions of dollars.
Paul Guthrie and Patricia Roberts volunteered to serve on the workgroup.
Michael Harvey informed the committee that soon they would be seeing a new table of uses,
tweaks to the sign ordinance and possibly a reduction in the number of general use zoning
districts.
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:13 p.m.
Lydia N. Wegman, Chair