HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-10-20; 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments – Clarification of Setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 10, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments — Clarification of
Setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Aerial Photo of the West Fork on the Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245-2597
Eno Reservoir Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2575
2. Excerpt from November 6, 2019
Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
Meeting
3. Excerpt of Draft February 5, 2020
Planning Board Minutes and Signed
Statement of Consistency
4. Public Hearing Legal Ad
5. Statement of Consistency
6. UDO Text Amendment(s)
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Planning Board recommendation and public
comment, and consider action on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) text amendments revising/updating existing guidelines associated with the enforcement
of reservoir setbacks for structures and septic systems.
Specifically, the amendment seeks to establish the effective date for the expansion of the West
Fork on the Eno reservoir. If approved, the amendment will create an exemption for parcels and
development (i.e. structures and septic systems) established prior to the creation/expansion of
the reservoir, specifically February 12, 1997.
The amendment also updates existing references to the final normal pool elevation (NPE) of the
reservoir, which according to the Town of Hillsborough is going to be 642 ft. In the summer of
2019, the Town indicated the NPE for the reservoir was going to be 643.9 ft. and staff
proceeded with an amendment based on this information. After being notified of the updated
NPE, the amendment now references a NPE of 642 ft.
BACKGROUND: Section 6.13.4 Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay
Districts of the UDO establishes a 150 ft. wide setback around reservoirs. This area is intended
to be left in an undeveloped state. Additionally, Section 4.2.9 Water Supply/ Sewage Disposal
Facilities of the UDO establishes a 300 ft. setback for septic tanks from a reservoir.
2
Section 4.2.2, specifically subsections (F) through (1), of the UDO establishes the applicability of
watershed protection standards including establishing criteria defining those properties
(developed and undeveloped) considered to be `grandfathered' with respect to applicable buffer
(i.e. stream and reservoir) standards.
In the 1990's, the Town of Hillsborough began the necessary permitting processes at the State
level to construct the West Fork on the Eno reservoir within the Cedar Grove Township of the
county.
Work was broken down into two phases, with Phase 1 including the Town purchasing property
to expand the reservoir. The final boundary of the reservoir was established on February 11,
1997 with the recording of plats within the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office denoting
the Town's purchase of property along the West Fork of the Eno. Attachment 1 contains maps
of the existing reservoir boundary, based on 2017 aerial photographic data, denoting the
aforementioned 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas.
Phase 2 of the project involves the actual clearing of property and expanding the existing NPE
of the reservoir. The Town has already begun Phase 2 of the project, including land clearing
and increasing the elevation of the dam.
While the Town purchased sufficient property to accommodate the approved expansion of the
actual reservoir, the required reservoir setback could still potentially impact adjacent parcels of
property. Adjacent property owners have expressed concern the UDO does not specifically
reference the expansion of the reservoir thereby making their properties potentially non-
conforming to applicable watershed management regulations (i.e. required reservoir setbacks).
In an effort to address this concern, staff proposed a text amendment (Attachment 6) to
reference the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno from the date the Town secured property
allowing for the approved expansion. In consultation with the County Attorney office, staff has
determined this date is February 12, 1997.
While property owners are still required to abide by applicable setbacks per Section(s) 4.2.9 and
6.13.4 of the UDO, they will have greater latitude in demonstrating compliance with applicable
standards. This amendment will not necessarily allow for additional development of structures
closer to the actual reservoir. It will, however, recognize the conforming status of existing
development and not arbitrarily make same non-conforming. The status can be important with
respect to property transactions and mortgage applications.
This proposal was reviewed at the November 6, 2019 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
meeting. Notes from this meeting are contained within Attachment 2.
Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `...
cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a
recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners'.
The amendments are necessary to address current inconsistencies within the UDO relating to
the definition of what constitutes `existing lots' and/or `existing development' with respect to
compliance with applicable reservoir setbacks. This amendment should likely have been
completed in 1997 when the Town was purchasing property to establish the reservoir.
3
Planning Board Recommendation: At its February 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the proposed
UDO text amendment. Excerpts of the draft minutes from this meeting, as well as the Board's
signed Statement of Consistency, are included in Attachment 3. Agenda materials from the
meeting can be viewed at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26.
It should be noted the amendment presented to the Planning Board referenced changing the
NPE for the West Fork on the Eno from 643 ft. to 643.9 ft. This was based on data from the
Town. The amendment package now reflects the Town's corrected NPE for the reservoir of 642
ft. resulting in a slight reduction in the 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic) setback areas
around the reservoir.
Planning Director Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 5, and the UDO Text Amendment, as
contained within Attachment 6.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding
for the provision of County services. Existing staff, included in the Departmental staffing budget,
will accomplish the work required to process this amendment.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable
to this item:
• GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no
group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or
policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impacts associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the request;
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted); and
4. Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the UDO Text Amendment
(Attachment 6).
West Fork of the Eno 4
77
ES CHAPE�'RO
G
fP
r
Z
/
�- �' '`• R STDRE
C 1
W
0�
a a
0
RIIVI/�j W
C6r ER RD c�
I z
�! LLLL
BELLEC IASERp
+ .
ELI JAH POO $
X-
bfi
A.w
/J
00
'L WESTGATE-RD
O,Qw
sc0/ 1
T
0
TRIPLE CREEK y�
AGOG CO
�
644' Contour R'H`'
0 Parcels N 1 in
OR N E j Feet
150' Buffer s9yr Y A0 1,500
Orange County Planning and Inspections
0 300' Buffer BC 1/29/2020
West Fork of the Eno (Area 1 ) 5
1 � ry
CARFt STORE RD
y7
F'
kCWT a
2
J
1-
Z
Z
L
644' Contour
0 Parcels N —""'cc`
ORANGE Feet
50' Buffer JNTY 0 300
Orange County Planning and Inspections
0 300' Buffer BC 1/29/2020
West Fork of the Eno'West Fork of the Eno.aprx
West Fork of the Eno (Area 2) 6
'�L v
r
_ELIJAH_pOOLE_DR
i
644' Contour
0 Parcels '� '"'-
N 1 in=350 teet
' is�r NG Feet
50' Buffer JNTY 0 350
Orange County Planning and Inspections
0 300' Buffer BC 1/29/2020
West Fork of the Eno"Rest Fork of the Eno.aprx
West Fork of the Eno (Area 3) 7
MASSY TIMBER RDG l '
WESTGATE RD
�0 GHTON ST
01
Ix
w
O
0
co
G,y
TST
GOVERNOR HOLT S�
O,A
T�
O
644' Contour
0 Parcels N -w00 feet
' ORS N E Feet
0 150' Buffer COUNTY 0 400
Orange County Planning and Inspections
300' Buffer BC 1/29/2020
Attachment 2 $
1 SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 NOVEMBER 6,2019
4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
5
6
7 NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
8
9
10 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair),At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall,At-Large Representative;
11 Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher,
12 Bingham Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo,At-Large
13 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer,At-Large Representative;
14
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor;
17 Tina Love,Administrative Assistant III
18
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order
21
22
23
24 AGENDA ITEM 3: WEST FORK ON THE ENO RESERVOIR-To begin review and discussion on proposed amendments to
25 the LIDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. The
26 expected timeline for the Planning Board recommendation and BOCC public hearing has not yet been determined.
27
28 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
29
30 Michael Harvey reviewed the proposed amendments to the UDO regarding reservoir setbacks and provided
31 background information.
32
33 Carrie Fletcher: How many residents does it affect?
34
35 Michael Harvey: A couple dozen.
36
37 Patricia Roberts: Wouldn't you have to buy their house if did penalize them?
38
39 Michael Harvey: Hillsborough would, in my mind, have to buy their house but that's me saying that.
40
41 Craig Benedict: Hillsborough should have bought all the way up to that 150' from their future pool area,
42 1 think they were trying approximate that 150' area but it should have been from their phase II reservoir
43 not their, possibly phase I reservoir pool area.
44
45
46 ORC was adjourned through consensus
47
Attachment 3 9
1 DRAFT—EXCERPT OF MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 FEBRUARY 5,2020
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Representative; David Blankfard (Vice-Chair), Hillsborough
7 Township Representative; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township
8 Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township
9 Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Carrie Fletcher,
10 Bingham Township Representative
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative;
13 Hathaway Pendergrass,At-Large Representative
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
16
17 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT — EROSION CONTROL PERMITS - To
18 make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno
19 reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. This item was introduced at the November 6, 2019 ORC
20 meeting and is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on March 10, 2020.
21
22 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
23
24 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the UDO and provided the Board within an updated
25 Attachment 4, an updated copy of the proposed amendment package.
26
27 Lydia Wegman: Does this amendment allow someone to expand an existing septic system or residence closer to the
28 reservoir?
29
30 Michael Harvey: No. Under Section 4.2.2 (F) you can make repairs to existing residences and septic systems and
31 even expand same but you cannot, in my mind, go closer to the actual reservoir. We do, however,want to recognize
32 the legal viability of the development and not penalize property owners for abiding by applicable rules at the time they
33 located their residences or septic systems.
34
35 Adam Beeman: Is there a discrepancy in the maps provided in the package? It seems the reservoir actually
36 includes property north of Carr Store Road.
37
38 Michael Harvey: The reservoir does extend north of Carr Store Road correct. That is why we have the revised
39 map(s)in your packet. Sorry for the confusion.
40
41 Hunter Spitzer: Why is the Town of Hillsborough not required to own the required buffer area?
42
43 Michael Harvey: (If you are referring to the required 150 ft. and 300 ft. setbacks for buildings and septic systems)
44 State law does not mandate the Town own the area required to comply with the established setbacks. That is one
45 reason for the amendment.
46
47 Craig Benedict: There probably should have been an easement required to ensure the area was protected by the
48 Town. And the Town had to negotiate with these property owners to secure the property necessary to accommodate
49 the reservoir.
50
51 Michael Harvey: This is one reason the County has regulations governing what constitutes existing development and
52 existing parcels when addressing compliance with required reservoir setbacks.
53
54 Patricia Roberts: Can someone replace an existing manufactured home with a stick built or modular residence?
10
55 Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO that would prevent that. All the property owner would have to do is
56 comply with applicable setback standards.
57
58 Michael Harvey: What this amendment does is establish a key date as it relates to the enforcement of the reservoir
59 setback from the West Fork on the Eno. The amendment establishes the date for staff to ascertain what constitutes
60 an existing lot and existing development when enforcing the required structure and septic setbacks. The UDO
61 contains waiver provisions for an existing lot so that property owners who own a parcel established prior to the
62 development or designation of a reservoir site with respect to locating a structure and septic system. Unfortunately
63 this amendment will not address everyone's issues along the Eno. For example we have a property owner who has
64 subdivided his lot several times from 1997 to today. His property will not qualify as an existing lot under this
65 provision. The County staff chose the proposed date that made sense as it relates to the enforcement of reservoir
66 setbacks. February 12, 1997 is the date the West Fork on the Eno reservoir was established as it relates to
67 identifying the point where the 150 ft. structure and 300 ft.septic setback are taken from.
68
69 1 am asking the Board to approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 3 and recommend the adoption of the
70 revised Attachment 4, which establishes the key critical date with respect to what constitutes existing development
71 and an existing lot along the West Fork on the Eno of February 12, 1997.
72
73 Hunter Spitzer: Is there a way to amend the proposal to change the dates for what constitutes a legal lot and existing
74 development to a different date? I am concerned there may be some property owners who will not qualify with the
75 February 12, 1997 date and we will make more structures nonconforming.
76
77 Michael Harvey: I am not comfortable with that. The intent of the identified sections is to define what qualifies as
78 existing development and an existing lot as it relates to when a reservoir was established. From the date a reservoir
79 is established, people who subdivide their property are obligated to abide by applicable reservoir setbacks for
80 structures and septic systems. I will remind all parties there is nothing in this section preventing a property owner
81 from seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment if they believe the strict interpretation of the UDO infringes on
82 their development or redevelopment of their property.
83
84 Hunter Spitzer: That only covers regulated subdivisions correct?
85
86 Michael Harvey: All property, created through the regulated, expedited, exempt subdivision processes, are required
87 to abide by the established setbacks when they develop their property. This is handled as part of the zoning
88 compliance permit process, which is separate from the subdivision process, and would include compliance with the
89 150 ft. setback for all structures and the 300 ft. setback for all septic systems from a reservoir. You are correct,
90 however, it is likely a property owner engaging in an exempt subdivision will not be aware of the potential impacts of
91 their action as it relates to complying with applicable reservoir setbacks. Unfortunately that is not something staff can
92 address. We can continue to advise property owners of the issue but cannot require they take the consequences
93 into account when deciding to proceed with an exempt subdivision.
94
95 Craig Benedict: Some of these issues hit home for property owners when the Town began clearing property to allow
96 for the raising of the reservoir. It became clearer to those property owners just where the edge of the reservoir was
97 going to be and that led to questions of us on anticipated impacts.
98
99 Patricia Roberts: Will these people have to purchase flood insurance?
100
101 Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO mandating property owner purchase flood insurance. There is existing
102 special flood hazard area along the reservoir. It is typically up to the lending institution if flood insurance will be
103 required. Again I want to clarify this amendment package, in and of itself, does not create the need for flood
104 insurance. I will not bore you with my 20 minute presentation on why you should purchase flood insurance
105 regardless of your property's location within a special flood hazard area.
106
107 Randy Marshal: The aerial photo still shows trees along the reservoir area. Has clearing begun?
108
11
109 Michael Harvey: Yes clearing has already occurred and is nearly completed. My last conversation with the Town on
110 this matter led me to believe the majority of clearing activities had already occurred but that additional work may be
111 necessary. I am of the opinion work on the dam is being finalized and there is still roadwork that has to be completed
112 for the project. Unfortunately all I have access to is 2016/17 aerial photo data so it does not show the existing of
113 clearing activities that have already occurred.
114
115 MOTION by Randy Marshal to approve the statement of consistency,and the updated text amendment package
116 as provided by staff. Seconded by Lydia Wegman.
117 VOTE: Unanimous
118
119 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT
120 Meeting was adjourned by consensus
121
122
123
124
125 David Blankfard, Chair
12
STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) establishing the effective date for the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno reservoir
when determining required reservoir setbacks.
The Planning Board hereby approves the proposed text amendment and 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 4 - Land development regulations, guidelines,
techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated
achievement of all.
These amendments are consistent with this goal and
objective by establishment of the effective date for the
expansion of the West Fork on the Eno reservoir when
determining required reservoir setbacks thereby ensuring
consistent application of development regulations.
• Land Use Goal 6 — A land use planning process that is transparent,
fair, open, efficient, and responsive.
These amendments are consistent with this goal and
objective by eliminating confusion with respect to the
enforcement of setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno
reservoir thereby ensuring transparency in the development
review process.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Ensures legal sufficiency by formally establishing what constitutes existing
development and/or an existing parcel as it relates to the enforcement of
reservoir setbacks associated with the expansion of the West Fork on the
Eno reservoir.
By establishing this reference date staff will be better suited to
working with property owners abide by applicable regulations.
The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency as well
as the findings expressed herein.
David Blankfard, Chair Date
13
Attachment 4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held at the Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon Street, 2nd Floor, Hillsborough,
North Carolina, on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested
residents an opportunity to speak for or against the following items:
1. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified
Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated amendments to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno reservoir to address
concerns over reservoir setbacks. The following Section of the UDO is proposed for amendment:
• 4.2.2 Applicability (Watershed Protection section)
The amendments are necessary to address current inconsistencies within the UDO relating to the
definition of what constitutes `existing lots' and/or `existing development' with respect to
compliance with applicable reservoir setbacks.
The Orange County Planning Board, at its February 5, 2020 regular meeting, voted unanimously
to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments. Agenda materials from this meeting,
including the recommended amendment language, can be viewed at:
http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02052020-966
Purpose: To review the item and receive public comment on the proposed amendments.
Substantial changes in items presented at the public hearing may be made following the receipt of
comments made at the public hearing. Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can
be provided if the request is made to the Planning Director at least 48 hours prior to the Public
Hearing by calling one of the phone numbers below. The full text of the public hearing items may be
obtained no later than March 6, 2020 on the County website www.orangecountync.gov at the County
Commissioners Agendas link.
Information will also be available from the Orange County Planning Department (contact information
below) no later than February 28, 2020.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201,
Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and you will be directed to a staff member who will
answer your questions or you may e-mail questions to plan ningdept orangecountync.gov.
PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange
February 26, 2020 February 26, 2020
March 4, 2020 March 4, 2020
14
Attachment 5
STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) establishing the effective date for the expansion of the West Fork on the Eno reservoir
when determining required reservoir setbacks.
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) hereby approves the proposed text
amendment and 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 4 - Land development regulations, guidelines,
techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated
achievement of all.
These amendments are consistent with this goal and
objective by establishment of the effective date for the
expansion of the West Fork on the Eno reservoir when
determining required reservoir setbacks thereby ensuring
consistent application of development regulations.
• Land Use Goal 6 — A land use planning process that is transparent,
fair, open, efficient, and responsive.
These amendments are consistent with this goal and
objective by eliminating confusion with respect to the
enforcement of setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno
reservoir thereby ensuring transparency in the development
review process.
c. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it:
1. Ensures legal sufficiency by formally establishing what constitutes existing
development and/or an existing parcel as it relates to the enforcement of
reservoir setbacks associated with the expansion of the West Fork on the
Eno reservoir.
By establishing this reference date staff will be better suited to
working with property owners abide by applicable regulations.
The BOCC hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency as well as the
findings expressed herein.
Penny Rich, Chair Date
Attachment 6 15
Ordinance # ORD-2020-005
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
Whereas, Orange County, consistent with State law, establishes setbacks for structures
and septic systems from the Normal Pool Elevation (NPE) of reservoirs, and
Whereas, County regulations also establish standards defining what qualifies as existing
development and an existing lot in terms of complying with these setback standards, and
Whereas, The Town of Hillsborough has begun the process of expanding the West Fork
on the Eno reservoir resulting in a change in the NPE of the reservoir, and
Whereas, The UDO needs to be amended in order to reflect the revised NPE, as well as
establish the date associated with what constitutes existing development and an existing lot, for
property with frontage along the West Fork on the Eno reservoir, and
Whereas, The amendments are necessary to formally identify where setbacks are
measured from, as well as what constitutes existing development and lots, along the West Fork
on the Eno reservoir, and
Whereas, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance have
been deemed complete, and
Whereas, the Orange County Planning Board has recommended approval of the proposed
text amendments, and
Whereas, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the proposed
text amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the attached
pages.
Be it further ordained that this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances
and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner
, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of
, 2020.
16
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a
meeting held on , 2020 as relates in any way to the adoption of the
foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2020.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
17
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES:
The following packet details staff s proposed modifications to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) designed to establish appropriate references to the effective date for the
expansion of the West Fork on the Eno reservoir when determining required reservoir setbacks
involving the following Section(s).
➢ 4.2.2 Applicability— Watershed Protection
As part of this amendment, package:
• Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text that staff is suggesting be
added to the UDO
• : Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included
within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that
these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes from
previous sections `spill over' onto the included page. Text with a large "X" is not proposed for
deletion.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily
correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of
the text/sections downward.
Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8305/Unified-Development-
Ordinance-PDF
18
ARTICLE 4: OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION
4.1.1 Description, Standards, and Conflicts
(A) Overlay districts are supplemental to general zoning district classifications and are
applied in combination to address special situations or to accomplish specific planning
and land use goals.
(B) Unless otherwise expressly stated, all applicable regulations of the underlying district
apply to property in an overlay district.
(C) Unless otherwise stated, all applicable standards of this Ordinance apply to property in
an overlay district.
(D) When overlay district standards conflict with standards that otherwise apply in the
underlying district, the regulations of the overlay district always govern.
SECTION • •
4.2.1 Purpose and Intent
(A) The purpose of the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts is to prevent significant future
water quality deterioration in existing or potential future drinking water reservoirs which
receive stormwater runoff from land within Orange County.
(1) Protection of all water supplies within the State in accordance with minimum
standards was mandated by NCGS §143-214.5.
(2) The quality of water in drinking water reservoirs can be affected by human
activities including farming, construction of highways and roads, subdivision
development, industrial development, and other land-disturbing activities. Types
of water pollutants resulting from these activities include sediment, bacterial
contamination, heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds and low-level
radioactivity.
(B) The intent of the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts is to apply a set of regulations
involving land use and, in some cases, structural best management practices which
protect the watersheds by reducing the pollution from future development which enters
drinking water supplies.
(1) Land use management practices involve minimum lot size and impervious
surface restrictions, since impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops and
driveways are a major source of pollution.
(2) Structural best management practices allow for more intensive land use by
providing for temporary detention of stormwater runoff so that pollutants may
settle.
4.2.2 Applicability
(A) The Watershed Protection Overlay Districts as established herein overlay other zoning
districts established in this Ordinance. The new use of any land or new structure within
any Watershed Protection Overlay District shall comply with the use regulations
applicable to the underlying zoning district as well as the requirements of the applicable
Watershed Protection Overlay District.
(B) A Watershed Protection Overlay District shall be applied to the Orange County portion of
watersheds which have been classified as WS-II, WS-III or WS-IV watersheds by the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission in its implementation of NCGS
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-1
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 19
Section 4.2:Watershed Protection
§143-214.5. In accordance with the State Mandate, 13 Watershed Protection District
Overlays, as listed in the table in subsection (D), are hereby established.
(C) Areas designated as "Critical Area" under the Orange County designation are hereby
established using the following criteria:
(1) The land area in the Upper Eno watershed (straight line distance)within one-half
mile of the normal pool elevation (NPE), or nearest available contour line used
for the calculation, of an existing Class I or Class II reservoir or proposed water
supply reservoir designated for protection, or the ridgeline of the sub-watershed,
whichever is less; and
(2) The land area within one-half mile on each side for an upstream distance of 2.5
miles (straight line distance) of any fifth order or higher stream flowing into a
Class I reservoir, or the ridgeline of the sub-watershed, whichever is less; and
(3) The land area within one-half mile on each side of a fourth order or higher stream
flowing between any Class 11 and Class I reservoir; and
(4) The land area within one-half mile on each side for an upstream distance of 1.5
miles (straight line distance)of a third or fourth order stream flowing directly into
any Class I reservoir; and
(5) The land area within one-half mile on each side for an upstream distance of 1.0
mile (straight line distance)of a third or fourth order stream flowing into a fourth
order or higher stream that is within 1.0 miles (straight line distance) of a Class I
reservoir; and
(6) Any isolated areas within the overall critical area boundary that drain into any of
the streams listed above.
(7) Areas designated as Transition Areas on the Land Use Element Map of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan are excluded from designation as a Critical
Area, except for land areas located within one-half mile from the normal pool
elevation of a Class I reservoir.
(8) The land area north of the centerline of West Ten Road and west of the
centerline of the Interstate 85/U.S. 70 Connector is excluded from designation as
a Critical Area, except for land areas located within one-half mile from the normal
pool elevation of a Class I reservoir.
(D) The designation of"Protected"applies to areas of watersheds classified as WS-II, WSIII,
or WS-IV outside of areas designated as "Critical Area."
(E) General Locations of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
TABLE 4.2.2.E:WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY
DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION
UNIV-CA University Lake Critical One-half mile from the normal pool elevation of University Lake, or to
Area the ridgeline of the watershed,whichever is less.
University Lake The portion of the drainage basin of University Lake not covered by
UNIV-PW Protected Watershed UNIV-CA.
Overlay District
CANE-CA Cane Creek Critical Area One-half mile from the normal pool elevation of Cane Creek Reservoir,
Overlay District or to the ridgeline of the watershed, whichever is less.
Cane Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Cane Creek Reservoir not
CANE-PW Watershed Overlay covered by CANE-CA.
District
One-half mile from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline of the
watershed,whichever is less, of the following Class I reservoirs:
U-ENO-CA Upper Eno Critical Area Corporation Lake(538' actual NPE, 540'contour line used)and Lake
Overlay District Ben Johnson (515' NPE and contour line used). One-half mile(straight
line measurement)from the normal pool elevation, or to the ridgeline
of the watershed,whichever is less, of the following Class II
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-2
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 20
Section 4.2:Watershed Protection
TABLE 4.2.2.E:WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY
DISTRICT GENERAL LOCATION
reservoirs: Lake Orange(615' NPE and contour line used)and West
Fork on the Eno(643'642' NPE, 640'642' contour line used)'; and the
land area within one-half mile(straight line measurement)on each
side of other streams designated for protection. These protected
streams include portions of: Eno River, Seven Mile Creek, West Fork
of the Eno River, East Fork of the Eno River, Rocky Run, Stream ID
1625, Stream ID 1498, Dry Run Creek, Crabtree Creek, and Stream
ID 2109. (Source of elevation data: Atlantic Technologies Ltd., 1998
planimetric project approved by Orange Count GIS).
U-ENO-PW Upper Eno Protected The portion of the Upper Eno drainage basin not covered by U-ENO-
Watershed Overlay CA.
Lower Eno Protected The Orange County portion of the Eno River Watershed within ten
L-ENO-PW Watershed Overly miles of the City of Durham Emergency Water Intake east of US 501
Roxboro Road .
Little River Protected The portion of drainage basin of the Little River Reservoir which is
LITTLE-PW Watershed Overlay located in Orange County.
District
Back Creek Protected The portion of the drainage basin of Back Creek which is located in
BACK-PW Watershed Overlay Orange County.
District
South Hyco Creek The portion of the drainage basin of South Hyco Creek which is
HYCO-PW Protected Watershed located in Orange County.
Overlay District
Flat River Protected The portion of the drainage basin of the Flat River which is located in
FLAT-PW Watershed Overlay Orange County.
District
Haw River Protected The portion of the drainage basin for the Haw River which is located in
HAW-PW Watershed Overlay Orange County
District
Jordan Lake Protected The Orange County portion of the Jordan Lake Watershed which
JORDAN-PW Watershed Overlay extends five miles from the normal pool elevation of the impoundment.
District
(F) Existing Development
The following residential or non-residential structures shall be considered existing
development for the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Sections
4.2 and 6.13.3, 6.13.4, 6.13.6, 6.13.8, 6.14.4, 6.14.10, 6.14.11, and 6.15.7(B)(3):
(1) Was either constructed prior to, or constructed in accordance with a valid building
permit issued prior to, or was included as part of a Site Specific Development
Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to January 1, 1994;
or
i The LIDO currently makes reference to the anticipated future normal pool elevation (NPE)of the West Fork on
the Eno reservoir,specifically 643 ft. Town of Hillsborough staff originally indicated the expansion of the reservoir
would increase the NPE of the reservoir to 643.9 ft. Staff proposed to amend the UDO to reflect this increase
which was ultimately reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Board. Recently, however,the
Town provided new information indicating the NPE of the reservoir would, in actuality, be reduced to 642 ft. Staff
has modified the amendment proposal to reflect this change,which will result in less property area being
encumbered by required reservoir setbacks.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-3
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 21
Section 4.2:Watershed Protection
(2) Was either constructed prior to, or constructed in accordance with a valid building
permit issued prior to, or was included as part of a Site Specific Development
Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to February 12, 1997
with respect to the Town of Hillsborough purchase of property associated with
expanding the West Fork of the Eno reservoir; ors
M(3) Was either constructed prior to, or constructed in accordance with a valid building
permit issued prior to, or was included as part of a Site Specific Development
Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to October 19, 1999
with respect to the October 19, 1999 amendments related to the CANE-CA and
CANE-PW districts, or
(3)(4) Was either constructed prior to, or constructed in accordance with a valid building
permit issued prior to, or was included as part of a Site Specific Development
Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to September 19,
2001 with respect to the Stream Buffer/Usable Lot amendments, or
(4)(5) Was either constructed prior to, or constructed in accordance with a valid building
permit issued prior to, or was included as part of a Site Specific Development
Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to May 20, 2003 with
respect to the Stream Classification Amendments, or
(5)(6) Had otherwise established a vested right under North Carolina Zoning law prior
to January 1, 1994, or October 19, 1999 with respect to the October 19, 1999
amendments related to the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts, or September 19,
2001 with respect to the Stream Buffer/Usable Lot amendments, or May 20, 2003
with respect to the Stream Classification Amendments.
(G) Existing development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to requirements of
Sections 4.2, 6.13.3, 6.13.4, 6.13.6, 6.13.8, 6.14.4, 6.14.10, 6.14.11, and 6.15.7(B)(3) of
this Ordinance. Periodic updates to FEMA maps may affect structures located within the
special flood hazard area of specific streams.
(H) Redevelopment
(1) The rebuilding or replacement of residential or nonresidential structures which
are defined as existing development according to subsection (F)above is
allowed, provided that the rebuilding or replacement does not result in an
increase in the amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach any farther
into stream buffers or setbacks from reservoirs than the previous development.
(2) A structure which is rebuilt or replaced in accordance with these provisions is
deemed conforming with respect to setbacks from streams and reservoirs
required by Section 6.13 of this Ordinance.
(1) Existing Lots
(1) An existing lot, for the purpose of determining compliance with Sections 4.2 and
6.13.3, 6.13.4, 6.13.6, 6.13.8, 6.14.4, 6.14.10, 6.14.11, and 6.15.7(B)(3), is
defined as:
(a) A lot which was created prior to January 1, 1994, or
(b) A lot within the Upper Eno watershed which was created prior to
February 12, 1997 with respect to the Town of Hillsborough purchase of
property associated with development of the West Fork on the Eno
reservoir; or
z This language is consistent with how the UDO currently references what constitutes'existing development'.
What the proposal does is formalize what constitutes existing development as it relates to the West Fork on the
Eno.
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-4
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 22
Section 4.2:Watershed Protection
{W(c) A lot within the Cane Creek watershed which was created prior to
October 19, 1999, with respect to the October 19, 1999, amendments
related to the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts, or
(O d) Non-conforming lots of record.
(2) Stream buffers as required by Section 6.13, and setbacks for septic systems as
required by Section 4.2.9 may be reduced to the extent necessary to allow
development of the lot, provided that all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and
(b) The septic tank, drainfield and repair area (where required) can be
accommodated on 20,000 square feet of area or less; and
(C) The Orange County Planning Department, in consultation with Orange
County Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Staff Engineer
has determined that encroachment of the structure into the stream buffer
and/or encroachment of the septic system or repair area into the stream
buffer or reservoir setback is necessary in order to provide adequate
area for septic disposal and repair while maintaining required
separations between wells, septic systems, structures and property lines;
and
(d) The Orange County Planning Department, in consultation with Orange
County Environmental Health and/or the Orange County Staff Engineer,
has determined that the relative locations of the well, septic system and
structure maximize the amount of watershed protection that can be
achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, an exception
to setbacks for repair area is preferable to an exception for the initial
septic system, and encroachment of structures or gravity septic systems
into the setback is preferable to the installation of a septic system pump.
(e) The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the
minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the criteria in (a)
through (d).
4.2.3 Land Use Restrictions
All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the following
exceptions:
TABLE 4.2.3 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
DISTRICT RESTRICTIONS
UNIV-CA No new landfills are permitted.
UNIV-PW No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except for commercial development, in
CANE-CA accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, located within established Nodes as
U-ENO-CA detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
No new golf courses are permitted
U N I V-CA
CANE-CA No residual (sludge/biosolids)application is permitted.
U-ENO-CA
CANE-PW
U-ENO-PW
HYCO-PW
LITTLE-PW No discharging landfills are permitted. Industrial use is limited to nonhazardous light
BACK-PW industrial uses characterized by low water use (less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic
FLAT-PW water(25 gpd per employee)and water used for heating and air conditioning).
HAW-PW
L-ENO-PW
JORDAN-PW
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-5