HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-01-20; 6-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: September 1, 2020
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-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 Photos of the West Fork on the Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2575
Eno Reservoir Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245-2597
2. Excerpt from November 6, 2019
Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
Meeting
3. Excerpt of 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)
7. Excerpt from March 10, 2020 BOCC
Meeting Minutes
8. March 10, 2020 Memo Package to
BOCC Concerning Impacts to 2520 Carr
Store Road
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation and prior 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.
NOTE: This item was continued on April 7, 2020 to this date due to COVID. Staff (including the
Planning Director) provided requested information to BOCC within a few weeks of the original
item to clarify the amendment.
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.
2
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 feet. In the summer of
2019, the Town indicated the NPE for the reservoir was going to be 643.9 feet 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 feet.
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.
Section 4.2.2, specifically subsections (F) through (I), 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's 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, owners 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.
3
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.
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 minutes from this meeting, as well as the Planning
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 feet to 643.9 feet. This was based on data from the
Town. The amendment package now reflects the Town's corrected NPE for the reservoir of 642
feet resulting in a slight the 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.
As a reminder, staff was directed to provide additional information related to development
opportunities and constraints for a parcel of property located at 2520 Carr Store Road (PIN
9848-51-5777) owned by Mr. Robert Bush and Ms. Tabetha Trogdon. This information,
supplied at the original public hearing, is contained within Attachment 8.
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 Goal is 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.
4
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. With the Public Hearing previously closed, consider the amendment; and
3. Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the UDO Text Amendment
(Attachment 6).
West Fork of the Eno 5
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 ) 6
CARFt STORE RD
y7
F'
kCWT a
2
J
1-
Z
Z
L
644' Contour
0 Parcels N —""'cc`
ORANGE Feet
`JO' 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) 7
:mow
r
_ELIJAH_pOOLE_DR
i
644' Contour
0 Parcels '� '"'-
N 1 in=350 teet
NG Feet
' is�r
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) s
MASSY TIMBER RDG l '
WESTGATE RD
�0 GHTON ST
01
Ix
w
O
0
co
G,y
T`ST
GOVERNOR HOLT 51
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 9
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 10
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 make
18 a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the LIDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno reservoir
19 to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. This item was introduced at the November 6,2019 ORC meeting and is
20 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 includes
36 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 map(s)
39 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)State
44 law does not mandate the Town own the area required to comply with the established setbacks. That is one reason
45 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?
11
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 contains
61 waiver provisions for an existing lot so that property owners who own a parcel established prior to the development or
62 designation of a reservoir site with respect to locating a structure and septic system. Unfortunately this amendment
63 will not address everyone's issues along the Eno. For example we have a property owner who has subdivided his lot
64 several times from 1997 to today. His property will not qualify as an existing lot under this provision. The County staff
65 chose the proposed date that made sense as it relates to the enforcement of reservoir setbacks. February 12, 1997 is
66 the date the West Fork on the Eno reservoir was established as it relates to identifying the point where the 150 ft.
67 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 and
71 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 structures
80 and septic systems. I will remind all parties there is nothing in this section preventing a property owner from seeking
81 a variance from the Board of Adjustment if they believe the strict interpretation of the UDO infringes on their
82 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 compliance
88 permit process,which is separate from the subdivision process,and would include compliance with the 150 ft.setback
89 for all structures and the 300 ft. setback for all septic systems from a reservoir. You are correct, however, it is likely a
90 property owner engaging in an exempt subdivision will not be aware of the potential impacts of their action as it relates
91 to complying with applicable reservoir setbacks. Unfortunately that is not something staff can address. We can
92 continue to advise property owners of the issue but cannot require they take the consequences into account when
93 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 required.
103 Again I want to clarify this amendment package, in and of itself,does not create the need for flood insurance. I will not
104 bore you with my 20 minute presentation on why you should purchase flood insurance regardless of your property's
105 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
12
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
13
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
14
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.orangecountVnc.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
15
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 16
Ordinance # ORD-2020-018
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
12020.
17
I, David Hunt, Deputy 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
Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
18
Attachment 6
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
19
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 20
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 DISTRICTS
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 21
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 22
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 23
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
Attachment 7
1 24
APPROVED 417/2020 MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUSINESS MEETING
March 10, 2020
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a Business Meeting on Tuesday, March
10, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta
Bedford, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner ❑orosin
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below.)
Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Rich proposed the following items be added to the agenda:
- pink sheet: Xenophobia Resolution, as item 4-c
- Presentation in re: COVID-19 with Health Director Quintana Stewart and Kirby Sanders,
Emergency Services Communications.
- Additional Closed Session item:
§ 143-318.11. a "(5) To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating
agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (i)
the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real
property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to add
the Xenophobia resolution, the presentation on COVI❑-19 and the additional closed session to
the meeting.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Rich noted the following items at the Commissioners' places
- Proposed resolution for item 4-c
- Hand out for item 5-a
- PowerPoint for item 5-a
- Letter from Mayor Lavelle in re: Southern Branch Library, for item 6-a
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Rich acknowledged the public charge.
Arts Moment
Orange County Arts Commission (OCAC) Member Tim Hoke introduced Cassie Lipton:
Cassie Lipton is a senior at Orange High School. She enjoys writing, and recently won a Silver
Key in Poetry from the Scholastic Art and Writing awards. She is a dedicated member of the
10 25
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of Orange County,
North Carolina do hereby encourage all residents of Orange County to share only confirmed
and verifiable information provided by organizations such as the World Health Organization, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services Division of Public Health and the Orange County Public Health Department, to
ensure that it is accurate and does not stoke unfounded fears.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of Orange County encourages
Orange County residents to denounce any racist and xenophobic rhetoric targeting members of
our community and ensure that we act swiftly to condemn and address violent racism and
mitigate any economic loss, rooted in fear and misinformation.
This the 1011 day of March, 2020.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to
approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Rich suggested it be sent to the Town Clerks to distribute to all elected officials.
5. Public Hearings
a. Unified Development Ordinance (UFO) Text Amendments— Clarification of
Setbacks from the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir
The Board held 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.
Michael Harvey, Current Planning, presented the information below:
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.
11 26
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 Wafer Supply I Sewage Disposal Facilities of the
UDO establishes a 300 ft. setback for septic tanks from a reservoir.
Section 4.2.2, specifically subsections (F) through (I), 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 LIDO does not specifically
reference the expansion of the reservoir thereby making their properties potentially
nonconforming 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.
i, 27
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.
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 UFO Text Amendment, as
contained within Attachment 6.
Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation:
ITEM 5 (a) - PUBLIC HEARING
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment —West Fork on the Eno
Reservoir Setbacks
Background:
• County enforces setbacks for structures and septic systems as part of its Watershed
Management Protection Program (Section 4.2 of the UDO inclusive) from a reservoir;
• Structures are required to be 150 ft. and septic systems are required to be 300 ft. from
the Normal Pool Elevation (NPE) of a reservoir;
— STAFF COMMENT: We currently exceed State minimum requirements.
• NPE of the reservoir is defined/referenced within Section 4.2.2 (E) of the UDO;
West Fork of the Eno (aerial map)
Background (continued)
• Section(s) 4.2.2 (F) and (1) establishes applicability of setback standards, specifically:
Section 4.2.2 (F) Existing Development - structures/septic systems installed prior
to establishment of final reservoir boundary (i.e. NPE) can be replaced provided
same: 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.
— Section 4.2.2 (1) Existing Lots - lots legally created prior to the establishment of
the final boundary (i.e. NPE) of a reservoir;
13 28
- An 'existing lot' qualifies for an administrative waiver where Planning ❑irector, in
consultation with the Health Department, can modify the 300 ft, reservoir setback
For septic systems based on established criteria;
Amount of encroachment allowed is the minimum that can be obtained while
meeting applicable criteria.
IMPACTS OF AMENDMENTS:
• Clarifieslupdates the NPE of the reservoir from 643 ft. to 642 ft.
- This change will result in a reduction of the amount of land area subject to
reservoir setback;
• Establishes what constitutes existing development and an existing lot around the
reservoir (i.e- development installed, and lots created. prior to February 12, 1997);
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT ❑O:
• Condemn or take property;
Estabtish more restrictive regulations;
- Current regulations do not specifically reference expansion of the West Fork on
the Eno reservoir.
- Staff is currently required to use January 1, 1994 to define existing
development/lots {existing language}.
• Prevent/restrict property owners from applying for variances from structure/septic
setbacks off of a reservoir;
- Appropriate fees have to be paid. No guarantee request will be approved.
Staff Findings:
- The amendment addresses existing deficiencies within the UDC referencing
appropriate date for reservoir expansion;
- Provides clear direction on what constitutes existing development and/or lot
around the West Fork on the Eno Reservoir;
- Corrects final NPE of reservoir;
- Provides property owners with definitive information on where required setbacks
are measured from.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
- Reviewed item at its February 5, 2020 regular meeting;
Voted to recommend approval
- STAFF COMMENT: Amendment referenced changing the NPE
for the reservoir from 643 ft. to 643.9 ft. based on data from the
Town;
Current amendment package corrected to reference the 642 ft.
NPE of reservoir;
Planning Board does not need to re-review as resulting change
constitutes reduction in the 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic)
calculated setback area around the reservoir (i.e. does not create
a more restrictive standard that originally proposed)
RECOMMENDATION(S)-
The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the request;
2 Conduct the public hearing and accept comment;
14 29
3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
comments at a later date are permitted);
4. Approve Statement of Consistency (Attachment 5) and the UFO Text Amendment
(Attachment 6).
Commissioner Price asked if this change will create a financial hardship for existing
homeowners.
Michael Harvey said no, and the intent of the amendment is to clearly define what
constitutes existing lots and existing developments, which should lessen any potential burden.
He said there are properties that have been subdivided after 1997, which have been held to the
appropriate reservoir standard and set back. He said there are several 10-acre lots, and larger,
that benefit from existing development definitions. He said adding the 1997 date will only
solidify claims to be classified as such.
Commissioner Price clarified that there will be no negative impacts for future
development.
Michael Harvey said no, but one will have to comply with the code.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if one can subdivide one's property, with the
expectation of developing it, only to find out that it was actually undevelopable.
Michael Harvey said not during his tenure with the County.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tim Boomhower declined to comment.
Melody Boomhower declined to comment.
Rob Bush said he owns property on Carr Store Road, and he asked the Board not to
approve the date in this amendment as February 1997. He said it would be more reasonable to
set the date to a future one, when the reservoir is filled to its new level. He said it seems
unjust for the department that approved site plans to label homes as non-conforming. He said
he lives in a tiny house, which he started building in 2013, and the site plan was approved by
the Planning Department, and, to his knowledge, was not contingent to a previous mobile home
that was removed from the property around 200312004. He said there was no mention of a
future expansion of the reservoir, and he only learned this years later. He said in May 2019, he
found out that his home would have restrictions put on it, and he could not be told if he would
be permitted to rebuild in the case of a disaster. He said he was very concerned about this lack
of information, and believes his current home site to be the only suitable one on his property,
due to a lack of perkable sail. He said he immediately asked the Planning Di rector for a
variance for buffer reduction. He said in July 2019 he was told his request would not be
handled as an individual variance, but rather by a County-initiated text amendment, as many
properties are affected around the reservoir. He said he was told this would come before the
BOCC in the fall of 2019, but he received no information about the text amendment details until
late January 2020. He said the amendment did not seem to address his concerns, and the
variance was not given to reduce buffers around his home. He said he spoke with staff, and it
was determined he would be allowed to add on or rebuild to the original mobile home's
impervious area footprint. He said this was better than his original options, but he would still
like a buffer reduction around his house to allow for more expansion on the already restricted
lot, due to the lack of perk sites on his property. He said he would like to know why community
15 30
residents were not aware of these restrictions on their lots, pertaining to the raising water levels.
He said, as the Planning Department approved all existing buildings, no existing building,
regardless of date, should be labeled as non-conforming. He said homeowners should have
the freedom to identify a septic repair area in the future, to prevent their homes from being
phased out, due to a failed leach field, if that were to occur. He said he has worked hard on his
house, and sees this amendment as negatively affecting his investment.
Dean Barnes said she lives on Governor Hunt Street, and if her water or septic tank
were to be affected in the future, she does think this would negatively impact her property. She
said she would like to know why Jordan Properties were approved for sale, knowing this change
would be coming.
James Kennedy said he also lives on Governor Hunt Street, and he previously served
on the boundary review board and board of equalization. He said Michael Harvey is lying, and
property values are based on what people will pay, as well as comparables. He said if people
hear that properties have restrictions, specifically water restrictions, the property values will go
down, as will the community at large.
Ann Roberts said Michael Harvey said there would not be any hardships, but she
received a letter that her property (which she has only owned for 4 months)would be
condemned and she would only receive its tax value, which is much less than what it is worth.
She said this is her home, in an established neighborhood, and she does not want to see it
condemned.
Scott Atkins said the reservoir butts up against his property, where he has lived for 16
years. He said he is 6 years away from having his mortgage paid off. He said his septic tank
does not fall within the qualified distance, and he does not want his house condemned. He said
he would like to know the restrictions that exist because of the reservoir, and asked if he can
hunt or fish near it. He said he unaware of the rules.
Calvin Parrish said he is worried, and wants to know why the properties were sold
knowing it was going to be condemned, due to the expansion of the reservoir. He said it is
unfair and unjust to kick people out of their homes.
Commissioner McKee asked if Michael Harvey would address some of the public
comments.
Michael Harvey said neither the County, nor the Town of Hillsborough, have sent out
letters condemning any properties. He said a member of the community has stirred up a lot of
sentiment without first gathering the facts. He said the Town of Hillsborough has already
secured all the necessary property for the reservoir expansion, and the County is not
condemning any properties.
Commissioner McKee asked if Michael Harvey could speak to the issue of septic tanks
being too close.
Michael Harvey said the neighborhood in question has lots that were established prior to
1997, meaning they qualify for existing lots, as well as existing development, and if septic
systems have to be replaced, they will benefit from the current regulatory standards that say
they can be replaced.
Commissioner McKee referred to the map, and said the setbacks completely
encompass several of these lots of Governor Hunt Road.
Michael Harvey said this subdivision was created before the reservoir boundary was set,
so it would qualify for an existing lot, as well as existing development.
Commissioner McKee referred to a lot that is completely encompassed by the two
setbacks, and asked, if the septic failed, would the property owner be able to fix the problem.
Michael Harvey said County staff would help find a way to replace the septic on the
property because it qualifies as an existing lot.
Commissioner McKee said even if that new septic field was within 150-foot boundary.
16 31
Michael Harvey said yes, because that is why there is the definition of existing lot and
existing development. He said staff has to grant as much leeway as humanly possible, as
stipulated by the ordinance. He read the ordinance.
Commissioner McKee clarified that this answer would address the resident who spoke
of his 300 square foot tiny house.
Michael Harvey said Mr. Bush was allowed to take advantage of existing development,
when he built his house in 2013. He said he personally processed this request. He said Mr.
Bush was allowed to place a house where a mobile home had previously been, because it
constituted existing development. He said the septic system was approved with the issuance of
a permit by the Health Department in 1987, and also qualifies as an existing development. He
said part of the problem Mr. Bush is experiencing is the fact that some of his property has been
subdivided and sold to neighbors, which has reduced the overall lot area from 30-acres (in
1979) to a 7-acre parcel currently, with the last recording of an exempt subdivision plat in 2018.
Commissioner Greene asked if these lots are now considered non-conforming.
Michael Harvey said no. He said if a property meets the definition of an existing lot, or
existing development, it is not non-conforming, but rather these properties are subject to the
rules and standards within those two sub-sections, but staff does not declare the lot of as non-
conforming. He said it was created in compliance with the legal standards that existed at the
time, and at the time before the reservoir boundary was set, it meant all applicable criteria. He
said the establishment of the reservoir boundary, in the late 1990s, does not make the lot non-
conforming, but it is governed by existing development/existing lot under section 4.2.
Commissioner Greene said it sounds like the reservoir in non-conforming.
Michael Harvey said the reservoir is not non-conforming. He said the reservoir is the
reservoir, and its boundary was established with the recordation of plats in 1997 to create the
boundary.
Commissioner Greene asked if the subdivision predates the reservoir.
Michael Harvey said yes, the subdivision was in process before the final boundary of the
reservoir was established.
Commissioner Greene said that was unwise.
Michael Harvey said he is at a loss as to why the staff did not amend the ordinance in
1997.
Commissioner Price asked if Mr. Bush were to sell his property, would the new owner be
able to build a bigger home on that same property.
Michael Harvey said potentially, but he would need to see a site plan first, which would
have to demonstrate that it met existing development, or that it is outside of the 150-foot buffer
for setback structures. He said the bigger issue is the lack of perkable soil on the property,
which may not be able to support a larger house.
Commissioner Price said she meant an expansion of the existing footprint.
Michael Harvey said yes, there is opportunity for an expansion of the existing residence.
Commissioner Price clarified that nothing has been issued about condemnation.
Michael Harvey said that is correct, and he has not authored or authorized any letters
stating condemnation of any property as a result of this action. He said this reaction is the
result of one community member seeking to stir up emotions, and while this is an emotional
issue for some, he does not believe the insinuations in the resident's letter have any merit.
Commissioner Price asked if Michael Harvey has seen a letter from a resident.
Michael Harvey said no.
Chair Rich said some residents recently purchased homes, and asked if staff has been
discussing this issue for some time.
Michael Harvey said yes, since the beginning of 2019.
Chair Rich asked if all of the homes around the reservoir were notified.
17 32
Michael Harvey said no because this is an UDO text amendment.
Chair Rich asked if some of the homes will be less valuable if this amendment is
approved.
Michael Harvey said he is not a tax person and cannot speak to those questions, but
these lots are not considered non-conforming under the County UDO, as they are considered to
be existing lots, or to have existing development. He said the County does not treat these
properties as non-conforming, but rather as lots and parcels that were in existence prior to the
reservoir being established and wants to give them leeway in terms of compliance.
Chair Rich asked if the year that the reservoir was established could be identified.
Michael Harvey said the plats were recorded on February 12, 1997, which is when the
Town secured the final property purchase, which secured the final boundary of the lots. He
said picking this date is consistent with how the County has treated other reservoirs.
Commissioner Price said the minutes refer to a property that has been sub-divided
many times since 1997, and will not qualify as an existing lot, but the date has not yet been
established, as the BOCC has not yet voted.
Michael Harvey said he based his answer of the proposal made by staff, and that it did
not constitute a lot of record based on how staff was interpreting how the UDO needed to be
modified to reference the establishment of the West Fork in the Eno Reservoir.
Commissioner Price said his sub-division exists now, and the BOCC has not voted on
the date. She asked how it is possible that staff can already say that this resident's actions
would disqualify him as existing lots.
Michael Harvey said he is basing his answer on staff's proposal of the date of February
12, 1997 being the logical date to establish when the normal pool elevation for the West Fork of
the Eno was established. He said this is his answer.
Commissioner Price said the BOCC has not yet established this date.
Michael Harvey said the BOCC could change the date, and that may change the
answer.
Commissioner Price said she is not asking to change the date, but is pointing out that
the date has not yet been voted on. She said all of this will be retroactive.
Michael Harvey said the only date he can use, as articulated in his abstract and
presentation, is January 1994.
Commissioner Price said she is not concerned about the date, but wants to know if this
would be retroactive.
Michael Harvey said he has answered the question to the best of his ability.
Commissioner Price said the Town of Hillsborough had to negotiate with the property
owners to secure the property necessary to accommodate the reservoir, and asked if this
pertained to current negotiations, or years past.
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said years ago. He said in the present code, an
existing lot is defined as January 1, 1994, and this is the date that staff has used as this is when
the watershed regulations went into effect. He said, in absence of this new amendment, the
date could be as late as February 12, 1997. He said the date previously used was January 1,
1994 prior to the amendments that may be made tonight.
Craig Benedict said when Hillsborough chose to build reservoir phases one and two, in
the mid 1990s, the Town bought properties to accommodate this. He said all of the land that
Hillsborough needed for these two phases was purchased by 1997.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the bottom line is that a house could be rebuilt, and
possibly expanded, if it were to be destroyed by a natural even, such as a tornado.
Craig Benedict said the house could be rebuilt to whatever approved existing septic
systems exist. He said any expansion to septic systems would have to be approved through
the Health Department.
18 33
Craig Benedict said as soon as the reservoir was contemplated, people started
subdividing around the lake, as was done at Lake Orange as well. He said during his tenure
with the County, staff has had to make determinations that the lots were roughly concurrent
with the reservoir, and people want to live next to a future reservoir. He said people can rebuild
to the standards of the size of their house.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if a resident has perkable land, can the resident extend
the septic, add another bedroom, etc.
Craig Benedict there is a four-bedroom maximum.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if anyone will be prevented from replacing a septic
system.
Craig Benedict said no, everyone can replace the septic system, as long as it meets
Health Department standards.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the reservoir would impact the issue of a septic
system meeting Health Department standards.
Craig Benedict said it would be the same standard as if it were next to a reservoir, or
not, except the resident would have to work with the Planning Department to find out which
location is best. He said around Lake Orange, there are one or two cases where a resident
cannot fit a septic field, because of the land size, and there are other devices that are approved
by the State, which can replace the normal, conventional septic system.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is anything Hillsborough could have done to
make this process better from the beginning.
Craig Benedict said that is conjecture. He said reservoirs are rarely built, but when they
are it is rare for excess land to be purchased. He said his reading of the issue is that they do
not purchase out to 300-feet beyond where the water level will be. He said if the Town had
purchased out that far, then all lands would have been unencumbered by the setbacks, but this
is not the County's standard to take a look at.
Marie Strandwitz, Utilities Director for Town of Hillsborough, said she appreciated the
staff presentations. She said it is her understanding that the Town planned the reservoir
starting around 1993. She said the Town started acquiring properties, and is some cases there
was condemnation, and other times the Town was able to negotiate successfully for the land.
She said the permit from the Corps was issued in the fall of 1997, or early 1998, which
consisted of both phases. She said the Town had the foresight to see that it would need more
water one day, and the permit from the Corps, and accompanying 401 permit from the State,
covered both phases. She said the 1994 date correctly had the 643 elevation based on the
datum used by surveyors at that time. She said since 1994, the UDO has stated the correct
phase 2 elevation (or expansion), and to get to this point the Town has conducted public
hearings, and all the property owners around the reservoir boundary, at that time, were notified.
She said anyone who had purchased a property since that time has been subject to the set
back that already exists in the UDO. She said she does not know if realtors have
communicated this information to the property owners at time of purchase. She said expansion
of phase 2 physically started in 2018, as the permit from the Corps was set to expire. She said
the Town did not need the extra water at that time, but as the permits are difficult to obtain, the
Town chose to move forward with the phase 2 expansion. She said the raising of the damn
structure has been completed, as well as the clearing around the damn structure. She said the
Town has approved for its Manager to sign the contract to raise the surrounding roads, which is
the last piece of the puzzle before the Town can start letting the reservoir fill to its new level,
which is contour 642.2, according to the new survey datum of NAV❑ 88.
Marie Strandwitz referred to the question about fishing and hunting, and said as part of
the state mitigation, the Town is to put the area around the reservoir in a conservation
easement. She said she has seen documents that state the Town has bought all the necessary
19 34
property to encompass the phase 2 level, as well as the State buffer. She said the Town did
not go further into the County setbacks, as it held public hearings at that time. She said the
Town is working with the State to put its properties into a restrictive deed, which are areas well
outside the buffer that the State wants the Town to maintain. She said the restrictive dead
includes no trespassing, no swimming, hunting, fishing, and camping. She said the Town is
required to post signage to this effect.
Marie Strandwitz said the Town has not sent any letters of commendation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Amber Broadwell said she has lived in the area for some time, and has fished the entire
time, and she wants to know why fishing is not allowed.
Marie Strandwitz said the State will not allow these types of activities, per the permit that
was obtained in the 1990s. She said it requires the Town to keep protection of its water supply,
which is why the County is having extra setbacks. She said it is a watershed protection area,
and is the water supply for the Town. She said people may have been fishing for years, but
should not have been doing so.
Calvin Parrish asked if it is known who would be financially responsible, if a septic tank
needs replacing.
Michael Harvey said he feels inadequate to answer the question, but if the septic system
fails, there is no provision in the UDO mandating the Town to pay for this.
Commissioner Price asked if the expansion is expected to affect septic tanks.
Michael Harvey said he does not have data to definitively answer that question, but the
setbacks are in place to avoid such issues. He said such issues would have to be addressed
as they arise.
Commissioner McKee asked if staff knows if any of these septic fields will be
submerged by the new water level.
Michael Harvey said no, based on the information he has, there should be no
submerging of septic fields.
James Kennedy said this amendment will devalue the properties. He said any
restriction to a property will scare off buyers.
Chair Rich said currently these properties are following the UFO.
Michael Harvey said the restriction has existed since 1997, and staff is not adding a
restriction but rather clarifying what constitutes an existing lot and existing development for the
purposes of permitting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments
at a later date are permitted).
Michael Harvey said since this is not quasi-judicial process, he said there can be
additional comments made after the hearing is closed.
Commissioner McKee said he was around when this reservoir was planned and built,
and it was contentious to the point that there were threats of vigilante action. He said perhaps
the Town should have put easements up to the setbacks, but that is irrelevant at this point. He
said he wants to make sure that residents are not adversely affected.
Commissioner Price asked if the BOCC must make a decision tonight, or can it just
close the public hearing.
Michael Harvey said staff has made a recommendation, but the BOCC can close the
hearing and take whichever action it sees fit.
20 35
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Greene said she would like more time to think about this topic, and
gather more information. She said she does not feel fully informed to vote this evening.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Price to
defer this item to the April 7, 2020 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Marcoplos)
b. Public Hearing on the Financing of Various Capital Investment Plan Projects
The Board conducted a public hearing on the issuance of approximately $45,500,000 to
finance capital investment projects and equipment for the fiscal year; and consider voting to
approve a related resolution supporting the County's application to the Local Government
Commission {LGC} for its approval of the financing arrangements.
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, presented the information below:
BACKGROUND:
County staff estimates that the total amount to be financed for capital investment projects and
equipment will be approximately $45,500,000. The statutes require that the County conduct a
public hearing on the proposed financing. A copy of the published notice of this hearing is
provided (Attachment 1).
The notice of public hearing was advertised in The Herald Sun and the flews of Orange.
After conducting the public hearing and receiving public input, the Board may consider the
adoption of the resolution (Attachment 2). The resolution formally requests the required approval
from the North Carolina Local Government Commission (LGC)for the County's financing, and
makes certain finding of fact as required under the LGC's guidelines. County staff has been in
contact with the LGC staff, and staff expects no issues in receiving LGC approval.
If the Board adopts the resolution indicating its intent to continue with the financing plan, the
Board will be asked to consider a resolution giving final approval to the financing plans at its April
7, 2020 meeting. Under the current schedule, County staff expects to set the final interest rates
and close by the end of April.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this action. However, there will be a
financial impact in proceeding with the financing. A preliminary estimate of maximum debt
service applicable to the capital investment projects and equipment financing would require the
highest debt service payment of$4.2 million in FY 2021-22. The tax rate equivalent for the
estimated highest debt service payment is approximately$2.23 cents.
Gary Donaldson made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Series 2020 Limited Obligation Bonds
Spring Financing Resolution
March 10, 2020
Purpose
36
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager
CC: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
FROM: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning & Inspections Director
DATE: March 6, 2020
RE: BOCC Meeting 3/10/20 Item 5A-Resident concern: Address 2520
Carr Store Road Cedar Grove
Please see the attached letter which has a relationship to item 5A of tonight's agenda.
The letter to the property owners was not included as an attachment to agenda item 5a
because the Public hearing for the UDO is broader than this single issue.
The first memo was to the Bush and Trogdon family of 2520 Carr Store Road. The
memo states the limits of development on their land and the options for further
development.
They were hoping that the West Fork Eno Reservoir amendment proposed tonight
would liberalize the future or further use of their land. The amendment does not since
their lot was not a lot of record in 1997. They may speak to this item tonight.
The amendment clarifies the maximum flood pool of which setbacks and septic buffers
are established, as well as the effective dates.
Michael or I can speak to this issue tonight if requested.
37
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
February 27, 2020
Robert Bush and Tabetha Trogdon
1329 Newton Pleasant Loop Road
Hurdle Mills,NC 27541
Dear Mr. Bush and Ms. Trogdon:
In or around May 2019,you contacted the Orange County Planning Department about your pat-eel
(PIN 9848-51-5777) near the West Fork Reservoir. You heard the Town of Hillsborough was
initiating phase 2 of reservoir construction and would ultimately raise the reservoir level by 10'
vertical feet. You were concerned about how the changes to the reservoir would impact your
property.
The County requires a 150' building setback and a 300' septic field setback from the reservoir.
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, has drafted a UDO text amendment about the West
Fork reservoir, but the amendment will not reduce the required setbacks. However,you still have
some development relief under UDO Section 4.2 Watershed protection.
The following letter gives a brief history of your property and the pending text amendment. It also
outlines your development opportunities in relation to the reservoir under zoning.
Pending Text Amendment
Michael Harvey has drafted a UDO text amendment about the West Fork reservoir, but the
amendment will not reduce the 150' and 300' setbacks. It will do the following:
I. Update the Normal Pool Elevation to 643', which will be the final level of the reservoir after
the Town completes phase 2 of construction; and
2. Expand UDO Section 4.2.2 (F)Existing Development to include an exception for structures
constructed near the reservoir before February 11, 1997.That is the date the Town secured
property to expand the West Fork reservoir.
Case History
Here is a brief history of development on.your parcel from 1987 to present:
• Orange County Environmental Health issued a Construction Authorization for a septic
system for a mobile home on November 9, 1987 (CAH74291).
• A plat titled "Division of Property of Wesley W. Blythe and Beverly A. Blythe"dated
09/03/1997 shows a mobile home on the property measuring 68' x 16' (Plat Book 79, Page 5
1
38
in the OC register of Deeds). The mobile home was later removed from the property(exact
date of removal unknown).
• You purchased the property and applied for a residential building permit in 2013 (CB13-
00751). You submitted plans for a 528 %q. ft, dwelling (384 sq. ft.of habitable space and 144
sq. ft. of decking).
• [Michael Harvey approved the site plan for CB13-00751 on June 12,2013. Building
Inspections issued the Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling on September 25,2014.
Based on the information above, Michael Harvey has made the following determinations:
• Environmental Health records indicate the 68' x 16' (1,088 sq. ft.)mobile home was
permitted and on the property prior to January 1, 1994.
• Based on that determination,the mobile home is considered"existing development" under
UDO Sec. 4.2.2 (F)(1)Existing Development.
• Therefore,you are entitled to redevelop your property in accordance with UDO 4.2.2 (H)
Redevelopment, which reads as follows:
"The rebuilding or replacement of[a structure defined]as existing development according to
subsection (F) above is allowed,provided that the rehuilding or replacement does not result
in an increase in the amount of impervious surface and does not eneraaeb any farther into
stream buffers or setbacks from reservoirs than the previous development—
A structure frhall is rebuilt or replaced in accordance with these provkiens is deemed
conforming with respect to setbacks from streams and reservoirs requited by Section 6.13
of this Ordinance."
Development Opportunities
You have several development options that would comply with Section 4.2.2(H). These options
include, but are not necessarily limited to,the following:
1. Add onto the existing dwelling.
You can increase the dwelling to a total of 1,088 sq. ft. impervious surface area,which would
be consistent with the impervious surface coverage of the original mobile home. However,
you cannot build the addition any closer to the reservoir than the mobile home was.
Note that this is feasible depending on the septic,repair,and well locations. Sunny Lane is a
private easement,not a right-of-way. So there is no building setback from the edge of the
easement, You would just need to build the:addition so it meets the following requirements:
• 20' setback from side and roar lot lines;
a Outside of the Sunny Lane private easement;
• No expansion of the existing septic system;and
* No closer to the reservoir.
2
39
2. Move the existing dwelling.
Although this option may sound simplistic, it is still a possibility. Being only 528 sq. ft.,the
dwelling likely could be moved outside the reservoir setback. Then you could expand the
dwelling without worrying aboutthe reservoir restrictions.
3. Use the dwelling as an"efficiency unit."
It is my understanding that you may wish to sell this property. if you do list the parcel,you
could market the existing dwelling as a"non-conforming efficiency unit."
Each residentially zoned lot in Orange County is entitled to one primary dwelling and one
efficiency unit.The primary dwelling can be whatever size the septic permit and impervious
surface limit will allow, In contrast,an efficiency unit must meet the following criteria:
• Maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area;
• Maximum of 800 sq. ft. heated/cooled, habitable space;
• Held in the same ownership as the primary dwelling; and
• Comply with required setbacks, impervious surface limitations,etc.
The buyer would be able to build a new home and keep the existing dwelling as an efficiency
unit--one that is closer to the water's edge than would be allowed today.
As proposed, the pending text amendment with not reduce the required reservoir setbacks. However,
your parcel qualifies for some relief under UDO Section 4.2. Under this section, you could move or
expand the existing dwelling. You could also elect to market the dwelling as a"non-conforming
efficiency unit."These options, although perhaps not ideal,provide some flexibility.
I hope this letter helps clarify your development options in relation to the West Fork Reservoir.
Thank you for your patience as we work with the Town
Best Regards,
Craig Benedict, AICP
Planning Director
)enclosures: Map of Setbacks from Phase 1 (Current)Reservoir Level
Map of Setbacks from Phase 2(Final) Reservoir Level
Draft of Reservoir Text Amendment
3
Setbacks from Phase 1 Level of Vilest Fork Eno Reservoir 40
414
98485/2836 V
. •� _ fi_ 8�2,
qW
558
98484194447
sss
BushlTragdon Paroel
AR
a:,
- 300 septic Setback
a.r 1: .«
For
..d
WAMW, gzr,ZOA
.ra:vav ��a•�s'rw,�e•asr.-•r
� AMWA�� �r�+v wOw ��c•w
lr+�,/C�.}�IP .mr�•��e^�SY�a�'�:.sr.7 sr i'�il�
.�a/y,s lr�� A7r1•/1*IAPJ4/�'d!r
�r�ar�rr s eT :..�-a Q�rwasraar srts�v
."�raesprr �z►'nw�v�rrn..•rst=�i�cv�s�xs-�:ram axT�rap•
. J�•�.� .�Y.�'A1/.RQl�Sr.�P:�t•.L�'i_ '��Ys.�'_•i7".G-i,CJ/
'WI"rA�" 150' Building Setback
arm �.aar,tcr',.rr aas .-rs= • .�•.-rrae•. ...r wr
.L vwe7•,Lyy .r�mr.aaw�._.-N.-_ _��+•�. ��-�.rr.�=wa+r
;r�...t��/..r .,..r�•�rr.�•,«asr.a r.a�ar�---��sR--.�f.. -.r.�-��-..b.•....r..
���r...w .�-�r..iru-.sic•.. -ir.�.•e+are•.:--.x �..,aeY, •a•.• .:.�•r:.e�•.r.�.nrrsr.-
_v.�ee.ewr,Q�s .�t�=.c�r�.r..r+.r•.4etr.arod•.e�,•r�• r,sr.c_r�.��•.e�,�+ �rr•,advr✓'
>��rvr,+s�Awr�r �r�rA�f7'.ir.+fr�•�•rr�•. r_s�•.x�•.yrr ,erra�'
r�rcwr� �� crr�wrwrtsrr.ram �w AMC, .�rw
sw rANW xrAMV:ar s e wwr �sS AMW
L�INWA W
r�,nrT�rx.�fras ar.rrao
sr asnr.awr.�crrsa�q r�wri►I"Aw-A
AM
wrap musx•:•���w�' rI�•�rs��arcLar
v.rr.�s�'�ww•1r7 .drra�'.ar.or
-r�,�.rr�r,wr.�r�r.ar ,�w .a�rsnr,�.•zs
•�Twcc7,�rLr�miaar�rq� atv .sir':.-aP.
�r .wraaa ram a•rrr.av
,r.•��rr�rr¢�r�ra'. s� FIAW74 arm
7='.411a'r18�6"alss'Anw,-. -'.,71w� .^gr}!y►,Q' �r,�•.}.�IJti'r:L vaarr�•
..�La.T.�r,•..7dt'rti-.+ss•n•i=rr ,�}a;�v��[s7r .� � .��,���sa��'a's•�-'�.
AMV
�" ��rr�1•' ,ARC.C�v.�s��sl�'.=A�'�sr�.-a7c^ �j
�P r r"1.r Jww
MEW
Jrt�.IfCr Sm•A rL•.' AMFLVyy '��AMW.'C�®fs�'.:ZT!
All" Alzrlt
rrrcr ;fv!-r:cydw¢r.,- � �r�!►.�;rw�l,ara.tAd�Ram
Vem
r�rs':+dr.+rRr m ,. ` data shown on this map is obtained from Orange County
A" t x'�� #�- �"` � GIS and is for reference only.
..� Current Reservoir Lev I �.. Exact locations and boundaries should be Vedfred.
-;a'r[tw:•a' ter, sw• - .� Ma^x�'�� -• �_ -�'�''• r _ p prepared by Orange County Planning&Inspections.
�:*� _l r art_r_••:;- _ ..��-�_ =01202o-mboyle
?-' Jtfo�;z7'.ems►'
Easements --USGS Stream N
— OZoning
LINE CODE — 2' Contours (NCDOT) El Water Body
Road Easement 0 Parcels 1 inch=100feet
Reservoir Buffer i50ft Streets o 25 50
moomM=Feet
Setbacks from Phase 2 Level of Vilest Fork Eno Reservoir 41
...........
GA __
I .
i
J7�
l
t
644' Contour
0 Parcels Bush/Trogdon Parcel 1 in 400 reel
A ORANGE Feet
- `50' Buffer f 4-2Yl a 0 300
Orange County Plann6ng and Inspections
300''Buffer BC 1/2012020
folk9tle no DON
42
ARTICLE 4: OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT
777
4.1.1 Description, Standards, a Conflicts
(A) overlay districts are supplem I to eral zoning district classifications and are
applied in combination to addre ial situations or to accomplish specific planning
and land use goals,
(B) Unless otherwis pressly stated, all applicable lations of the underlying district
apply to pr rty in an overlay district.
(C) U s otherwise stated, all applicable standards of this Ordinan ply to property in
an overlay district.
(D) When overlay district standards conflict with standards that otherwise apply in
underlying district, the regulations of the overlay district always govern.
,SECTION 4.2: WATERSHED PROTECTION
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) band 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-11, 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
Section 4.2:Watershed Protection 43
§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 II 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
(S) 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 851U.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, W$III,
or WS-IV outside of areas designated as"Critical Area."
(E) General Locations of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
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 Gene 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:
C-ENO-CA Upper Eno Critical Area Corporation Lake (538' actual NPE,540'contour line used)and Lake
Overlay District Den Johnson(515' NPE and contour line used). One-half mile(straight
line measurement)from the normal pool elevatlon,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
Section 4.2:Watershed protection 44
■ PROTECTlON OVERLAY DISTRICTS
rGENERAL LOCATION
reservoirs: Lake Orange(615'NPE and contour line used) and West
Fork on the Eno(643.9'NPE,6440'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
lanimetrio project approved by Orange County 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 basil 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 Creels which is
HYCO-PW Protected Watershed located in Orange County-
Overlay District
Fiat 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-17 W 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(8)(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
(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__11. 1997
with respect to the Town of Hillsborough purchase of property associated with
expandin4 the West Fork of the Eno reservoir; o
1 The UDO made reference to what was identified as the normal pool elevation of the reservoir. Based on recent
Information from the Town,the expansion of the reservoir will result In a normal pool elevation of 643.9 ft. Staff is
tweaking existing language to reference the correct normal pool elevation and identify the methodology staff will
utillze to map the new boundary of the reservoir for regulatory compliance purposes,
2 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 4-3
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 45
Section 4.2: Watershed Protection
(2)(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-PVV 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/Usabfe Lot amendments, or
{4 Q 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
(6)(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, 6.13.8 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
fi.13.3, 6.13.4, 6,13.6, 6.13.8, 6.14.4, 6.14,10, 6.14,11, and 6.15.7(113)(3), is
defined as:
(a) A lot which was created prior to January 1, 1994, or
(bl A lot within the Upper Eno watershed which was created prior to
February 11. 1997 with respect to the Town of Hillsborough purchase of
property associated with development of the West Fork on the Eno
reservoir; or
M(c) A lot within the Cane Creep 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
( )(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
Orange County,North Carolina--Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-4
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 46
Section 4.2:Watershed Protection
(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),
3 Land Use Restrictions
All uses and activities allowed in the underlying zoning district are permitted with the folly g
ceptions;
DISFRICT -
UNIV-CA new landfills are permitted.
UNIV-PW No mmercial or industrial uses are permitted except fo ommercial development, in
CANE-CA actor ce with the provisions of the Ordinance, lot d within established Nodes as
iJ-ENO-CA detailed ' in the Orange County Comprehensive an.
No new olf urses are permitted
UNIV-CA
CANE-CA No residual(siudg iosolids)applicatio permitted.
U-ENO-CA
CANE-PW
U-ENO-PW
HYCO-PW
LITTLE-PW No discharging landfills permitte Industrial use is limited to nonhazardous light
BACK-PW industrial uses chars rized by low wa r use(less than 10,000 gpd, excluding domestic
FLAT-PW water(25 gpd per ployee)and water a for heating and air conditioning).
HAW-PW
L-ENO-PW
JORDAN-PW
4.2.4 Residential Deno y
Maximum r tdential density shall be as indicated in the Table in this subsor as required
by the u erlying zoning district, whichever is less-
TABLE 4.2.4 RESIDENTIAL
IDENSITY
DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY
Orange County, North Carolina—Unified Development Ordinance Page 4-5
47
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 "'�� Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
A Ell
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager
FROM: Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO — Current Planning Supervisor
DATE: March 5, 2020
SUBJECT: REVIEW of Status of 2520 Carr Store Road (PIN 9848-51-5777)
This memorandum provides a synopsis on the impacts of a pending Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment, related to setbacks for structures and
septic systems from the West Fork on the Eno reservoir, on a parcel of property located
at 2520 Carr Store Road within the Cheeks Township of Orange County.
The parcel, further identified utilizing Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9848-51-5777,
is approximately 7.8 acres in area and is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) Upper Eno
Critical Watershed Protection Overlay District. The property is currently developed,
specifically with a 588 sq.ft. structure purportedly used as a single-family residence. As
currently configured, the parcel was created with the recordation of an exempt
subdivision plat within Plat Book 119 Page 69 of the Orange County Registrar of Deeds
office on October 10, 2018. As staff understands it, the property owner sold/transferred
acreage to an adjacent property owner reducing the subject parcel from 11 to 7.8 acres
in size (hereafter `the property').
Please refer to Attachment 1 for a map of the property.
BACKGROUND: As detailed within the March 10, 2020 BOCC public hearing abstract,
the UDO establishes setback standards for structures and septic systems from a
reservoir. Section(s) 4.2.2 (F) and (1) of the UDO establishes applicability of these
standards, including criteria defining properties (developed and undeveloped)
considered to be `grandfathered' with respect to applicable setbacks.
The proposed amendment establishes the effective date for the final boundary of the
West Fork on the Eno reservoir, which is February 12, 1997 (i.e. the date the Town
48
purchased property allowing for the expansion of the reservoir) and updates existing
references to the final normal pool elevation (NPE) of the reservoir, which according to
the Town of Hillsborough is now going to be 642 ft.
IMPACTS TO THE PROPERTY: The proposed amendments have the following impact
on the property:
1. Amendment of Section 4.2.2 (E) General Locations of Watershed Protection
Overlay Districts updating references to the NPE of the West Fork on the Eno
Reservoir from 643 ft. to 642 ft.
STAFF COMMENT: Originally, the amendment referenced changing the
NPE for the reservoir from 643 ft. to 643.9 ft. based on data supplied by
the Town. Recently, the Town provided additional information to staff
indicating the NPE for the reservoir would actually be 642 ft. This results
in a slight reduction in the required 150 ft. (structure) and 300 ft. (septic)
setback areas around the reservoir.
IMPACTS: Less area of the property is encumbered within established structure
and septic setbacks for a reservoir. Attachment 2 provides a map denoting the
revised setback areas for the property.
2. Amendment of Section 4.2.2 (F) Existing Development of the LIDO to include
references to the February 12, 1997 date at which the final boundary of the West
Fork on the Eno reservoir was established.
STAFF COMMENT: Structures/septic systems installed with valid permits
prior to the date the final boundary of the reservoir was established, in this
case February 12, 1997, qualify as `existing development'.
Existing development is allowed to be `replaced' provided: ... 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.
IMPACTS: The property had a 3-bedroom septic system installed in 1987 with a
valid permit issued by Orange County Health — Well and Septic Division. This
system is considered to be `existing development' and can be maintained as
currently located.
There was a mobile home on the property prior to February 12, 1997. In 2013
staff allowed the property owner to place a new single-family residence on the
property consistent with the location of the aforementioned mobile home,
previously removed, as it was viewed to constitute `existing development' (i.e. the
mobile home was installed prior to established dates and the replacement did not
result in an increase in impervious surface area and did not encroach any farther
into the 150 ft. reservoir setback than the aforementioned mobile home).
The property owner has already benefitted from the provisions of Section 4.2.2
(F) and the proposed amendment will not impact the existing septic system or
residence. The property owner can even expand the existing residence so long
as said expansion is outside of the 150 ft. structure setback from a reservoir.
49
3. Amendment of Section 4.2.2 (1) Existing Lots of the UDO to include references to
the February 12, 1997 date at which the final boundary of the West Fork on the
Eno reservoir was established.
STAFF COMMENT: This section of the UDO is utilized to identify an
`existing lot' (i.e. lots legally created prior to the establishment of the final
boundary of the reservoir). For the West Fork on the Eno reservoir, an
existing lot is one created on or before February 12, 1997 (i.e. the date the
Town completed purchasing of property allowing for the expansion of the
reservoir).
Parcels meeting the definition of an `existing lot' can qualify for an
administrative waiver where the Planning Director, in consultation with the
Health Department — Well and Septic Division, can modify the 300 ft.
reservoir setback for septic systems based on the following criteria:
1. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms;
2. The septic tank, drainfield and repair area can be accommodated
on 20,000 square feet of area or less;
Staff is required to officially determine the encroachment of the septic
system/repair area into the 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 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.
Per the UDO, the amount of encroachment into the reservoir setback
buffer is the minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting
applicable criteria.
IMPACTS: The lot was originally created with the recordation of a plat within Plat
Book 77 Page 126 of the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office on February
11, 1997. This plat was associated with the Town of Hillsborough purchasing
property for the reservoir. With the recording of this plat (i.e. Plat Book 77 Page
126) the parcel (Original PIN 9848-51-1449) was approximately 31 acres in area
and qualified as an `existing lot' under Section 4.2.2 (1) of the UDO.
The parcel has been subdivided a total of 3 times from 1997 to 2018 resulting in
the property as it exists today. The property does not qualify as an `existing lot'
under the provisions of Section 4.2.2 (1) of the UDO, meaning an administrative
waiver allowing for the reduction of the reservoir setback for a structure or septic
system cannot be granted by staff.
It should be noted the lot ceased to qualify as an `existing lot' when subdivided in
2000 by the former property owner.
If the current property owner seeks to modify applicable setbacks (i.e. 150 ft. for
structures and 300 ft. for septic systems), they will have to apply for a variance in
accordance with provisions of Section 2.10 of the UDO.
Attachment 3 provides copies of the various plats associated with the property.
50
h �
a a' is
I Ilrrr � � �3k Ipp@@p r m
a 4Ld
I I r�rl1 r r rho i � InI �E� 9
I I w r 61 Ldi
Li
a �
IS I
o93
�
r
It
'F LU
r � ill
rr 111 �, vt wo
ry l _III to
iD
4 ' •+ { r H loll'S v 4� Zq¢Q1 qp�p�' r �;
W CW�
~ � W in
AV
Fm F x
a,Wk�i�4lkF Rw Mwu
qV F Q h [y
9 �� a d [RMyf 3❑$I �aYll
y�NNN ixR,x Wxa � $ L21
z _
w® ppp y y�
• qE�ppyy �Lll
�y�Ifi
CI
G�
.w.er_�r.x„a�lw�e�w++ulr...flr+r.
51
` MED
25 APR 1997, at 12:16:42pm
SooEG 1576, {gage 30 - 30
PUBW C NOTICE Petty .lung Hayest
Register of Deedsp
SPLIT Orangef County, N. C.
NORTH CAROM I NA e'�n
ORANGE COUNTY* PAGE J[1
PRINTOUT PIN U
parcel iden ifier Number
'?, .-3 . - - -. -7l 6 1 So 43.t 7 A
twp map bik lot Account # Tract # Size
New Parcel Identifier Number
size Rate Code
_ ? _ - .3. �3�6 _
twp ' map bik lot Account # Tract N
Revenue Stamps _ -- o . x, Book/Page LY /:r 4h-
Description; FL 13ayrfft 0Au
Comments: q 9 I �
Name! I�JLVri4+ff tnJ 0 &V
Address; A 2+t ]...1, 00A0 (9&Xt,#j14, r
1
New Parcel Identifier Number:
y - -Z/o - 5 5 0 -2- / L
size Rate Code
twp map blk lot Account # Tract #
Revenue Stamps Book/Page
Description: 0 ,- le Ioaq 7-p�.,wl 1cst a,ea 19-4/roe&
Comments: /lp
Name: LCS461EDJar
Address:
ADDITIONAL PARCELS: YIS _ No
Split by;
"`�Plat
1-I i q4 Deed [�/ � Admin. Date
/ J
Prepared by: 43 , Data R }Z Keyed by: _ Date
u rnu '
oophrrxri� ..-,. 52
72
*MIU«ewnwnl.l.a...e.w•r+�r�l �77 IR `# I AMI CA�r
PP 0RRR
Y�rN.n n.W n WNn1Yn..I.w
n
e
--
to
jimv-
IV—
aJ -
of VIGINIir#u�
H/F MOA A Harrl. �/ a
uA 14M M ea � f 101 Ac. � � �� 00
Inar, hd 1
[sole■n,hlfwm") ■r j
4�
pop I&AM
$FE: �Q�riQaly A�ryi111�11t �
Yth6frldd h'T bpi :_
s�dtw'W m
x u7
DIVISION OF —
f aROP1R]V OF
WESLEY W. BLYTHE
,%44 I and
BEVERL Y A. BL YTHE
1 owe I Uar 19, 1907
Teri rye HN.hrn.pn SOIIF 116 tdv.
1 Ib14,+'+:r Iuil�iinWn i ' }� � IfTR
�1\� Jp !; �` l7pArthld 40H 91d�
alo �� ivrt 8f8M
mMOM sw
66!+k
Abu sw
�� � n111!a.d hY cacr,AreM carylul.n.n.
0/"Y M&-% r CA oddad)
W f
• Di! 1
ra, 4 �'yh-F � IPl! I,51ar.F.1'aFwn,L-7Tu,�WW 1Rei MM 141 b.
�f/ are. rrar,r-an1WA P+d p.rfarm.d enle my
� ,. � �'yh r i�1h O�rin��6�ir nuiP�u fea�Mrdatlo dhWrn{wa�n r41e cnd
plott"Imm 11m f r.rw.t a rm-b r¢IRI.fW.e.
6nl+s�e�I eeouruonn wllh 0.9.e7-SG w n�Mn.1.Ai
1 .wWp lY aT tl rtlPe{nH�etien W.14 hrNl N
1-979] Fad,a..ud wdw.d.+Pq.er oiR.r a.r94 to iM
�i G d.mwan a..alvwn
W f Wro«.. I �CrwM , I numwr.rle
alb
1 � � nrr °' d� I •4 �-
f rv.P.r
1 � r
CCG eyR NOW"14n0.M*fm co"
* { w I,a Nekerr PuhfM.1 lh.d64 anA SteLL d a.dti
M1 A ti� ruh 4� SI.Y.Y,riho<r.ah RM'+d lend i�rv.wl.
INTII rr....lYAiIAF..'daerf Fd{"{��r,l, pwaorAW apbrdr►d EHPfa Rr i �'and atkn P.ladq.e
z n rr. .rtif r.ar.11F•lam •� r r. h....Eaton PT 1M Iu+ph Mlp IMNn.nL r
e/F 1[era�M.M. "ILw �4� Ww on o .rrW hind o oedl t
DEL 1450 Fq 74 1 W %rll Y,Mlrra...M l.AP-d
1 7 r111M 1^Y.urn.. '-i �■ F�aF "/
4 Tyb ' rurl lu nN.R,4r.n I« r uSCIF.?13.. N.nn P.m
OYM1IF7N WAY W.6� � .rdi�' •'•��'l.J' � !!..]Ls]
Betrr�r A B ,�, �� � +h .•%I.r'e�... ,:Iwr ' W a«nml.lnn..po..r ��2Th`tl�i
1208 4171r Naad
War Qow,FIG 0231
t73 yd 6 Ta.n d HWAereupll
TN`'w pbtVr kkmdee ccgWivd by
�...n.o- a%1u.e ENT
rmrdid 'A
!n awk a Page IM
Tµ�31.. �Ai/�Ie�toy6-6i•4�r� .M-H Rye NJF M.,Un A,NWRr. 17l 7.thu.lun 77,.IMI.�.NY�R�NS
PIN Ap'1&�-14W M a 4/y •Kk 4H en••+rd1^r'+' r>tx�exer
MC ii/1 �r�osct—ai
53
PUBLIC.' NOVICE
SPLIT
PILED
NORTH CAROLINA Q3 SPP 1997, L%t 02s32e32pm
ORANGE COUNTY Book 1627, Page 569 - 569
Betty June Hayes,
Register of Deeds,
PRINTOUT PIN Orange County, N. C.
parcel identifier number
twp map blk lot Account # Tract 9 size
Now Parcel Identifier Number
Size Rate Coda
twp map blk lot Account # Tract 0�
Revenue Stamps -- _ _ Book/Page L07/_!�,5�
Description.
Comments:
Name: r- L ..........� .de7 e}-
Address: .. Q.. - ._....1 ._ b. _ ..._
New Parcel Identifier Number:
Sire Rate Cade
twp map bkk lot Account # Tract #
Revenue Stamps Rook/Page /
Description:'� --*�Jlerj _"$��{• 1 ._._ ..� _
Comments;
Nane: �el- 3.0k7f':l.��tom__/ 1
Address; .✓v' Y __0 .1l1Y fr..— . . � . "]�GBI?'4� '.—
ADDITIONAL PARCELS! YES NO
Split by: Plat ___f Dead / Admin. Date -
Prepared byre Date _.._/ / Keyed by: __..... . Date
� sr
s
Rp �Yi11
L7� R PON.
dip Jf
a+
� I
'1 7 A
i L
1 pk�
Ie"
s
w
a .
It 6 R
I I ifp I 11 � Y
fly 'it
�` 14:1ri'giln��rl7rulurpVl1111'�Ilrlgrtrni°'!'�'IIrJ�'i'IIII,��„�1�,�•,. .,' I.Ii.rrqR"Ir'r'r'r'rllli''Irl'lll'9LIIIgI�,..ri9•Ivrv�.l,iq�,ulv'I§�pl�l
55
PAGE 1 OF 1 [i OK 21 11 Pr+l:L 21 1=ILL- ]
Document : 9848514826 1,1 DEX 2000� Zkt 0,912,0.-U2pm
PUBLIC NOTICE Book 2171, Pogo 181 1,61
JOYcO H. Pearson
SPLIT Registor of !Deeds,
� C]r�irlgcr t:o�a1-a�:y, N. C:.
� NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE COUNTY
PARENT PIN: 9848-51-4826
TMBL: 2 . 32. ,39B
Account #: 217493 Tract 4: 256434
Size: 20. 18 A
New Parcel
9848-52-3121
Tmbl : 2 .32 . , 39E Account #:
Tram #: Size: 10 .01 A
Book/Page: 1154/346 Rateccde; 16
Revenue Stamps : f
Description 1: 1 BEVERLY BLY`:�HE P S1 //9
Description 2 ; I
Comments:
Name: BLYTHS, WESLEY W. & BEVERLY A.
Address: 1208 CARR STORE RD
City: CEDAR GROVE State: NC Zipcode : 27231
New Parcel
9848-51.-1.446
TiY'bl : 2 . 32. .48 Account ##:
Tract #: size: 1,1.. 8E A
Book/Page ; SAME Ratecode: 16
Revenue Stamps:_ _
Description 1 : 2 BEVERLY BLYTHE P S-1/19
Description 2 :
Comments:
Name: SAME
Address:
City. State: Zipcode:
ADDITIONAL PARCELS : NO
Split By: Flat 8- I Deed /� Admin. Date
Prepared Sy: late tom. /i3---Fo 0 Keyed By: Sate - /
5
IN ORA,, T -
VA�
�,M+wrr .0 rr�e f N I ■
yw/�� pul r urrrn gy I
—1 f S w,f•w,oarw+wll
--- �sT*nE ItOF4 1 _
-- f„„�.r,aofanK Ml s y
- All.
ry J
141,Ly1 r ' a
1
Tom
r
arm
Isru� r
r �Mr.OLwI�
+ f
i 1 '
r r
f � r
� + I
r
;`f I Il �1 rf1i1�-: ��-51-14Y6
I I �N++r4:arvV-sr•sra�� �
r '
/J4 Wle
l, � r
f
+xwrrn x.r.xw ra � r
ri �r
JAMES K Brn-RF-AKEY
LEGEND � f �7r.'«f AND
CARDL 6REAKEY
1'IIIIfNGw.� � rrrl�eV.h mYh.Ji'
1NMNM hF!YL_e �r 6[4F'
(.Ila4 il.r MLA OH`rni h
�-OII l;-..R �tirliM ldilrpM1 RW rIM4 hMM1 11f NO
S unwc Yhlrr M IIH I,x A,.r L8y ry6 YFa Tr R �4kFS b
A S CKTES.INC.
}} fnx
""' --T ',r.�;Jr^n'�'w �:•�.. .r..""}0'&7.'?. ew.L s.a.. LAND SURVOMM
V ASM GRrx T�Il Ti lvF rrr.�m anrn 1��yYL h.yovf
4 W 179 Ib 1.W.L NM.n.PPalT mwmilnr rrs ova.r�Yv+ I.{sl w�TaMi
•o r�vE M A.MI B.,otl.Irul 311CLLW xL:SFJV7r
dRAMRC SGI{ r0 IS-.fl}5 F�Y 10'AA-9fL16
57 1
14����1��I���11������1 IflIII II�I�4IIlIII41I1�Il
DOCUMENT: 9848511446_100918 PAGE 1 of 1
NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC NOTICE
SPLIT 20 1 6 1 0 1 00001 92730 SPLIT
ORANGE COUNTY Bk:RB6530 P :336
is/10120to 12;41:03 PM 1/1
PIN: 9848-51-1446
Township: 2 FILED Hark cr,tlton
Resister of Deeds 6ranpe Cn.NC
Size; 11,88 A Rorprdinp %% gg Tit=O
NC eat Estate $.00
NEW PARCEL (.f(yy�tJ
PIN: 9848-51-5777 Township: 2 Parcel Size: i.88 A
Book/Page: 6310/572 Rate Code: 16
Revenue Stamps:
Description: MAJ 2 BEVERLY 13LYTHE P87119
Comments:
Owner: BUSH ROBERT C&TROGDON TABETHA L
Address: 2520 CARR STORE RD
City, CEDAR GROVE State: NC Zipcode: 27231
NEW PARCEL
PIN: 9848-51-1433 Township: 2 Parcel Size: 4 A
Book/Page: 6310/572 Rate Code: 16
Revenue Stamps:
Description: I JAMES K BREAKI=Y&CAROL BREAKEY P loq
Comments: DUMMY
Owner: BUSH ROBERT C&TROGDON TABETHA t_
Address: 2520 CARR STORE RD
City: CEDAR GROVE State: NC Zipcode: 27231
ADDITIONAL PARCELS: NO
Split By: Plat 1 &If Deed I Admin, pate: I !
Prepared By:1&0 pate: Ili 1 10 / 2419 Keyed By' Date! ! 1
` West Fork of the Eno (Area 1 ) 58
OR
CA ORE Ra
FLR
k ' J
j
}
NO
V
642' Contour
0 I lfi^,]il it i%:i
ORANGE
Parcels -
150' Buffer from 642' Contour COUM1Iry 0 30G
Orange County Planning and Inspections
300' Buffer from 642' Contour BC 31512020
P116/124 2.60A CA/R
R ?68;,4 CL 59
262.22 243.36
33.9J
255.40 � o (1?g.65)v
294.96 co 5o3.8
O � ) 9 C�
279.76
rn
11.16A 00
0 2.73 AC CAL (43p�
1A 1_B N
P119/69 P90/88
LO
33.27 387.84 p o3.60A
131.87 CO 1.83A
O
A
1 C 7.88A
11.01 A P119/69 2 P87/19 140.43 `13 C
� 986.51 `srn 300.79
2g �
Q
�O
co
o C?
h w
rn C.0
A
v
CO
739 87 ��0 152.94A
D co
M W�
M
N
N
n�5 P94/70
O co M
000 `*
0 N
N Mtr>'
N
N
12,Lg0
Town of Hillsborough
PIN#:9848515777
ROBERT C BUSH
TABETHA L TROGDON
1329 NEWTON PLEASANT LOOP RD
HURDLE MILLS, NC 27541
1%Annual Chance of Addresses Parcel—Lines N ' `.,-0
Flooding (Previously STATUS LINE CODE W E
referred to as the 100-
year flood zone) • Active —Old Lot Line
• Retired —Parcel Line S
—USGS Stream 1 inch = 245 feet
Parcels 300 150 0 300 Feet