Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 10-21-2003-9c
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 21, 2003 Action Ager~a Item No. ~ - ~ SUBJECT: Growth Management System -Amendments to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) ~~ ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Growth Management System (GMS) Issues/Response Report - 9/3/02 BOCC Mtg. 2) Table -GMS 3) Map -GMS 4) Map -Existing Comprehensive Plan 5) Ordinance -Special Use Subdivision 6) Process and Time Frame Outline 7) GMS Comments Responses - 8/25/03 Public Hearing 8) Draft Minutes - 9/3/03 PB Meeting 9) Legal Ad - 8/25/03 Public Hearing INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, ext. 2592 Geof Gledhill, County Attorney, 732-2196 John Link, County Manager, ext. 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To close the Public Hearing and make a decision on the proposed Growth Management Amendments to the County's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, a proposal which would require major subdivisions of property to follow either the current process, a Planned Development process, or a Class A Special Use Permit process depending upon location, (which is a product of transition areas and water and sewer availability) and number of lots. The following is an outline for the remainder of this abstract: I BACKGROUND II BOCC/PB JOINT PUBLIC HEARING III PROCESS CHANGES -SUBDIVISION REVIEW IV SUBDIVISION REGULATION CHANGES V ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES VI IMPLEMENTATION PIPELINE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT (JPA) EXISTING PROCESS AND TIMEFRAME OUTLINE VII REGULATION CHANGE PROCESS VIII FINANCIAL IMPACT IX RECOMMENDATION(S) z BACKGROUND Planning Board (PB) Request to BOCC - On May 6, 2002, the Orange County Planning Board forwarded a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding, among other issues, the need for additional growth controls in large residential developments. BOCC/PB Joint Meeting - During a joint BOCC/Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2002, there was additional discussion of some of the challenges posed to County services because of the location of large developments. BOCC Resolution - On June 18, 2002, the BOCC passed a resolution requesting that relevant issues and possible actions be researched prior to further deliberation. BOCC Requests Preparation of Special Use Permit (SUP) Process - A brief discussion at the August 29, 2002 work session laid the groundwork for the September 3, 2002 BOCC meeting where a Growth Management System (GMS) Issues/Response Report (Attachment 1) was presented by the Planning Director, County Manager and County Attorney. After the presentation, the Board directed the Administration to prepare a Special Use Permit approval process for large- scale residential development projects. These amendments are the result of that directive. Growth Management System (GMS) -The discussion of managing development led to two primary issues: What was the scale of the project? (i.e. how many lots); and Where is the project being proposed? The facets of this proposal will encourage the appropriate scaling of subdivisions. For example, a subdivision consisting of more than 40 lots in Cedar Grove will have a different impact, both visually, environmentally, and from a public services provision standpoint, than it would if it were located in a Transition Area just outside of Hillsborough or Efland. Subdivision Traffic Comparative Impact A technical rationale was developed to differentiate the impacts of potential traffic generated by subdivisions of different lot counts and based on the type of road. Road widths and design configurations can accommodate varying amounts of traffic volume, so it is important to evaluate the relative impacts to a road system not based solely on lot count but also on the capacity/design of the adjacent road. Below are some examples of how traffic impacts can be equated on different roads and different size/scale subdivisions. The thresholds are objectively based on percentage traffic increase to the total capacity of the road system. One must also understand that prior to total road capacity buildout, the road has actual lower traffic counts that, from a subjective standpoint, create a relatively higher percentage traffic increase in the interim. DAILY CAPACITY (LOS `D') Subdivision Subdivision Rural Road Subdivision Road Urban Road Size Traffic 2-lane 2-lane 3-lane 8,000 12,000 16 000 ' 20 200 2.5 1.7 1.3 40 400 5.0 ;:..3 2.5 80 800 10.0 6.7 5.0 The impact of projects with over 5% traffic increase above total capacity comports to significant changes warranting the additional review through the subdivision and zoning process. The proposed Growth Management System promotes subdivision analysis, specialized standards review, and design at scales consistent with arural/agricultural character or urban character depending upon geographic location within the County. In addition to putting forth growth regulations that manage the size and location of projects, this proposal includes additional land development performance standards based on the scale of the project. In essence, the larger the project, the more complex research and analysis are necessary to ameliorate the potential impact of the project. Scale could also involve acreage consideration but the variability is more dependent upon land use density conditions that could be better managed by Comprehensive Plan guidance that will eventually compliment these zoning and subdivision regulations. This proposal provides a tiered subdivision review process based on the location and the number of lots proposed. II BOCC/PB JOINT PUBLIC HEARING The County Commissioners and Planning Board conducted a Joint Quarterly Public Hearing on the proposed Growth Management System Amendments on Auguste 25, 2003 at the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom. A Powerpoint presentation was conducted followed by questions from the BOCC and PB. The public was present but did not comment or ask questions. III PROCESS CHANGES -SUBDIVISION REVIEW The basis of the subdivision process changes is a differentiation between urban and rural designation areas and the associated and relative impacts that occur based on project lot size in a specific location. Although various options of rural/urban designation areas were presented at the public hearing for perspective, the suggested version was Option 1. Option 1 included a 13.2 square mile area as the `Urban Designation', which is comprised of the existing 10 and 20-year Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element transition areas, which are within the adopted Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map. The rest of the County is designated `Rural'. 4 August 2003 proposal: (See Attachment 2 for a summary of the following information in tabular format) PROCESS CATEGORY 1 1) Type: STANDARD MAJOR [Rural or Urban Designated] Lots: 6-20 Area: Within all zoning districts and subdivisions of land in "Urban Designated" or "Rural Designated" areas Colors: Green and Tan (NOTE: No change proposed with this amendment) PROCESS CATEGORY 2 -SPECIAL USE PROCESS (SUP) 2a) Type: CLASS A SUP [Rural Designated] Lots: 21-40* Area: Within all zoning districts and subdivisions of land in "Rural Designated" areas Map Color. Green 2b) Type: CLASS A SUP [Urban Designated] Lots: 21-79 Area: Within all zoning districts and subdivisions of land in "Urban Designated" areas Map Color. Tan PROCESS CATEGORY 3 -REZONING SUP 3a) Type: Planned Development (PD)/SUP [Rural Designated] (Legislative Rezoning with Quasi-judicial Special Use Permit, Class A) Lots: 41 + Area: Within all zoning districts and subdivisions of land in "Rural Designated" areas Map Color. Green 3b) Type: PD/SUP [Urban Designated] (Legislative Rezoning with Quasi-judicial Special Use Permit, Class A) Lots: 80+* Area: Within all zoning districts and subdivisions of land in "Urban Designated" areas Map Color. Tan * The Planning Board requested that in the Rural Designated areas, a Planned Development rezoning be required of all subdivisions containing 20 or more lots (versus greater than 40 lots as proposed by Administration). Any project above 40 lots in a `green' (Rural Designation) area (See Growth Management System Map, Attachment 3) and above 79 lots in a `tan' (Urban Designation) area would have the option to pursue rezoning. Rezoning for subdivision purposes would not necessarily, and in most cases would not, include any change in land use density. Normally, projects filed for planned development in the Rural Designation areas are based on design (reduction in lot size and increased open space, type of units, etc.) and whether or not the project, as proposed by the developer, advances the County's goals in housing and environmental related areas. [A copy of the County's existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map has been provided as Attachment 4] IV SUBDIVISION REGULATION CHANGES A. Sets the new criteria for determining whether a proposed subdivision is to be processed as a Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use or a Major Subdivision, Planned Development Class A Special Use under existing zoning ordinance provisions of Article 7 and 8, respectively. The determining factors are location (whether inside or outside of Transition Areas and Water and Sewer Service Areas) and the number of lots proposed. V ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES (See Growth Management System Ordinance, Attachment 5) A. Adds language to the Permitted Use -Table by identifying subdivisions as either a Planned Development or Major Subdivision Class A Special Uses under both the Housing (H) and Service (S) categories B. Amends Table of Contents, Article 6.29, "Development Standards for Economic Development Districts" and Article 4.3, "Permitted Use Table" to add 6.29.4, "Additional Requirement for Certain Subdivisions". C. Creates a new Special Use identified as 8.8.29 "Major Subdivision Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban Designated)" with corresponding subheadings and nomenclature identified in the proposed amendment. D. New Special Use Permit performance criteria (Section 8.8 29 1A) for all subdivision apulications above 20 lots: (See attached Ordinance for descriptions) a) Notification b) Development Schedule c1) Water/Sewer Commitment c2) Water Resource Report c3) Sewage Disposal Report d) Open Space Connectivity e) Natural & Human-Made Resources f) Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan g) Landscape Plan Details Additional performance criteria, Section 8.8.29.1 B (For all subdivision applications including more than 40 lots): a) Solid Waste b) Biological Inventory c) Environmental Mitigation d) Traffic Study (For all subdivision applications including more than 40 lots in "Rural Designated" areas and more than 80 lots within "Urban Designated" areas): VI IMPLEMENTATION PIPELINE There are currently no projects `in the pipeline' that are vested, in terms of Preliminary Plan submittal and BOCC approval, that would be required to follow either of the proposed processes. However, there is one project for which a Concept Plan of approximately 26 lots has been submitted and the Planning Board has recommended for approval in April, 2002. The property owner has not submitted for the preliminary plan approval process that will go to the Planning Board and eventually to the BOCC. JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) It should be noted that subdivisions in the Rural Buffer that require a Planned Development Zoning Amendment will entail a Courtesy Review per the Joint Planning Agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. EXISTING PROCESS AND TIMEFRAME OUTLINE (See Process and Timeframe Outline, Attachment 6) VII REGULATION CHANGE PROCESS 1) Public Hearing held on August 25, 2003 (Comments and responses from the hearing have been summarized and are attached as Growth Management System Comments and Responses, Attachment 7. 2) Planning Board, on September 3, 2003, recommended the proposed amendments, with changes noted herein, to the BOCC. 3) BOCC considers adopting the proposed amendments on October 21, 2003. VIII FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no public financial impact associated with this item. However, the proposed Growth Management System includes additional steps that will take additional time for the BOCC and Planning Board to review. In addition, Staff time to process subdivisions will greatly increase. Staff will report on the impact on human resources following a year of implementation. IX RECOMMENDATION(S) Planning Board -The Planning Board, by majority vote (8-1, See Draft Minutes, Attachment 8) on September 3, 2003, recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the proposed Growth Management System amendments with the following specifications: a. The use of the attached map (Option 1 presented at the August 25th Joint Public Hearing) for designating Urban and Rural areas; and b. In the Rural Designation area, a Planned Development zoning amendment requirement for afl subdivisions containing 20 or more lots (versus greater than 40 lots as proposed by Administration). Administration -The Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve the proposed Growth Management System amendments with the following specifications: a. The use of the attached Growth Management System Map (Option 1 presented at the August 25th Joint Public Hearing) for designating "Urban and Rural Designated" areas; and b. In the Rural Designation area, a Planned Development zoning amendment requirement for all subdivisions containing greater than 40 lots. The legal advertisement (Attachment 9) for the August 25, 2003 Joint Public Hearing does not support, from a legal notification standpoint, the Planning Board's recommendation stated above in Planning Board, Part "b". Therefore, should the BOCC choose to consider the Growth Management System, including the Planning Board's recommendation, it is suggested that the BOCC approve and adopt the amendments as noted in "Administration" above and then direct Staff to proceed towards the new lot number threshold (41 lots to 21 lots) through a new legal ad process and a November 2003 Public Hearing. Planning Staff Depart for August 2~, 202 Board of County Commissioners W©rk Season Growth Control Issues ISSUE l: Identify the details of a proposed moratoria including: size and scale of a large residential project. RESPONSE: August 7`~, 2002, the Planning Board agreed to define Large development as any subdivision with 20 or more lots. ISSUE 2: Determine what `pipeline"proposals would be affected. RESPONSE: The Planning Board discussed three "pipeline" options at which to stop an existing project: 1.} A subdivision that has been submitted to staff; 2.} The project's concept plan has been approved by the Planning Board; 3.} A project that has been issued a formal preliminary approval by the BoCC. ISSUE 3: List the steps necessary to produceJimplement alimited growth moratorium or other growth control. RESPONSE; 1. Report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of June 18, 2002, in res~nse to the Orange County Planning Boazd "Growth Control Letter of May 6, 2002. A moratorium could be enacted in the following time frame. The length of the moratorium would be coordinated with the completion of a unified development ordinance which would create a special use process for major subdivisions. The Plazming Board has asked for additional time to process subdivision applications. The comprehensive plan land use element, adequate public facilities ordinance, and ordinance revisions regarding water resource issues would be concurrently researched and implemented to some degree. The shortest regular timeframe for the enactment of a moratorium would be as follows: Request for Legal Ad November 6, 2002 Quarterly Public Hearing November 25, 2002 Planning Board Action December 4, 2002 BOCC Action December I0, 2002 A shorter timeframe if requested could be accomplished by creating a special public hearing at a regular BOCC date. RESPONSE: 2. Unified Development ordinance Definition A Unified Development Ordinance (UDO} is a combined land development code that integrates the present planning regulatory system of "free standing" codes of subdivision, zoning, environmental impacts, erosion control, flood management and economic development. The Unified Development fhdinance creates a comprehensive and cross-referenced document, combines various land use controls in a different procedural context. Far example, 9 the legislative review of special use zoning can be integrated with the typical administrative context of subdivision review. Special conditions, therefore, can be put forth on subdivisions of relatively high impact. General and specific parameters of interest such as traffic, property values, affordable housing, phasing, open space, dedications, etc. can be addressed through the Unified Development Ordinance development approval process. The creation of a Unified Development Ordinance is time consuming and complex because all existing freestanding code must be collapsed and reorganized. into one dacumen~ Some existing code areas will be deleted in their present form and replaced with anon- conflicted, non-repetitive and aU-inclusive system ofreview. A consultant is suggested for this type of work, with a close overview by the Planning Director and eventual legal procedural review by the County Attorney. The document would also be reformatted to the prototypical indexing used by the municipal code corporation, which can then be codified and available on the internat. The time frame for Unified Development Ordinance development is about 8 - 9 months, and public hearing processing including final recommendations and adoption depending on the extent of outreach, can be an additional 3 - 6 months. Staff could first proceed with a request for qualifications (RFQ), and then proceed with a request for services. The cost of this type of Unified Development Ordinance development for a County is in the investigation stage. The Town of Chapel Hill is presently in the Unified Development Ordinance process and information regarding their experience can be given at the work;sesson. ISSUE 4: Explore legal consideration. RESPONSE: Legal report to be provided by County Attorney. ISSUE 5: Research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases. RESPONSE: In 2995 Huntersville, NC placed a 12-month moratorium on ati development in order to study traditional town planning methods and rewrite their existing zoning ordinance. Warwick, New York implemented a development moratorium while updating their comprehensive land use plan. ISSUE 6: Research through Institute of Government and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriunxs to accomplish short-term goals. RESPONSE: Ongoing 1.0 BOCC Work Session 8!29/02 Growth Control Recommendations I. Develop an outline for a special use permit (SUP) process for the subdivision of land creating 20 or more lots to be presented at 4!17!2002 BOCC meeting II. Notify every applicant for residential subdivision approval: (1) whose application ar proposed. application is not also :for a planned development special use permit; or (2) whose application or planned application involves the subdivision of land into 20 or more lots that the Board of Commissioners will consider amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, on or before December 2, 2002, to pravide.that any subdivision of land creating 20 or more lots is a special use requiring a special use permit, • The amendments that will be considered may include other procedural and substantive requirements. These requirements may include: (aj greater detail, coverage and confirmation of the `~rield plan" required in the evaluation of whether the project maybe approved as a conventional plan or a flexible plan; (b} professionally prepared .groundwater analysis if the residential lots are proposed to be served by wells; (c) public water supply availability if the residential lass are proposed to be served by a public water system. • The notification shall advise the applicant that the applicant will not be considered to have acted in good faith if the applicant proceeds, after the notification, with an application while the amendments are under consideration. • An application that has received special use permit agpravaL, preliminary plan approval or that has been scheduled for Board of Commissioner preliminary plan aetioni, will not be so notified and may proceed according to its special use permit or preliminary plan approval and'the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations irr effect on the date of approval. • Begin the notification process as soon as possible. 1 Only one residential subdivision that has not received either a special use permit or prelim irrar}r plan approval would likely qualify for consideration by the Board of Commissioners under the zoning and subdivision rules in place now. That subdivision is Eno Ridge which is scheduled for Board consideration on September 17,.2002. r1 III. Hold a special public hearing on October 15, 2002 for creating a special use permit (SUP} process with decision by BOCC at tither 11/1/2002 or 12/02/2002 Board meeting. N. Advertise a request far qualifications (RFQ} to identify consultants with unified development ordinance ([TDO} experience as soon as possible.. V. Therea$er release a request for proposals (RFP} or a request for services for a consultant to help with unified development ordinance development and preparation. VI. • Develop a unified development ordinance (UDO) that correlates with the comprehensive land use plan update.. + Estimated Completion of UDO and comprehensive land use plan update: 6-12 months. W E-+ r, F U Q Ey fl U N U ~a 0 a ~ ~ ~, ~ w ~~ ~ v ~ . v~ ~, ~~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ O -7 ~ as ~j A !~, a> y ~ v a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~~-~~AA~ ~. U ~~ ^ ^ • ^ ^ r ^ •~ ~ oa o 0 a ~ ..s °° ~ w° A ~ v ~ u u ~ ._,, ~' ~ o x~ ~ Sao ~~ :~Q ~ ~~~ '~ N ~ ~ . di UA ~ ~~ xUa ~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ .~ .~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ U ... U ~ ~~~a~ ~ a.~~~i~~•~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ O pp.~ pp., ~~, ~~Fa ~ a oE= O~n°xOpq ~a O~D~,rrWj rn ~.Q ~~NUO ~ ~ i i. A ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ -~ .° v ~ ~ ~az ° ;~~~ ~~' A3~ ~ ~, ~.~ ~ ~ .~.~i ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~~ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 13 ATTACHMENT 2 306F REVERE ROAD October 21, 2003 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOCC MEETING TABLE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM URBAN DESIGNATION WITHIN TRANSITION AREA OVERLAY AND WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AREAS [1] PRIMARILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL R-1 AND OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS TAN* MA]OR SUBDNISIONS STANDARD CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT 1 Nu L ~r of 6-20 21-40 41-79 80+ Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Minimum. Existing Standards in Section Standards in Section Standards in Section 2, Subdivision Upgraded IV of Subdivision Code IV of Subdivisian IV of Subdivision Design Standards in Code Code Standards Section IV of Subdivision Code Yes, Yes, Yes, General General General Requirements Requirements in Requirements in in Article 8.1-8.7, 8.8 Article 8.1-8.7, 8.8 Article 8.1-8.7, 8.8 4 Special Use NO a-d and a-d and a-d and Permit (QJ) Specific Requirements Specific Specific in 8.8.29.1A Requirements in Requirements in 8.8.29.1A and 8.8.29.1A and 8.8.29.16 8.8.29.16 Planned Yes, Development 3. Zoning NO NO NO Requirements in Amendment Article 7 of Zoning (L) Code Decision Processes: (L) -Legislative (QJ) -Quasi-Judicial [1] Includes Adopted Comprehensive Plan 10 & 20-Year Transition Areas and EDD located in Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement Service Areas *See New Zoning District Map a/k/a Special Use Subdivision Growth Management System Map Annotation Notes: (not to be part of Ordinance) • All Subdivision proposals must also be in accordance with Land Use Density and Zoning Regulations. • No change recommended for Minor Subdivisions or Major Subdivisions equal to or less than 20 lots ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 14 ATTACHMENT 2 306F REVERE ROAD October 21, 2003 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOCC MEETING RURAL DESIGNATION OUTSIDE OF TRANSITION AREAS BALANCE OF COUNTY~S ZONING JURISDICTION GREEN* MA70R SUBDIVISIONS MAJOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Number of Lots 6-20 21-40 41+ 2. Minimum Design Yes, Yes, Yes, Standards Existing Upgraded Standards in Section IV of Standards in Section IV of Standards in Subdivision Code Subdivision Code Section IV of Subdivision Code 4• Yes, Yes, Special Use Permit NO General Requirements in Article General Requirements in Article ~QJ) 8.1-8.7, 8.8 a-d and Specific 8.1-8.7, 8.8 a-d and Specific Requirements in 8.8.29.1A Requirements in 8.8.29.1A and 8.8.29.16 3. Planned Yes, Development NO NO Zoning Requirements in Article 7 of Amendment (L) Zoning Code Decision Processes: (L) -Legislative (QJ) -Quasi-Judicial *See New Zoning District Map a/k/a Special Use Subdivision Growth Management System Map Annotation Notes: (not to be part of Ordinance) • No change recommended for Minor Subdivisions or Major Subdivisions equal to or less than 20 lots ~ ~. Attachment 3 Growth Management System Urban and Rural Designated Areas: Option 1 Presented at 8/25/03 Joint Public Hearing DRAFT N W E S fiend Ion 1 Designation: Rural Designation Urban Designation City Limits ETJ Rural Buffer -r R-1 Existing zoning category outside of W&S Boundary GIS map created by Miriam Coleman, Orange County Planning Dept., 10/16/03 tlfll 4 LAND USE ELEMENT of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Original Adoption Date 9-&81 Amended through &29.00 N W E S end: )year transition year transition ural Residential ural Buffer )ricultural Residential :source Protection Areas unicipal Jurisdictions ~blic Interest Areas 'ater Supply Watersheds latershed Critical Areas Nodes ual Community Node ual Neighborhood Node ual Industrial Node ~mmercial Node tmmercial/Industrial Node ~onomic Development :/CH/CA Joint Planning Area 1~ GIS map prepared by Miriam Coleman, Orange County Planning Department, 1131/03 Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 17 Bold =Proposed Language St+iket#reugk =Deleted Language An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended as follows: Section 1. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend Definitions Section II to create new definitions as follows: Resources Management Plan - A document and map, submitted as a part of a Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use Permit application or a Major Subdivision, Planned Development Atlas Amendment with SUP application, that sets forth, in detail, the location of and the proposed methods for: 1) protection of natural resources (i.e. habitat maintenance, existing vegetation, and mitigation of environmentally sensitive areas), 2) ownership and maintenance of open spaces (common open space, proposed conservation easements, and landscape buffers) 3) provision of services (solid waste management to include recycling, storm water management (temporary and permanent), irrigation systems to include the source of water, 4) the handling of land clearing debris. Major Subdivision 1) Major Subdivision, Standard -All subdivisions not classified as either Minor Subdivision or Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use or Major Subdivision, Planned Development. 2) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated (21-40 Lots)-A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-401ots. 3) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Urban Designated (21-79 Lots)--A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-791ots. 4) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Rural Designated (41+ Lots)-- A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 41 or more lots. Ordinance as recommended by Adnunistration ATTACHMENT 5 18 5) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Urban Designated (80+ Lots)-- A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 80 or more lots. For the purpose of determining whether a subdivision is a Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban Designated), or a Major Subdivision, Planned Development, (Rural Designated or Urban Designated) the number of lots created shall be determined by counting the cumulative number of lots created, through subdivisions, on a tract or parcel of land as the boundaries of said tract or parcel of land existed in the Land Records of Orange County as of [the effective date of these Amendments] Rural Designated -For property that is not located in Urban Designated areas as defined in these definitions. Urban Designated -For property that is located within a Transition Area as identified in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and also within a Primary Service Area as defined by the Water and Sewer Management Planning and the Boundary Agreement and Map adopted December 3, 2001 and as either may be amended from time to time. Wetlands -Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (Definition taken from EPA regulations at 40 CFR Section 230.3(t) and COE Regulations at 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), as of July 2°d, 2002) Section 2. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend Section III-D-3 to read as follows: Preliminary Plat A proval Application and approval procedures specified in this Section made apply to all Preliminary Plats.- except and to the extent that applicable Orange County Zoning Ordinance application and approval procedures pertain. The applicant of a major subdivision not otherwise classified as a Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban Designated) or a Major Subdivision, Planned Development (Rural Designated or Urban Designated) may 13eweve~ choose to vest the Preliminary Plat for a longer time period than is otherwise provided by this Section. If he/she wishes to exercise this option, the application approval procedures required for Class A Special Uses shall apply as specified in Article 8 of the Orange County Zoning Clydinance for a Site Specific Development Plan Special Use. Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 19 Those subdivisions of land, which are a Class A Special Use under this Ordinance and under the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Section 3. ZONING ORDINANCE. Amend Table of Contents as follows: Amend Article 6.29 to add 6.29.4 Additional Requirement for Certain Subdivisions. Amend Article VIII to add a new Special Use for rural designated and urban designated subdivisions, with the same criteria, entitled "Maior Subdivision Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban Designated)", and to identify it as Section 8.8.29 with corresponding subheadings and nomenclature as specified in Articles 4, 6, 7 and 8 of this `Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County'. Section 4. ZONING ORDINANCE Amend Definitions Article 22 to create new definitions as follows: Resources Management Plan - A document and map, submitted as a part of a Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use Permit application or a Major Subdivision, Planned Development Atlas Amendment with SUP application, that sets forth, in detail, the location of and the proposed methods for: 1) protection of natural resources (i.e. habitat maintenance, existing vegetation, and mitigation of environmentally sensitive areas), 2) ownership and maintenance of open spaces (common open space, proposed conservation easements, and landscape buffers) 3) provision of services (solid waste management to include recycling, storm water management (temporary and permanent), irrigation systems to include the source of water, 4) the handling of land clearing debris. Major Subdivision 1) Major Subdivision, Standard -All subdivisions not classified as either Minor Subdivision or Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use or Major Subdivision, Planned Development. 2) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated (21-40 Lots~A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-401ots. Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 20 3) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Urban Designated (21-79 Lots)--A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-791ots. 4) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Rural Designated (41+ Lots)-- A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 41 or more lots. 5) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Urban Designated (80+ Lots)-- A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 80 or more lots. For the purpose of determining whether a subdivision is a Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban Designated), or a Major Subdivision, Planned Development, (Rural Designated or Urban Designated) the number of lots created shall be determined by counting the cumulative number of lots created, through subdivisions, on a tract or parcel of land as the boundaries of said tract or parcel of land existed in the Land Records of Orange County as of [the effective date of these Amendments] Rural Designated -For property that is not located in Urban Designated areas as defined in these definitions. Urban Designated -For property that is located within a Transition Area as identified in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and also within a Primary Service Area as defined by the Water and Sewer Management Planning and the Boundary Agreement and Map adopted December 3, 2001 and as either may be amended from time to time. Wetlands -Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (Definition taken from EPA regulations at 40 CFR Section 230.3(t) and COE Regulations at 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), as of July 2"d, 2002) Section 5. ZONING ORDINANCE. Amend Article 4.1 by inserting the following after the last paragraph of Article 4.1: ** Within all districts certain subdivisions of land must meet additional requirements and be approved either as a Class A Special Use or as a Planned Development Special Use as follows: Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 21 1) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated (21-40 Lots)-A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-40 lots. 2) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Urban Designated (21-79 Lots)--A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-791ots. 3) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Rural Designated (41+ Lots)-- A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 41 or more lots. 4) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Urban Designated (80+ Lots)-- A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 80 or more lots. Section 6: ZONING ORDINANCE Amend Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table, by inserting the following notes on each page of the permitted use table-: Within all zoning districts certain subdivisions of land in "Urban Designated" and "Rural Designated" areas (as defined in Article 22) must be approved as follows: "Major Subdivision of 21-40 Lots, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated" as defined in Article 22. "Major Subdivision of 41+ Lots, Planned Development Special Use, Rural Designated" as defined in Article 22. "Major Subdivision of 21-79 Lots, Class A Special Use, Urban Designated" as defined in Article 22. "Major Subdivision of 80+ Lots, Planned Development Special Use, Urban Designated" as defined in Article 22. Section 7. ZONING ORDINANCE. Amend Article 6.29 Development Standards for the Economic Development (ED) Districts to add Section Ei.29.4 as follows: 6.29.4 Additional Requirement for Certain Subdivisions -- Within all ED Districts certain subdivisions of land must meet additional requirements and be approved either as a Class A Special Use or as a Planned Development Special Use as follows: 1) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated (21-40 Lots)-A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-401ots. Ordinance as recommended by Administrarion ATTACHMENT 5 22 Section 8. Section 9. 2) Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Urban Designated (21-79 Lots)--A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 21-79 lots. 3) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Rural Designated (41+ Lots)-- A tract of land in a Rural Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 41 or more lots. 4) Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Urban Designated (80+ Lots)-- A tract of land in an Urban Designated area that is proposed for a subdivision of 80 or more lots. ZONING ORDINANCE. Amend Article 7.2 Planned Development Defined to add Section 7.2e) as follows: e) A Major Subdivision, Planned Development as described in Article 4.1. ZONING ORDINANCE. Amend Article 8 to add a new Special Use to read as follows: 8.8.29 Maior Subdivision Class A Special Use (Rural Designated or Urban Designated) 8.8.29.1A Additional Information (To be submitted for all applications) In addition to a Preliminary Plan prepared in accordance with the Orange County Subdivision Regulation and the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: a) NOTIFICATION Stamped envelopes addressed to each owner of property within 500 feet of the property proposed for subdivision. The names and addresses of property owners shall be based on the current listing as shown in the Orange County Land Records system. b) DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE A statement, from the applicant, indicating the anticipated development schedule for the build out of the project. cl) If the proposed lots are to be served by a public water system, proof of water supply and service availability in WATER/SEWER COMMITT:MENT Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 23 the form of a certified copy of a resolution to that effect enacted by the governing body of the water system providing the water to serve the lots in the subdivision. If the proposed lots are to be served by a public sewer system proof of public sewer service availability in the form of a certified copy of a resolution to that effect enacted by the governing body of the sewer system providing the sewer service to the lots in the subdivision. If the proposed lots are to be served by a community water and/or sewer system, proof that the system(s) will be operated either directly by or through contract with the water and/or sewer provider whose service area or interest area it is, as defined in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map adopted llecember 3, 2001, and as may be amended from time to time. c2) WATER RESOURCE REPORT (For Private Wells) If the proposed lots are to be served by individual wells or community wells, a professionally prepared groundwater yield analysis relating the proposed wells to the U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4286 and any later USGS Water Resource Investigation :Report data available. c3) SEWAGE DISPOSAL REPORT If the proposed lots are to be served by individual septic systems the Environmental Health Division shall submit a report indicating approval for each building lot and for the open space if a homeowners' association amenity is proposed to be constructed within the open space. d) OPEN SPACE CONNECTIVITY A map that demonstrates that the open space composition, accessibility, shape and size requirements as set forth in Section IV-B-10 of the Subdivision Regulations are to be met. e) NATURAL & HUMAN-MADE RESOURCES A written and graphic site analysis illustrating soils, depth to water table, slope, hydrology, vegetation, natural areas and habitats of special concern, infrastructure and other constructed features, historic and archaeological sites, and visual analysis of views into and from the site. Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 24 f) PEDESTRIANBICYCLE PLAN If the subdivision is located in a Transition Area designated as such on the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a plan for sidewalks or pedestrian/bike lanes as part of the public roads using, where appropriate, alternative North Carolina Department of Transportation design guidelines that include pedestrian/bike lanes as part of the public road system. For proposals not located in a transition area an off-road, pedestrian plan shall be submitted. g) LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS A landscape plan that shows: 1) the proposed locations, and types of, plantings, 2) the existing natural landscape with existing topography, 3) the width of roadside and perimeter buffers to be left undisturbed, 4) the open space (proposed undisturbed and proposed improved) as well as type of ownership shall be submitted with the application. 8.8.29.1B Additional Information (For all applications of over 40 lots) a) SOLID WASTE The location within the subdivision of a solid waste convenience center(s) intended to serve the subdivision and, where appropriate, the area in which the subdivision is located. b) BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY A biological inventory which identifies habitat diversity, species diversity, species of special concern such as those designated as threatened or endangered, last known sighting, candidate species likely to be present which may warrant protection, specimen trees outstanding in size and/or species, and the status and source of the information compiled in the inventory. The biological inventory shall be accompanied by an analysis describing habitat integrity, relationships between habitats and to ecological communities offsite, any existing threats to flora and fauna and potential for habitat enhancement. ~c) ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION A mitigation plan is required when any wetland or other environmentally sensitive area identified in the biological inventory will be altered as a result of Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 25 development of the subdivision or construction of homes or other buildings and structures associated with the subdivision. The mitigation plan shall include the following: 1) An assessment of the ecological value of resources that will be lost and a statement of how that value will be replaced through mitigation; 2) A specific statement of t;he goals and objectives, i.e., exactly what steps will be taken to compensate for lost habitat, etc.; 3) Detailed descriptions in the form of grading plans, construction plans, and planting plans to illustrate how the objectives will be carried out; 4) A monitoring and maintenance plan to measure success of the mitigation based on stated objectives. Include a list of parties responsible for monitoring and maintenance, a schedule for each, and how results will be reported to the Planning and Inspections Department; 5) A plan showing how the site will be protected from impacts by human and unwanted animal intrusion, alternate plant species and construction methods that could be used in the event adjustments or substitutions are needed until the mitigation area is established; and 6) A financial guarantee is required for the total cost of the mitigation project. Once the installation is complete, thirty percent (30%) of the amount of the letter of credit or escrow will be held for twelve (12) months or until the site is established, whichever is greater. d) TRAFFIC STUDY A traffic impact study is required for all applications for subdivisions with more than 401ots outside of transition areas, and 801ots within transition areas. The study shall include an analysis of the need for public road improvements, including pedestrian- oriented enhancements, for on-site and off-site improvements as said improvements relate to the level Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 26 of service impacted by the development. The traffic impact study shall be prepared. in accordance with the requirements of Article 13. 8.8.29.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The project meets all applicable design standards and other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations. b) The project meets all service provision criteria as set forth below: (1) Fire -identifies the primary and secondary responders and the source(s) of water. (2) Police -identifies the primary and secondary responders. (3) Rescue services -identifies the primary and secondary responders. (4) Water Supply -source and capacity of water supply. (5) Wastewater Treatment Methods -provider and capacity of wastewater treatment source. c) Habitats shall be identified and evaluated in the biological inventory required by 8.8.29.1B (a) and are subject to the following: (1) An undisturbed buffer is required around the boundary of habitats of rare, threatened, or endangered species as shown on the biological inventory. Buffer width shall be determined by site evaluation in consultation with the applicant's biologist and County staff; (2) Habitat enhancements as described in the biological inventory shall be made for a broad range of species to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat during construction. Examples Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 27 include preserving, planting, and maintaining a variety of native vegetation (also dead trees and snags); installing structures conducive for nesting such as bird houses or bat boxes designed and located for various species; or creating wetlands; (3) Conservation easements or other acceptable means such as dedication to a public agency, or conservancy or a homeowner's association are required to protect wetlands and other habitats while insuring proper long-term maintenance; and (4) Provide barriers or fencing, and signage at the edge of habitat buffers to prohibit vehicular and pedestrian access. Limited access may be allowed if proposed in a sensitive manner for environmental education purposes. d) Landscaping and Buffers 1) Protection of Existing Vegetation (a) Existing vegetation shall be preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; (b) Tree protection :measures shall be installed and maintained between all areas of disturbance and trees to be retained as shown on the approved landscape p1an..A detail of the tree protection barrier proposed shall be included as part of the landscape plan submitted with the application; (c) Corridors connecting habitats identified in the biological inventory shall be preserved along streams, buffers, or other wooded areas. If destroyed during construction, such connections shall be restored using appropriate plant materials; Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 28 (d) Trees and stumps cleared for roads and building construction shall either be used for timber purposes or shredded for landscape mulch, composted, buried or otherwise disposed of BUT NOT BURNED. 2) Berms, fences and landscaping walls may be used with plant materials for screening, provided such features are designed and located in harmony with other site features and functions; 3) To minimize visual impact by blending architecture into the surrounding landscape, foundation plantings are required at all freestanding entrance signs; 4) Use of xeriscaping principles. e) Stormwater Management 1) No net increase in peak flow leaving the site from the predevelopment conditions for the 1 year, 24- hour storm; 2) The stormwater management system must respect existing drainage patterns. Runoff shall be directed away from erosion-prone slopes. 3) Energy dissipaters shall be used where runoff is concentrated and discharged, for example, at downspouts from rooftops and storm drains at parking areas. Runoff shall not be discharged directly into surface water, or other environmentally sensitive areas; 4) Concentrated stormwater, conveyed by ditches, channels, pipes, swales or other conveyance systems must be dispersed and diffuse flow reestablished prior to discharge into a stream buffer; 5) Nitrogen load contribution must be held to 3.6 lbs per acre per year. Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 29 f) Drainage 1) All drainage structures will be installed and maintained according to the approved Stormwater Management Plan. 2) Subdivisions that include retention/detention ponds shall comply with the requirements in Section 6.23.4, Operation and Maintenance of Structural Best Management Practices. g) Grading and Erosion Control 1) Plans for grading and erosion control comply with standards contained in the Orange County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Manual; 2) Construction is phased to the extent practical to minimize disturbance and sedimentation; 3) Sediment control measures will be properly installed to filter sediment from runoff during construction and maintained until grading is complete and a permanent vegetative cover has been established and all slopes stabilized; and 4) Permanent landscaping, groundcover, mulch, etc. will be installed as soon as practical after construction activities for each phase are completed. h) Solid Waste Management A solid waste management plan, submitted as part of the Resources Management Plan, shall include the method(s) of disposal and recycling of construction debris. i) Irrigation 1) Irrigation systems for t:he subdivision and the lots in the subdivision are designed and can be operated according to a water conservation plan described in the Resources Management Plan submitted with the application; Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 30 2) The Resources Management Plan shall identify the source(s) of water to be used for irrigation, the volume available for that purpose, and expected consumption rates. The system design and plan for operation will be evaluated based on efficiency; and 3) Water recycled from stormwater retention ponds or treated wastewater effluent may be used for irrigation where it is a legally permitted alternative. j) Habitat Maintenance 1) Habitats identified in the biological inventory and habitats created through mitigation shall be maintained in accordance with the Resources Management Plan and/or a conservation easement agreement; and 2) Maintenance of habitats shall be minimal, consisting primarily of maintaining buffers and enhancements, removal. of exotic (non-native) plant species, and keeping drainage ways functioning properly. k) Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (Reserved) 1) Public Road Access Access to the subdivision and access to lots within the subdivision to existing public roads shall conform to and be in compliance with any public road access management plan adopted by Orange County. m) Maintenance of Improvements All site improvements such as roads, utilities (including irrigation and drainage structures), habitat enhancements, recreational amenities, signage, landscaping, open space, etc. will be maintained in function and appearance. Maintenance specifications, if any, for on-going site management (including provisions for handling of storm debris in open space areas) shall Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 31 be submitted as part of the Resources Management Plan and incorporated into Homeowners' Association documents. Section 10. This ordinance is effective upon its adoption. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that this ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of Orange County" be adopted. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ,the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the ,day of 2003. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2003 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2003. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Attachment 6 p.32 _ ~ O L 'L H C = d ~ t C1 .eU ~ O ~ ~ V •- 'N = c E + 'C ~ t1 ~ N N N eD eU N _ ~~ •~ ~ N I.I. L ev L ~ L ~ ~ ` _ •~ a = 0 0 o cam, L ~ ~ ~ = m ' EQ E E = O Q-d m lea = o ~ > ~ E- O ~ ~ O ~ O ~ mti o C •~ - .o ~ U~ U U = p I vi L ~ ~ _ ~ ~ J ~ ~ :.~ ._. ~ N ~ O y ~' E e`a ~ _ . ~ ~ °' °' ~ o m Q N = O m . ~ m U R U U ~~ 'D = N ,O ~ d ~ = O = O O ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ v m ~ ~ ~ _ •_ _ ~ v -a 'a E ~ • • pe=a _ U> a ° ° ° X X .N ~ Q c n v~ a m a m m o o ea d oo ci o ui ~ ~ as a a ~v ~ ~ en ~ `o~ •~ m E c O N . N >+ ~ >+ L O = L L ~ ~ o ,; ea ~ ~ _ ~ •~ ea (~ ea 'C O ~ R ' r., L = 'en ~ , 3 ea ~ o d ~ ° d p. / v ~ mo / ~ . ` ev ~''rnm eU Q. N~ L ~ a N= L c.~ N L c V ~ N L c E la o0 ~ ~ o N c c o~ o= o , .= o . >, ~ ~ ~ d ~ .N ~ N V N ~ N ~ Q ~ V a ~ `m .~ ~ .~ ~ ~E 3 .~ c ~ ~ Ica ~ o ~ oa o > o ~ ~ = o I Cat U '~ U~ U ~ U ~ = m L ev = ~ Q ~ ~ a i O ~ ~° ~ ~ _ = ' ~ N _ ~ ~ eu _ ~ o o = ' eu ~ ~ _ en fl '> = O 3 O L ca U O U~ () m m o U _ H , L ev H 'C eU e1f >, ea ,~ ~ ~~ ~ . a ~° ~ ~ o ~ c°', o N o ~ ~ o o ti.i Q rn cna mC~~ m o ma a m a ~ r N M ~ ~ tC ti e70 ~ Q z ATTACHMENT 7 p.33 Growth Management System -Comments and Responses August 25, 2003 Public Hearing uestion: Does the proposed Growth Management System (GMS) require the creation of a new map or revisions to an existing map? Response: The proposed GMS and amendments utilize existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Water/Sewer Boundary Agreement maps and do not require the creation of a new map or revisions to any existing maps. The "Rural" and "Urbanizing" areas created by the proposed GMS are determined through the overlay and intersection of existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Water/Sewer Boundary Agreement maps. This planning practice of overlaying various land use maps is widely accepted in North Carolina and is presently in use, in Orange County, to decrease density and impervious cover within Watershed Critical Areas such as the Upper Eno Watershed. uestion: Why have so many Growth Management System Map Options been provided? Response: In the past, the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners have asked to see a variety of options that maybe available from which to choose. However, it should be noted that the Planning Department Staff is recommending the selection of Clption 1, Option 2, or a phased combination of Options 1 & 2 for implementation. Options 3 and 4 are seen as less favorable to the Department. The implementation of Option ;would require additional study and formal interlocal agreements for the expansion of "Urbanizing" areas in the Hillsborough, Durham, and Mebane/Efland areas. Option 4 was provided to illustrate the full extent possible for the "Urbanizing" area. However, it is the Department's opinion that Option 4 is not an accurate representation of areas that can be served by public water and sewer and as a result, much too large for consideration. uestion: What is the current thinking on the update of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element? ResRonse: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element will be addressed later this year. Community outreach will be included as part of the process with the assistance of a third party meeting facilitator. The proposed Growth Management System consists of subdivision size (number of lots) and location thresholds and does not address density issues. On the contrary, the Land Use Element will consist primarily of density issues and therefore, is distinct from the proposed Growth Management System. ATTACHMENT 8 34 DRAFT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 REGULAR MEETING 7:30-9:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill at Large; Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chapel Hill at Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Dr. Barry Katz, Chapel Hill at Large; Howard McAdams, Cheeks Representative; Renee Price, Chapel Hill at Large; Hunter Schofield, Cedar Grove Representative; Theodore Triebel, Little River Representative; Noah Ranells, Bingham at Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Maria Tadd, Bingham Representative; Sam Lasris, Chapel Hill at Large; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director; Catherine LaSpaluto, Admin Asst II; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Planner III; Gene Bell, Planning Systems Coordinator, Planner III; David Lentzer, Planner II; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor. AGENDA ITEM #I : CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gooding-Ray called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM #2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. September, 2003 Calendar Craig Benedict stated that the planning items on the September 16 Agenda of the Board of County Commissioners Meeting are the same items that were on the May 27 Public Hearing. The items were: the Open Burning amendments, the Open Space Orientation standards and major subdivisions access amendments. b. Board of Adjustment Agenda for September 8, 2003 AGENDA ITEM #3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA No additions to the agenda AGENDA ITEM #4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 2003 -Regular meeting MOTION was made by Barry Katz to approve the August 6, 2003 minutes and seconded by Ted Triebel VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM # 5: PUBLIC CHARGE AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gooding-Ray had no comments. AGENDA ITEM #7: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 34 ATTACHMENT 8 35 DRAFT 47 a. Board of Adjustment 48 Howard McAdams gave an update on the AT&T Tower applications. He stated there will be a 49 vote at the beginning at the next meeting. There were expert witnesses for both sides. A group 50 of citizens hired an attorney to represent them in opposing the towers. 51 52 Craig Benedict noted that this will have a similar review process to the Special Use Standards for 53 Subdivisions eventually. The quasi judicial hearing held on finding facts for towers will be 54 similar. This will be a findings and facts type of process. 55 56 Ted Triebel asked what makes them quasi judicial. Craig Benedict answered that a 57 determination by the local government that it was not a type of use that should be permitted by 58 right. If permitted by right, approval would be more of an administrative function. If there were 59 special consideration of other effects, there would be a different level of standards. Then the 60 new standards would have to be proven through sworn testimony. That would be done in a 61 quasi judicial nature. The next higher level would be a question of the use being so special or 62 peculiar that the question would be is it consistent with the overall community and master plan, 63 then it would be legislative. 64 65 Robert Davis stated that this Board would be a recommendation Boarci and not a participant in 66 the Public Hearing for Special Use Permits. 67 68 b. Agricultural Preservation Board 69 Noah Ranells gave an update. The majority of the last two meetings have been updates on the 70 250`h celebration for the County, which is September 20, 2003. This will be an all day event 71 including a farmer's market. There was discussion about an agricultural center. The Board also 72 has information and/or ideas for the Planning Board. There was discussion with ripples from the 73 General Land Use Comprehensive Plan. The Agricultural Board is interested in agriculture 74 being promoted to a primary goal rather than fitting between the heritage issue and natural 75 resources. He referred to the handout "Mann Countywide Plan -Agricultural Element 76 Executive Summary". He would like to continue the open relationship between the Planning 77 Board and the Agricultural Board. If the Planning Board would attend the next Agricultural 78 Summit, the Agricultural Board would commit to having a speaker to discuss these planning 79 issues rather than just agricultural issues. 80 81 Noah Ranells said the next summit would be in the first or second week of January. 82 83 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked that the Board be informed of the exact date. 84 85 Craig Benedict stated that at a Commissioners' meeting and work session the BOCC was in 86 favor of hiring a consultant to examine uses in Economic Development Districts and transfer 87 development rights issues relating to preservation of agricultural land. In the past, the Board has 88 had a mixed reaction to TDRs so the fact that they requested further investigation is a positive 89 move. 90 91 Noah Ranells stated that if, through these meetings, the Planning Board and Agricultural 92 Preservation Board were made aware in advance of a hearing schedule or plan that the BOCC - 35 ATTACHMENT 8 36 DRAFT 93 considers that would be helpful. The Agricultural Board would like an opportunity to review it. 94 Open discussion and planning will serve everyone. 95 96 Craig Benedict noted that any memos to the Commission about pursuit of a consultant for TDRs 97 will be copied to the Agricultural Board or even do a presentation with them about proposed 98 direction to take. 99 100 Hunter Schofield asked about the selection process for the consultant. 101 102 Craig Benedict answered the County Manager would work with the staff to develop the selection 103 process and that it would be distributed liberally. One facet is that we are trying to get our 104 Economic Development Districts more functional and also be a receiving area for TDRs. The 105 agricultural community understands the process now is just how density is accommodated in 106 urban areas without disturbing existing neighborhoods. Part of the game plan will be to try to 107 find relatively undeveloped land that can accommodate density that would not disturb existing 108 neighborhoods. 109 110 Ted Triebel asked how many farmers were left in the County. 111 112 Howard McAdams answered that there are 100 active tobacco farmers and he could get figures 113 on an exact amount. 114 115 Craufurd Goodwin asked what were the criteria used to determining if something is a farm. 116 117 Craig Benedict stated that 43% of the land in Orange County is under farm use value, either farm 118 use or forestry. 119 120 c. Ordinance Review Committee 121 Ordinance Review Committee did not meet per Hunter Schofield. 122 123 d. Comprehensive Plan Update 124 Tom Altieri updated the Board. One issue relayed was the possibility of a third-party facilitator 125 to help with the community outreach meetings. 126 127 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if there had been contact with the Rural Character Study 128 individuals. They had a lot of experience with these issues. 129 130 Craig Benedict said that some of the format that was suggested by the Rural Orange and Rural 131 Character was not to have it too staff heavy. 132 133 Jay Bryan stated that he knows people who are already involved in it and wanted it to be a better 134 process. They could be part of it. 135 136 Craufurd Goodwin asked if there was any thought of getting citizens members of the committee 137 to make presentations instead of just members of the planning staff. 138 36 ATTACHMENT 8 37 DRAFT 139 Craig Benedict answered yes, there was a joint Board and Commissioner's meeting and over 100 140 people from every board had been invited and asked to be an ambassador. Some said yes, but 141 sometimes they bring recommendations and the recommendations would disappear. 142 143 AGENDA ITEM #H: ITEMS HEARD AT THE AUGUST 25, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING 144 Craig Benedict made the PowerPoint presentation 145 a.l. Incorporation by reference, of Water and Sewer Management Planning and 146 Boundary Agreement into Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and 147 Craig Benedict added that there would be an infrastructure element that will be prepared. The 148 infrastructure element includes water, sewer, drainage, paving, etc. Additional policies will be 149 incorporated in that element to help make other decisions. 150 151 MOTION was made by Hunter Schofield to incorporate by reference, Water and Sewer 152 Management Planning and Boundary Agreement into Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element by 153 Barry Katz and seconded. 154 VOTE: Unanimous 155 156 Hunter Schofield suggested that 8b.1. and 8b.2 be discussed first and then come back to 8a.2. 157 158 Craig Benedict stated that 8c. was incorporating the same map into the Zoning and Subdivision 159 Ordinance by reference. We could vote on 8c. first. 160 161 a.2. Growth Management System Proposed Amendments to Zoning and Subdivision 162 Regulations 163 Craig Benedict summarized the process and stated that there are four options to be considered. 164 Based on comments from the public hearing, there will a hybrid of options proposed. 165 Option 1 is the most restrictive and option 2, is an expansion of Option 1. He used the 166 example of Carrboro's Transition Areas: first building out an area and then let 167 development go to a second area at a later date. There was discussion of the maps that 168 were presented. He discussed 4 options for the attached map regarding urbanizing area 169 delineations. 170 171 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray noted that the original discussion showed a boundary where it was 172 thought water could be served. 173 174 Craig Benedict agreed. 175 176 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray noted that originally option 1 and option 3 were the focus points. 177 178 Craig Benedict answered that after deliberating with the attorney, using the existing zoning land 179 use constructs and water/sewer boundary constructs was better to use than potential areas that are 180 informal at this point. 181 182 Barry Katz verified that if there was a vote for option 1, and then over time, it would come back 183 to another Board and another group could expand that to include more areas once Option 1 has 37 ATTACHMENT 8 38 DRAFT 184 been developed. We can get it all in now or stage it in and try to control the progress of the 185 growth. 186 187 Craig Benedict agreed. 188 189 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if it was correct to assume that option 1 was the most 190 restrictive option. 191 192 Craig Benedict replied yes. 193 194 Howard McAdams asked what percentage of the land is already developed or has no potential 195 for new growth. Craig Benedict replied that over 50% is undeveloped at this time. 196 197 Craufurd Goodwin said the first map was outdated. Eno River Valley is committed in one way 198 or another with development easements. 199 200 Craig Benedict said if all the Eno State Park easements are rezoned to a category other than Rl, 201 then it would become a more stringent process. 202 203 Noah Ranells asked, based on the process if this went through the Public Hearing so they could 204 not be changed. 205 206 Craig Benedict answered that all the options were mentioned at the Public Hearing. 207 208 Hunter Schofield stated that his understanding was that this was a framework and the Board 209 could set any recommendations in that framework. 210 211 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray said the difference was that the previous issues had not been 212 discussed at the Public Hearing and these issues have. 213 214 Hunter Schofield suggested that more than the standards be altered for. subdivisions in the rural 215 area. 216 217 Robert Davis stated that the Public Hearing is officially still open and that this recommendation 218 is in writing, which is proper. 219 220 Craig Benedict said that this would be referred to the attorneys to see if the Public Hearing notice 221 had language about numbers. The Board's recommendations are valid. 222 223 Ted Triebel said that Barry Jacobs questioned the staff about how the numbers were determined. 224 He agreed that the area was still open. 225 226 Craig Benedict stated the questions were answered about the new maps. The other 10 comments 227 made were actually incorporated in the standards. 228 229 Robert Davis stated that changes were made based on what was said. 38 ATTACHMENT 8 39 DRAFT 230 231 Craig Benedict stated that typically the Commissioners like to see options and at a Public 232 Hearing there should be a range to choose from. 233 234 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if the Commissioners made a comment on the standard. 235 236 Hunter Schofield replied they did not. 237 238 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if they made any comments. 239 240 Robert Davis replied that page 3 of the Board of County Commissioners Joint Public Hearing 241 minutes has some information on the changes. 242 243 Hunter Schofield said comments were made about what impacts led staff to the numbers. He 244 recalled that Commissioner Brown was supportive of this process. 245 246 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray commented that some of the proposed processes did not involve 247 Commissioner review. 248 249 Robert Davis replied that those never made it to the Public Hearing and commented that the 6-19 250 lot major subdivision process will stay the same as it is now. 251 252 a.2.1-Growth Management System Area Deliniation: 253 MOTION was made to adopt Option 1 by Jay Bryan and seconded by Barry Katz. 254 VOTE: Ayes: 8; No: 1 vote. Howard McAdams opposed. 255 256 Howard McAdams stated that he would prefer Option 2 because the current proposals are based 257 on a 20 year map and if there will not be a change for another 20 years, decisions will be locked 258 in based on a decision of 40 years prior. 259 260 Craig Benedict said the most restrictive plan was consistent with the comprehensive plan that 20 261 years ago identified the 10 and 20-year growth areas. For the most part they are still valid 262 transition areas in this new water and sewer boundary. Using that as a phase plan would mean, 263 building there first and not expanding to the other area until the first area grows. It would help 264 Hillsborough to focus their water/sewer area to a more concentrated area. Option 2, which is less 265 restrictive, would liberalize something that they would not service, even in the short term. 266 267 Ted Triebel asked if the plan was discussed with Hillsborough. 268 269 Craig Benedict answered there was a presentation to the staff about the strategic growth plan. 270 There could still be growth in the water/sewer boundary with a more stringent process. The 271 Hillsborough Commission have been informed by their staff. He stated the Comprehensive Plan 272 should be reviewed every 5 years. 273 39 ATTACHMENT 8 40 DRAFT 274 Hunter Schofield addressed Howard McAdams' concern. This plan does create more variance 275 for more dense growth in the areas already identified where growth should occur. He did not 276 support Option 2 because of concern of South and East Hillsborough. 277 278 Robert Davis said we have another chance when a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is 279 considered to review all the districts and coordinate zoning with the various maps. 280 281 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray asked what the timeline was for the UDO. 282 283 Craig Benedict replied that it could be completed by December of 2004. 284 285 Hunter Schofield said that in the rural area (green area) that the lot counts were significant in 286 terms of impacting development decisions, specifically the Special Use Process. In the rural 287 area, we have been trying to promote sustainability and there are at least 2 criteria used, 288 producing the amount of development; creating larger lot sizes. He stated that he did not see 289 where this option does either but may have an inverse reaction to actually facilitate development. 290 He referenced page 009, other than a few areas, e.g. drainage, storm water, etc. there are no 291 higher standards. There is no significant change from status quo. This process is geared at 292 providing the County with a safety net against big, dense development in the rural areas. His 293 concern was if that was the role, essentially there is a Special Use Process (SUP) 20-40 number, 294 which is a fairly significant loophole area where development can take place under essentially 295 existing guidelines. At 41+ you would get the planned development process, when the 296 Commissioners can say yes or no, which is a significant addition in terms of process. He 297 suggested that what is here is insignificant if the goal is to prevent large, dense developments in 298 the rural areas. If the need was for more oversight, then the plan development threshold needed 299 to be lowered to 20 or 25 with 2 categories of major and planned development. All these lot 300 counts are arbitrary independent of density. For instance, 20 units on 20 acres were already 301 grand fathered. Depending on the standard for a rural lot, then 40 units on 40 acres, which is 302 currently allowed in some rural areas, is a subdivision that may warrant examination. Absence 303 of a density standard used to hone in on particular projects which can be troubling in the future, 304 we need to lower the plan development threshold to capture the projects likely to come through 305 in the rural areas. 306 307 Noah Ranells asked Hunter Schofield to summarize his reference point. 308 309 Hunter Schofield replied that he used 2 basic criteria which would be large lot sizes and in terms 310 of policy, reducing the overall amount of development. 311 312 Noah Ranells doesn't agree with the lot size statement. 313 314 Hunter Schofield replied that rural as it is defined, does not seem naturally compatible with high- 315 density development. Noah Ranells disagreed because a cluster development in other places has 316 shown agricultural land is maintained rather than chewed up and spit out. 317 318 Hunter Schofield stated that was combining 2 different things. 319 40 ATTACHMENT 8 41 DRAFT 320 Noah Ranells said that he would rather have houses on 1 acre and compact than 250 acres 321 developed which puts agricultural out of the market. Those large lot sizes have put agriculture 322 out of business. 323 324 Hunter Schofield replied that is already permissible. As he understood general conversations 325 with the Planning Board, CPLUC, Commissioners, etc., the goal is tow~~rd larger lot sizes versus 326 smaller lot sizes. The point of clustering is legitimate but that was a different discussion 327 concerning how much open space is within the lot. That is dealing with the zoning ordinance. 328 329 Craig Benedict stated that lower density divided it up in a conventional manner would be larger 330 lots. 331 332 Jay Bryan asked if it mattered that we solve this difference of opinion because his view was if 333 the lots were lowered there would be an option to do either depending on who is persuaded. 334 335 Craig Benedict said the Planning Board has the option to suggest more review for a lower lot 336 count. Recommendations are welcome for the density issue. The Comprehensive Plan may 337 lower the density more appropriately. Lot count amendments can be suggested. These options, 338 lot counts and standards would still apply even if densities were changed. 339 340 Craufurd Goodwin said the rational choice is you would get a lot of developments at 19 and 39. 341 If someone wanted to build new units under different names, could that be stopped? 342 343 Craig Benedict replied yes. When regulations are approved, the map is fixed with the lot lines 344 the way they exist at that date. If 201ots are subdivided, they go through the Special Use Process 345 and if cumulatively there were more within a ten year period, it automatically kicks into the next 346 rezoning. 347 348 Craig Benedict stated that there is difficulty with exempt lots through state law that are being 349 addressed. Lot counts are being reviewed to suggest new thresholds. 350 351 Hunter Schofield stated that if the threshold for plan development were lowered, the Special Use 352 Process would not be nullified. 353 354 Robert Davis said the developer could offer something in a PD based on the fact that he met the 355 criteria in a different manner. 356 357 a.2.2 -Growth Management System Threshold Limit 358 MOTION was made by Hunter Schofield and seconded by Barry Katz to adopt the Ordinance as 359 written for the rural area reducing the planned development from 41 to 20 units and that the 360 Special Use Permit Class A be removed as astand-alone. 361 VOTE: 8/1 vote. Howard McAdams opposed. 362 363 Howard McAdams stated that his opposition was the more we control the subdivisions, the more 364 the 10 acre exempt tracts would be used creating more sprawl. 365 41 ATTACHMENT 8 42 DRAFT 366 Craig Benedict stated that if anyone wanted to put a project of a different zoning intensity in 367 those urbanized areas, even if it was 791ots, to increase the density, they would be required to go 368 through a PD rezoning process. Craig stated the discussion which is taking place is a strong 369 demarcation between an urban environment and a rural environment. In some cases, those lines 370 will be fixed. The blurred lines are the urban sprawl. 371 372 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray questioned pages 020 and 021. Robert Davis said those were put in a 373 table to help understand the breakdown in the categories and not the ordinance for consideration 374 375 Craig Benedict stated the standards of evaluation are the same. In the rural areas, all these 376 standards will apply. 377 378 b.l. Buckhorn EDD Proposed Amendments to Permitted Use Table 379 Craig Benedict stated the Planning Board heard this in August at the Public Hearing. The 380 Commissioners heard this at a work session on August 19, 2003 as a preview so when they went 381 into the Public Hearing meeting they were able to make comments. 382 383 Ted Triebel asked about the word "urbanization" and why it was attached to Hillsborough and 384 Buckhorn but not to Chapel Hill. 385 386 Craig Benedict answered by using an attached map and stated that growth boundaries already 387 have been agreed to around Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He and discussed the attachment entitled 388 "Proposed Amendments to Permitted Use Table for I-85/Buckhorn Road EDD. He stated three 389 uses were suggested to be eliminated. 1) Motor freight terminals were a permitted use by right. 390 2) Storage and distribution of petroleum products. 3) Motor vehicle maintenance and repair shop 391 (body shop). 392 393 Craufurd Goodwin asked about putting a school in an industrial development. He asked if this 394 was to get water and sewer there. 395 396 Craig Benedict answered that it may prompt water and sewer to be brought to the area in a faster 397 time frame, which would support other economic development efforts. 398 399 Renee Price asked if this was actually trying to change the original intent of the Economic 400 Development District. Was it to scale down to being more residential friendly? 401 402 Craig Benedict answered that it was not intended for any residential use now. In the 2 other 403 development districts there was a primary and secondary areas but this Economic Development 404 District was the only one that did not have secondary. 405 406 Jay Bryan asked about the uses that were eliminated. 407 408 Craig Benedict repeated the eliminated parts. 1) Motor freight terminals were a permitted use by 409 right. 2) Storage and distribution of petroleum products. 3) Motor vehicle maintenance and 410 repair shop (body shop). Staff should make a note consistent with the statement of 42 ATTACHMENT 8 43 DRAFT 411 Commissioner Brown about not just the vehicle repair but painting and body shop exclusions. 412 Vehicle repair would be a Class A special use. 413 414 Noah Ranells refers to page 50 noting that "farm equipment sale" required greater oversight than 415 a golf course. 416 417 Craig Benedict answered yes. 418 419 Noah Ranells stated that he was not really okay with that. 420 421 Craig Benedict asked if he would like to suggest that a golf driving range have the same process 422 as farm equipment. 423 424 Noah Ranells responded by saying that he would rather farm equipment being allowed without 425 any review by a board. 426 427 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray verified that Noah Ranells would like it to be a permitted use. 428 429 Howard McAdams stated that was not at the Public Hearing and we could only deal with what 430 was advertised and dealt with at the Public Hearing. 431 432 Craig Benedict stated that the entire list of uses could be readdressed if there was a need for a 433 subcommittee to take a further look at the list. 434 435 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray wanted these comments to be noted in the :minutes for the County 436 Commissioners to read. 437 438 MOTION was made to accept the Buckhorn Economic Development District Proposed 439 Amendments to Permitted Use Table by Craufurd Goodwin and seconded by Jay Bryan. 440 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays: 3. Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray, Jay Bryan and. Noah Ranells voted 441 against. 442 443 Noah Ranells objection was that under retail trade, farm equipment sales are allowed by right. 444 445 Jay Bryan would like several items to be upgraded so there will be a public body reviewing uses 446 such as nightclubs, bars and pubs. 447 448 Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray is opposed to schools being built near interstates. 449 450 b.2. School Special Use Standards of Evaluation 451 Craig Benedict reviewed the attachment beginning on page 050. He stated there should be 452 unique standards and evaluations to address impacts of schools, which are different than other 453 users. 454 455 Jay Bryan asked if the Special Use permit approval was for a particular process or the whole 456 process. 43 ATTACHMENT 8 44 DRAFT 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 0 Craig Benedict answered that would be a specific process. Renee Price asked about the additional criteria for the school itself. Craig Benedict answered there are strict Economic Development District requirements that buffer uses of different types of land uses adjoining schools. MOTION was made to accept the Standards of Evaluation for schools by Hunter Schofield and seconded by Barry Katz. VOTE: Unanimous c. Proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element to Incorporate Water and Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) and :Map MOTION was made to accept the Proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element to Incorporate Water and Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) and Map Craufurd Goodwin and seconded by Barry Katz. VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM #9: ADJOURNMENT MOTION was made for Adjournment by Jay Bryan and seconded by Ted Triebel. VOTE: Unanimous With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair Tina L. Owen, Minutes Preparer 44 ATTACHMENT 9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 45 A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 25, 2003, at 7:30 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: A. CONCURRENT AMENDMENTS TO ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 1. Incorporate by reference, the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map adopted December 3, 2001. 2. Amend Article 8 to create a special use permit process that sets special use standards and locational criteria for subdivision size (number of lots) based on zoning district and service areas identified in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map. Proposed major subdivisions in the R1 and EDD zoning districts inside the water and sewer Primary Service Areas of Hillsborough and Orange County would be processed as follows: • 6 - 20 lots, approval by the Planning Board and/or Board of County Commissioners; • 21 - 79 lots approval by the Board of County Commissioners with a special use permit; and • 80 or more lots, requires the approval of a planned development zoning district by the Board of County Commissioners. Proposed major subdivisions in the balance of Orange County's planning jurisdiction would be processed as follows: • 6 - 20 lots, approval by the Planning Board and/or Board of County Commissioners; • 21 - 40 lots, approval by the Board of County Commissioners with a special use permit; and • 41 or more lots, requires the approval of a planned development zoning district by the Board of County Commissioners. New special use standards may include: • Notification • Development Schedule • Public Water/Sewer Commitment • Water Resource Report • Open Space Connectivity • Natural and Man Made Resources dS ATTACHMENT 9 Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan • Solid Waste • Landscape Plan Details • Traffic Study • Biologicallnventory • Environmental Mitigation • Low Impact Design 46 Pur ose: To more effectively mitigate the impacts of large residential developments occurring in the County's planning jurisdiction through a combination of locational and threshold criteria designed to encourage major subdivisions near areas with urban infrastructure potential,. B. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 6.29.3 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS DESIGN MANUAL). 1. Change "Class A Special Use" to "Class B Special Use" when referring to special uses approved by the Board of Adjustment; Purpose: The heading on each page of the Permitted Use Table in the EDD Design Manual contains the following statement regarding special use permits: "...or by the Board of Adjustment as a Class A Special Use ("B")." "Class A" should be amended to read "Class B" since this is the type of permit issued by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Consider changes (including the addition or deletion of uses) to the Permitted Use Table and changes in process for approval of uses for the I- 85/Buckhorn Road Primary Development Area. There are ten non-residential categories of land use in the Buckhorn EDD. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of uses in each category: • Agriculture and Forestry (3) • Construction (2) • Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing (45) • Transportation, Communication, and Utilities (12) • Wholesale Trade (12) • Retail Trade (9) • Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (5) • Services (23) • Government (3) • Other (2) Permitted land uses listed under the above categories can be characterized as follows: • Use-by-right • Class A Special Use (A) • Class A Special Use -Planned Development (A-PD) ~~ ATTACHMENT 9 •. Class B Special Use (B) 47 A use-by-right is allowed following review and approval of development plans by County staff. A, A-PD, and B uses are allowed, but only after a public hearing has been conducted and the use has been approved by either the Board of County Commissioners (A and A-PD) or Board of Adjustment (B). • All uses listed under Construction, Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing, Wholesale Trade, and Government are uses-by-right. • Transportation, Communications, and Utilities and Other uses are a mixture of use-by-right, Aand/or B. • Agriculture and Forestry, Retail Trade, Finance„ Insurance, and Real Estate, and Services (except for churches) are all A, A-PD, or B. Pur ose: A comprehensive review of uses currently permitted in the I/85 Buckhorn Road EDD Primary Development Area may identify compatability issues related to certain uses requiring greater separation, additional buffers, or possible deletion from the permitted use table. A copy of the "PERMITTED USE TABLE -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS" can be obtained by contacting the Orange County Planning Department at the appropriate number listed below. The I-85/ Buckhorn Road EDD Primary Development Area may include: • Schools, elementary, middle, and high with approval of the Board of County Commissioners following a public hearing and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. Purpose: Inclusion of "Schools, elementary, middle, and high" will make it possible to utilize the locational and infrastructure advantages of the I-85/ Buckhorn Road EDD for this essential public use. The area is large enough to provide for a transition of compatible uses using existing buffer standards. Vocational schools and schools specializing in dance, art, and music are already allowed in the EDD with the approval of a planned development and Class A special use permit. C. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 8 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (SPECIAL USES). 1. Amend Article 8 to create special use standards for "Schools, elementary, middle, and high," that meets general standards as well as zoning district requirements in the I-85/Buckhorn Road EDD. D. LAND USE ELEMENT -ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Incorporate by reference, the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map adopted December 3, 2001. ~~ ATTACHMENT 9 48 Changes may be made in the advertised proposals that reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Director of Planning at least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the appropriate number listed below. The full text of the changes may be obtained after August 20, 2003 from the Planning Department. Also, the text may be obtained at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Agendas and Reports link prior to the meeting. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306E Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 245-2575 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967- 9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: News of Orange August 13, 2003 August 20, 2003 Chapel Hill Herald August 13, 2003 August 20, 2003 Chapel Hill News August 13, 2003 August 20, 2003 48