HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-05-2003-9bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 5, 2003
Action Age ~a 1
Item No. D
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 BOGC/PLANNING BOARD 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)
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 and 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')
Rural Road Suburban Road Urban Road
Subdivision Subdivision 2-lane 2-lane 3-lane
Size Traffic 8,000 12,000 16,000
(# of Lots) (Trips Per Day)
20 200 2.5 1.7 1.3
40 400 5.0 3.3 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 mare 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/PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
The County Commissioners and Planning Board (PB) conducted a Joint Quarterly Public
Hearing on the proposed Growth Management System Amendments on August 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
Augusf 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 Cotor. 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 far 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 629.4, "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
applications 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) Salid 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 far which a Concept Plan of approximately 26 lots
has been submitted and the Planning Board has recommended far 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, recommendec
changes noted herein, to the BOCC,
3) BOCC considers adopting the proposed amendments
VIII FINANCIAL IMPACT
the proposed amendments, with
on October 21, 2003,
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 25~h Joint Public
Hearing) for designating Urban and Rural areas; and
b. In the Rural Designation area, a Planned Development zoning amendment
requirement for all 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 25~h 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.
~~acb~~~
Planning Staff Report for August 29, 2002
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
Growth Control Issues
ISSUE 1: Identify the details of a proposed moratoria including: size and scale of a large
residential project.
RESPONSE: August 7a', 2002, the Planning Boazd 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 Boatel;
3,) A project that has been issued a formal preliminary approval by the BOCC.
ISSUE 3: List the steps necessary to produce/implement alimited growth moratorium or
other growth control.
RESPONSE: 1. Report to the Orange County Boazd of County Commissioners of June
18, 2002, in response to the Orange County Planning Boazd "Growth Control Letter of
May 6, 2002. A morntorium 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 Planning
Boazd 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 regulaz timeframe for the enactment of a moratorium would be as follows:
Request for Legal Ad November 6, 2002
Quarterly Public Bearing November 25, 2002
Planning Boazd Action December 4, 2002
BOCC Action December 10, 2002
A shorter timeframe if requested could be accomplished by creating a special public
hearing at a regular BOCC date.
RESPONSE: 2, Llnified Development Ordinance Definition
A Unified Development Ordinance (tJDO) is a combined land development code that
integrates the present planning regulatory system of "tree standing" codes of subdivision, zoning,
environmental impacts, erosion control, flood management and economic development.
The Unified Development Ordinance creates a comprehensive and cross referenced
document, combines various land use controls in a different procedural context. For 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 I7nified
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 document.
Same existing code azeas will be deleted in their present form and replaced with anon-
conflicted, non-repetitive and all-inclusive system of review.
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 Attomey. 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 intemet.
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 -- fi months.
Staff could first proceed with a request foi qualifications (RFQ), and than 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 regazding their experience can be given at the
work-session.
ISSUE 4: Explore legal consideration.
RESPONSE: Legal report to be provided by County Attomey.
ISSUES: Research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases.
RESPONSE: In 1995 Huntersville, NC placed a 12-month moratonium on all
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 govemment and land use
authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short-term goals.
RESPONSE: Ongoing
to
BOCC Rork Session
8/29lU2
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 9/17/2002 BOCC meeting
II. Notify every applicant for residential subdivision approval:
(1) whose application or 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 provide.that any subdivision of land
creating 20 or more lots is a special use requiring a special use pemtit.
• The amendments that will be considered may include other procedural and
substantive requirements, These requiremerts may include:
(a) greater detail, coverage and confirmation of the "yield plan" required in
the evaluation of whether the prof ect may be approved as a conventtonat plan or a
flexible plan;
(b) professionally prepazed groundwater analysis if the residential lots aze
proposed to be served by weAs;
(c) public water supply availability if the residential lots aze 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 approval, preliminary plan
approval or that has been scheduled for Boazd of Commissioner preliminary plan
actions, 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 in effect on the date of approval.
Begin the notification process as soon as possible.
s Only one residential subdivision that has not received either a special use peravt or preliminary
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.
11 ,
III. Hold a special public hearing on October 15, 2002 for creating a special use permit
(SUP) process v~nth decision by BOCC at either 11/19/2002 or 12/02/2002 Boazd
meeting.
N. Advertise a request for qualifications (RFC to identify consultants with unified
development ordinance (UDO) experience as soon as possible.
V. Thereafter release a request for proposals (RFP) or a request for services for a
consultant to help with unified development ordinance development and prepazation,
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
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 12
ATTACHMENZZ
306F REVERE ROAD October' ll, Z00:3
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOCC Mrenrvc
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*
MAIOR SUBDIVISIONS
STANDARD
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNED
MA]OR DEVELOPMENT
1, Nu `
e~r of 6-20 21-40 41-79 80+
o
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes,
Minimum Existing Standards in Section Standards in Section Standards in Section
2 Subdivision Upgraded IV of Subdivision Code IV of Subdivision 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 8.8.291A Requirements in Requirements in
8.8.29.1A and 8,8.29.1A and
8.8.29.iB 8.8.29.18
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 1.3
ATTACHMENT 2
306F REVERE ROAD October 21, 2003
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 BOCC MsenNc
RURAL DESIGNATION
OUTSIDE OF TRANSITION AREAS
BALANCE OF COUNTY~S ZONING JURISDICTION
GREEN*
MA70R SUBDIVISIONS
MA]OR 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) 8,8 a-d and Specific
8.1-8.7 8.1-8,7, 8.8 a-d and Specific
, Requirements in 8,8.Z9.1A and
Requirements in 8,8,29.1A 8.8.29.iB
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
14
Attachment 3
15
Attachment 4
LAND USE ELEMENT
of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
oay~na wau~~a, ooio o~ea,
anonaoe mmum uxo.m
N
W ~
S
Bnd
1 year transition
I year transition
ual Residential
iral Butter
bicultural Residential
isource Protection Areas
unicipal Jurisdictions
rblic Interest Areas
'ater Supply Watersheds
latershed Critical Areas
Nodes
ural Community Node
uml Neighborhood Node
uwl Industrial Node
ommercial Node
ommerciaUlndusbial Node
:onomic Development
C/CH/CA Joint Planning Area
GIS map prepared by Miriam Coleman. Orange County Planning Department. t/31/D3
Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 1 G
BuiJ =Propose) Lnngungc
Srfikedrwugh = De/ererl Lnng+mge
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations of Orange County
Be it ordained 1?y the Board of Conurrissioners of Or°mrge Corurty that the Orange County
Subdivision Regz/lations and the Orange Coru:ty Zoning Ordinance m•e hereby mrrerrded as
follows
Section 1. SUBDNISION 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 21-79 lots.
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 Adnvnishation ATTACHMENT 5 17
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 - P'or 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 2.30..3(t) and COE Regulations at 33 CFR
Section .328.3(b), as of July 2nd, 2002)
Section 2. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend Section III-D-.3 to read as follows:
Preliminary Plat Approval
Application and approval procedures specif ed in this Section =__~ apply to
all Preliminary Plats: except and to the extent that applicable Or°ange
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~arnaa a:~.~ro~.g~=ns-been-applie~2~~.~~
hewever; 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 Ordinance for a Site
Specific Development Plan Special Use.
Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 18
Those subdivisions of land, which are a Class A Special Use under this
Ordinance and under the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, shalt comply
with the requirements of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and
the Orange County Zouing 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 "Major 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 19
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 21-79 lots.
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 talten from EPA
regulations at 40 CFR Section 2.30.:3(t) and COE Regulations at .3.3 CFR
Section 328.3(b), as of July 2"~, 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 Adminishation ATTACHMENT 5 20
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.
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.
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 Llse, 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 6..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 Administration ATTACHMENT 5 21
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 21-791ots.
: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.
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 Major Subdivision Class A Special Use (Rural Desi>nated 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) WATER/SEWER COMMITTMENT
If the proposed lots are to be served by a public water
system, proof of water supply and service availability in
Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 22
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 December .3, 2001, and as
may be amended from time to time.
e2) 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 ATTACHML^N7 5 23
f) PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE 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: I) 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.IB Additional Information (For all applications ofover 40lots)
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 ATTACFIMENT 5 24
development of the subdivision or construction of
homes or other buildings and structures associated with
the subdivision. The mitigation plan shall include the
following:
f) 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 the 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 40 tots 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 Adminishation ATTACHMENT 5 25
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 ATTACIIMENT 5 26
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 plan. 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 27
(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
f) No net increase in peals 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
Ibs per acre per year.
Ordinance as recommended by Administration ATTACHMENT 5 28
f) Drainage
I) 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 6.2.3.4, Operation and Maintenance of
Structural Best Management Practices.
g) Grading and Erosion Control
I) 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. wilt 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 the subdivision and the
tots 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 29
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 30
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 Boazd of Orange County Commissioners
that this ordinance entitled "A~t Ordinance Amending the Zoni~tg Oi°dinance and Subdivisio~t
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, Cleric 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 , 200.3 as relates in any way to tare 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 Boazard of Commissioners
Attachment 6 p.31
c 6'
c
o
~ ~
° •c
m
N C
C ~
N m
=
O
t N
d 0
y
N
O
V
N 01
C
C N
E
O ,
O C ++
L >
°- O 0' d O ~ N ~
~,*=~ v
d
~
~
~ co m
~ ~
d' ~
E
.a.. ~ ~
dN ~ m
0 a>
0 d
o .
c~ .x
~
o°- ~
~
N
N
N
~ c~ ~
o.
c
U N 'O N N N C N ,~,~ Q.
_ m
~~ ~
c'v- m
-p °~ ° rn
U ~ °
U °
U v dti
cp ~ o
w
i ~ N G ~ T
J ~ T i ~ r. '6
~ _
O °~
E ~°
cc a
+
c rn
~ c +
+
c
c i
+
c
~ ai ai
~~ ~ ~
d o
= d ~ 00
Q N O O m U O U U I- 1- =
N O
' "" d d ~ O= O O r w 7 0
~
~ V Q.' Q' C 'O V 'O 'Q ~
~ = N
U > t~9 R N _
_
X X ~
¢ ~ v> a m° nom. mo m° a a > N
o
o
Q
m
U
~
LLI
u.
U' .
.
Q Q '° a
~
.' N .p
`oa
•~ m
E c
O N
> N j~
N
+ O
~ d C N f0
~ Y c 7 f6 c ~ R
c d aNi m ~ ° c N N 3
R d °o d m o>
>+ N d Q `N' O ~ N d N ~ f0
a>i
C
N y cn- ~
cm c ~ c °o
a
i
~ V ~ ~ O~
~ O d
= O .O O >,r
D O -a A N = N N G N L ~
Q
.
~
c o w U ~~ U~ U ~ U ; N C
~n m d
~
.~ c ~ ~°~ o~ o~ om ro o t d
'- U O U= U U ~-
m d= o ~ o ~ o o
s
~ ~
U
Q'
Q' V Q
N
a.C_
N
v a c
a c c
c
v ~
~ ~ ~= `
~
~
~ c c
O.
Q r
to ,N 7
d)a O O O
mC'JJ O
m o O~
ma O
a O
m ~
a W
O
r
N
M
7
to
t0
h
CO O'
Q Z
ATTACHMENT 7 p.32
Growth Management System -Comments and Responses
August 25, 2003 Public Hearing
uestion:
Does the proposed Growth Management System (GMS) require the creation ofa 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" aeeas 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 Option 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 3 would require
additional study and formal interlocal agreements for the expansion of "Urbanizing"
areas in the Hillsborough, Durhazn, and Mebane/Efland areas. Option 4 was provided to
illustrate the frill 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?
Response:
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 tlnesholds 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 33
DRAFT
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 SEPTEMBER.3, 200.3
4 REGULAR MEETING 7:.30-9:30 r.M.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2G
27
28
29
30
31
.32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
MEMBERS PRESENT:.lay 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 ICatz 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
3.3
ATTACHMENT 8 34
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 goverrunent that it was not a type of use that should be pernitted 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 peculiaz that the question would be is it consistent with the overall conununity and master plan,
63 then it would be legislative.
64
65 Robert Davis stated that this Boazd would be a recommendation Board 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°i 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 Boazd, 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 Tamrary.
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, tluough these meetings, the Planning Board and Agricultural
92 Preservation Board were made aware in advance of a heazing schedule or plan that the BOCC -
34
ATTACHMENT 8 .35
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 diem 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 Craufirrd Goodwin asked what were the criteria used to determining if something is a farm,.
116
117 Craig Benedict stated that 4.3% 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 athird-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 .Tay Bryan stated that he lcnows people who are already involved in it and wanted it to be a better
134 process.. They could be part of it.
1.35
1.36 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
35
ATTACHMENT 8 .36
DRAFT
1.39 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 #8: ITEMS HEARD AT THE AUGUST 25, 200.3 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 prepazed. 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 Bazry 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
16.3 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 azid 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 aze
180 informal at this point.
181
182 Bazry 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
36
ATTACHMENT 8 .37
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.
19G
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 R1,
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 Boazd
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 Heazing 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
22.3 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.
37
ATTACHMENT 8 38
DRAFT
230
231 Craig Benedict stated t}xat typically the Comnissioners like to see options and at a Public
2.32 Hearing there should be a range to choose from.
2.3.3
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 infornxation on the changes,.
242
243 Hunter Schofield said comments were made about what impacts led staff to the numbers, He
244 recalled tlxat 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.i -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 identif ed 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 azea 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 teen.
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.
27.3
38
ATTACHMENT 8 .39
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
29.3 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 plarmed development process, when the
296 Commissioners can say yes or no, which is a significant addition in terms ofprocess. 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 arbitrazy 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
30:3 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
39
ATTACHMENT 8 40
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 ]ot 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 toward 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,
.3.31
332 .Tay 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..
.3.34
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 20 lots 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 plazlned 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
36.3 Howazd 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
40
ATTACfIMENT 8 41
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 79 lots, 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. Buckirorn EDD Proposed Amendments to Permitted Use Table
379 Craig Benedict stated the Planning Bdard 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-85Buckhom 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
40.3 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 ofpetroleum products. .3) Motor vehicle maintenance and
410 repair shop (body shop).. Staff should make a note consistent with the statement of
41
ATTACHMENT 8 42
DRAI'T
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 lie 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 Bucldrorn 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,
42
ATTACHMENT 8 4.3
DRAFT
457 0
458
459 Craig Benedict answered that would be a specific process..
460
461 Renee Price asked about the additional criteria for the school itself.
462
463 Craig Benedict answered there are strict Economic Development District requirements that
464 buffer uses of different types of land uses adjoining schools.
465
466 MOTION was made to accept the Standards of Evaluation for schools by Hunter Schof eld and
467 seconded by Barry I{atz.
468 VOTE: Unanimous
469
470 c. Proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element to Incorporate Water and Sewer
471 Management Planning Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) and Map
472 MOTION was made to accept the Proposed Amendment to tlxe Land Use Element to
473 Incorporate Water and Sewer Management Planning Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) and Map
474 Craufurd Goodwin and seconded by Barry Katz.
475 VOTE: Unanimous
476
477
478 AGENDA ITEM #9: ADJOURNMENT
479
480 MOTION was made for Adjournment by .Tay Bryan and seconded by Ted Triebel.
481 VOTE: Unanimous
482
483 With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P..M..
484
485
48G
487
488 Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair
489
490 Tina L. Owen, Minutes Preparer
43
ATTACHMENT 9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
44
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
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 WaterlSewer Commitment
• Water Resource Report
• Open Space Connectivity
• Natural and Man Made Resources
44
ATTACHMENT 9
• PedestrianlBicycle Plan
• Solid Waste
• Landscape Plan Details
• Traffic Study
• Biologicallnventory
• Environmental Mitigation
• Low Impact Design
45
Purpose: 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 infrastn~cture 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)
4s
ATTACHMENTS
• Class B Special Use (B)
a~
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 compatibility
issues related to certain uses requiring greater separation, additional buffers, or
passible 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
passible to utilize the locational and infrastructure advantages of the I-85/
Buckhorn Road EDD far 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 1-85/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.
a~
ATTACHMENT 9
47
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-
92.51 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please ask far 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
47