HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-20-2002 - 6a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 20, 2002
Action Agenda
Item No. ,o-g
SUBJECT: Tuscany Ridge Preliminary Subdivision
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592
08112/02 Memo from Craig N. Benedict to Board of
County Commissioners
List of Citizen Issues and Staff Responses TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Map of Area Hillsborough 732-8181
Plan of Subdivision Chapel Hill 968-4501
06/27/02 Subdivision Abstract and Resolution of Durham 688-7331
Approval Mebane (336)-227-2031
07/10/02 Planning Board Verbatim Minutes
08/15/02 letter from Geoffrey Gledhill
PURPOSE: To give a special report on issues and answers concerning the approved Tuscany
Ridge Subdivision.
BACKGROUND: The Tuscany Ridge Subdivision (project within the Rural Buffer)was
recommended for approval by the Planning Board on June 6, 2002 and approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on June 27, 2002, The Tuscany Ridge subdivision is a 22-lot project on
55.6 acres with 17.6% open space. Citizens in the Arthur Minnis Road Area voiced opposition to
the subdivision in early July because they had not been notified. (Notification is not required in this
area). Staff suggested they bring these concerns to the July 10, 2002 Planning Board meeting
where they had the ability to present their issues. More than ten (10) residents spoke and their
comments are included in the verbatim minutes attached. At that meeting, staff explained that the
project was consistent with the zoning of the area and that the project had been approved by the
BOCC based on the full evaluation of all code items.
In addition, staff commented that their input is important as we examine the general issues of new
development and compatibility with existing land use patterns as the County,undertakes the
Comprehensive Plan update process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information
regarding Tuscany Ridge.
ORANGE •
INSPECTIONS
Memo
TM Board of County Commissioners, John Link Jr. County Manager
From Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director
Date: Monday, August 12, 2002
Re: Tuscany Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plan
The attached issue and response paper outlines community issues from the verbatim
minutes tapes at the July le Planning Board Meeting. As a courtesy, the Planning
Board Chair permitted all interested residents in the Tuscany Ridge area to speak on
a non-agenda item. As you know, the subdivision plan was previously
recommended for approval by the Planning Board and approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on June 27, 2002.
The attached report does clearly show that the subdivision was reviewed and
approved based on complete information and in accordance with existing
regulations.
As noted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27"'and restated by the
Planning Board Chair on July 101', the existing regulations and density in the rural
buffer are the factors that create the pattern of subdivision design. Although this
pattern may not match the community interest at this time, it is nonetheless the land
use property rights of the owner to develop in this manner. The rural buffer density
and lot size is under discussion as part of the Comprehensive Plan review. The
results of a new land development pattern will likely be a hybrid of elected boards,
property owners, community interests, and planning concepts.
If you have any questions, please call me. This item may be scheduled for a non-
agenda item on the August 20"' regular Board of County Commissioners meeting.
•Page 1 GAdministration DWorms\Speed Wrnos%lamo Tuscany Ridge 8-7-02,doo
TUSCANY RIDGE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN ,
Issue Public Concerns County Response/Actions
1 . Location/Land Rural Character • Current zoning within the rural buffer allows 2-acre lots.
Use • This density was established 14 years ago.
Local residents value the rural character of the area • The development's planned density levels meet all current zoning
and believe that the density of this development is requirements.
too.great for a "rural" area. • The neighborhood developed lot size pattern ranges from 2 acres to
10+ acre exempt lots. The majority;of the area is underdeveloped.
• As growth pressures continue to escape the urban areas, the 2-acre
density and 2-acre minimum acre lot size is the probable
subdivision design pattern.
• Open space design options are not mandated in the rural buffer area.
• The Cane Creek and University Lake watershed sections of the
county now have larger lot sizes and lower densities. (first 10 acres
a 2-acre density and 5-acre density thereafter)
• The USGS report also infers what may be considered a sustainable
minimum lot size based on water consumption/recharge, soils
characteristics, and rainfall data. This is under review and will
likely be part of the land use plan as land holding capacity
constraints.
$ " '
d
W
2. Rural Buffer Public Notification • Public notification regarding development activity is not required in
Issues the rural buffer. A change in notification procedures within the
Most people attending the meeting were very upset buffer may require a rule change and amendment review by all
that the neighborhood had not been made aware of members in the joint planning area. Notifying people where it is not
the Tuscany Ridge plans before both the Planning required by the present code would be overstepping staff s present
Board and the Board of County Commissioners authority and incur unbudgeted expenses.
approved the preliminary plans. • The Planning Board asked staff to review public notification
requirements inside of the joint planning area (JPA) and compare it
with the requirements outside the JPA.
• An amendment to County ordinances will follow next Public
Hearing.
• The Neighborhood information meeting (NM is required for
major subdivisions (5+ lots) in other sections of the county.
• The reason for the absence of a NIM in the rural buffer may be
related to the 2-acre minimum being the largest minimum lot size at
that time and therefore lot size pattern incompatibilities had been
Issue Public Concerns County Response/Actions
addressed b X zoning to the highest degree possible.
- - *"!k
3. Physical Erosion Control • As required by the Orange County erosion control ordinance, site
Features I runoff will be controlled at non-erosive velocities.
Adjoining property owners are concerned that site • Orange County Erosion Control staff expect no impacts to adjacent
runoff from the development will impact them. properties because of the large lot sizes, low impervious levels, and
the moderate naturabUstoric site topography.
• The topography is a gradual hilltop`for the majority of the site. A
very small portion of roadway (150' +/-) sends drainage to the
south side of Arthur Minnis Rd. This drainage has been
appropriately designed.
• Stormwater treatment devices will be installed rin constructi
du on.
4. Roads — Offsite Paving of Arthur Minnis/DOT Paving Arthur Minns Road heading east from Rocky Ridge Rd. for 800 ft.
Local property owners objected to tax money being was placed in the 2001/2002 DOT Secondary Road Improvement
spent to pave Arthur Mmi ms Road up to the Program after money was allocated and right of way was made
proposed development site. They consider this available for the pavement of this section.
paving by DOT to be a tax-supported subsidy of the . A public hearing regarding this paving project was held before the
development. Orange County BOCC in September of 2001. The project was
approved for a 1.6 mile section, but right of way casements were
placed only for a .2 mile section.
After the public hearing this project was placed on the paving .
schedule
• NCDOT prefers to maintain paved roads instead of gravel roads for
a variety of reasons incluka sai and cost. MVIM
5. Roads — Onsite • All roads within Tuscany Ridge will be built by the Developer to
DOT specifications for public dedication.
• Road stub-outs will also be provided to accommodate future
development on adjoining hundreds of acres of undeveloped
ro
6. Water Groundwater Resources • The 2001 USGS study, Investigation of Ground-Water Availability!
and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina, found reasonable
Low flow (1 gallon per minute) wells occur now in reserves of groundwater resources in the County. However, housing
the area despite landowner's deep (400+) wells. density as well as recent drought trends may be a future
Issile Public Concerns Coinity Response/Actions
Some wells in the area have already gone dry. The consideration for land use modification.
residents wonder what options they have if these • Groundwater quantity can vary dramatically from place to place,
additional 22 wells impact existing wells in the area. due to the type of fractured rock geology that underlies the surface.
• Consistent with the variability of water resources, planning staff or
environmental health cannot base their comments on anecdotal
claims from neighbors.
• There are presently no well quantity standards in the county.
• County standards do require a specific distance between the well
and septic system.
• There is also a well water uali standard.
7. Sewer Septic System Functioning • Each lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disp7followed
repair.
The neighbors do not believe that this area would • The Orange County Division of Environmental Healt
support 22 lots appropriate for septic field State requirements for septic system pre-approval.
installation. • In this case all sites were approved for a 5 bedroom conventional
system except one.
• One lot was approved for a 3 bedroom conventional system.
• See the attached prelimina site reviews.
8. Economics of Public Infrastructure Support • The fiscal impact studies that are run for residential projects show
New that homes over $252,000 adequately provide revenue to cover
The residents believe that Tuscany Ridge is not
Development associated public services.
paying enough fees to support the resulting public • Operating expenses due to capital improvements are not addressed
burden created by the additional people in the area. the fiscal subdivision report.
Local property owners believed the numbers used to • School impact fees cover approximately 60% of the actual cost.
estimate average family size for the development • The study is based on the best available data from statistically valid
were too low.
reports.
9. Open • Tuscany Ridge plans include the preservation of 6 acres of common
Space/Buffers area open space where the County requires none.
• Walking trails are also being incorporated into the development.
• Re wired roadside buffers are resent.
'48.x'7 AE,
SI LN -
-
TUSCANY 14'? sx•
glIn A RIDGE [ )
umcev
Ike
rww_ 1 I I•_
1.
t _ 1 t
aMayVram,��o,yY�rraR,+�am�ne.rwnra n y •� � . !. .. : .�... ! 1 f / /• n,�... - •,. \': • �. 4»fi.$'i'-• + , 1 �
arofAMl.rMUrW prop PYaR4 mwR +_. . ' :• } I _ _ 1 , - `. ✓ -%
a asn N , ► , � .- ' t I l• • s rir 4 0 ( _
p .ari. '/,j
i `
aM1wmm, :w.a,w ^'' ; " 1 - j•� ry �;��+ • I a
•;, u i :.
Ynnm Mre ?"� / ,r•I '1 � + - , 1, ' • , F� /�.J7n�p d: \ 1 r �a�_"-4 I:.d'•'•...
3 YeaalO av.Ya YYga •er._ � T. '�I / , f ,® M1aru
rPoRi. 3YYW` /� /,.. ':�,-`�`. � •/' ` �' •. ap LC f •'. p :
a iaiN ua�n {'i`,� , : iF.4A�L 4• .._ ._� ]^ � f%��f 4„` � ••�.,� _ '. I
fro%'•' r 7a'n'.nl' j '/•%�J0
aan r'G'n f' f, �r� I •- : ZL"i'a ''^"�• � . , i
.'r•'p'a`a` ' 'rYmdhr �\ '.. \y \l Olds{. ; , �.'
�'o.,. r an.:r ° ? �� r ( 3 i 'T�' f'. #• \ i pyf'`j r,'y�, 3 .
•aamn�wdrvnsaa of lu56- rim`` y , � — • � {' • `•'� _ .
"dr.a.. 1:71
smYUm `` y
r•LYpvae�pa.'ier°ipra :JF�• 'r• .� �I�:, 4
T'y e39
Ap,AS •.fir ,• i f X_-�• . ..mot ..' 6w...'... '� y
IF of r' �• a #/4a/(, i ` . __ ..'f.} f �� a ,'� -4` a 'r .: t ''^ 1M 'oM ' •i /.:`�` , ' . t 'ir
1 ! •r -ti3 .r "R / ate' "m `s. . 'yPnO� • {.� f r �t � . •� F� } R . - �/_ ' �1` .,� ..
- r• / ' i G ,y'i r J •) � ' I / ,•'-�' . mfr, . ' .
fi/%, ! { . :' yy A• t Vol r )r, .-`. /'i.. r°°/° lstl- . . ••P.
fir N,
y _ . I� r j • i' „(74' �v' r,fi�li as OW
y \ / /I lfl 'pia�er0. 't{,l�y,'{ry, / .• !1J,1•' y�,'�f% � .
I �S ..�; 7_�+K•a•,� / r/.f/' 35u,/i•''.. �`j�Py ' •ii.. . %:'/I
fit��.
of .a. . Yf%/,6 +a• iJfi-:�.:
ii. i � r` ' id
I Am'6' A =�• �= rnFl GURfPLAN o, « .n TuacANrenc;E PA
MI
EA . awvYw bn«n.r
d
ORANGE COUNTY 0
BOARD OF COUNTY-COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 27, 2002
Action Agenda,
Item No. Y-nd-
SUBJECT: Tuscany Ridge Subdivision --Preliminary Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN)
ATTACHMENT($): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1)Developer Enhancements to Subdivision Pg. 4
2) Resolution of Approval Pg. 5 Eddie Kirk, Planner 11
3)Application Pg. 8 Extension 2582
4)Vicinity Map Pg. 10 TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
5)Agency Comments Pg. 14 Hillsborough 732-8181
6) Fiscal Impact Analysis Pg. 19 Chapel Hill 968.4501
7) June 6, 2002 Draft Planning Bd. Minutes Pg. 35 Durham 688-7331
8) Preliminary Plan Mebane (336)227-2031
This item appeared on the Board's June 18, 2002 agenda, but was not discussed due to time
constraints.
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Tuscany Ridge.
BACKGROUND:
Request-P_reliminary E an
Applicant: Red An Development. TMBL: 7.12..1A& 27 PIN: 9851-97-1387& 9851-85-9887
Subdivision follows the Conventional Option of Development.
• Minimum lot size is 2 acres.
• Total acreage Is 55.61 acres including right-of-way.
Lots Average Lot Size % Open Space Acres Open
Gross- space
Conventional 122 2.31 17.6 (HOA Control 6.00
Location
North side of Arthur Minnie Road approximately 800 feet west of Rocky Ridge Road in Chapel Hill
Township.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing:
• Zoning: Rural Buffer(RB) ( min. density= 2 acres I dwelling)
• The property is not in a designated protected watershed,
Physical Features:
• There are no USGS designated streams on the tract.
• The site is mostly wooded with a mixture of pines and hardwoods.
Adjacent Land Use:
• Propertles to the east and west are undeveloped.
• Properties to the north are divided into large acreage tracts.
• Predominate lotting pattern for this general area is 5+ acre tracts.
Proposed:
Roads;
• Access is from Arthur Minnis Road (SR 1115), an existing unpaved public road.
• The main major collector road extends through the property to the east property line: a second
collector extends to the west property line.
• All roads are to be constructed to NCDOT standards.
+ Arthur Minnis Road is listed as# 8 on the priority paving list and scheduled to be paved in
2002. A condition of Concept"Plan Approval was to require, as a Preliminary Plan approval
condition,that this section of Arthur Minnis Road be brought up to State Standards If the
road was not paved by Preliminary submittal.
• The stub outs to the east and west property lines will provide for future interconnec tivity.
Open Space/Buffers:
• 6.00 acres (1 196)of HOA owned common area open space
• 3.6 acres,(6.696)of HOA regulated easements for Type A roadside buffer with trails
• MTAR is 1.02; 0.04 acres of in-lot open space
• MTADR is 2.31(less RIW); density for entire tract is 1 unit per 2.5 acres.
• Homeowners Association will maintain open space, roadside buffers and trail system.
Water-Sewer.
• Individual wells.
• Individual septic systems.
Recreation:.
• Chapel Hill District Park
• No dedication is warranted because no county recreation or resource area has been
identified at this time. The payment-in-lieu option is viable.
Agency Comments:
• Comments attached from NCDOT, Environmental Heafth and Emergency Management.
Development Process Schedule and Action
Planning Board:
• First Action: Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board March 6, 2002 with the
following conditions:
1. The intersection and road alignments on the Preliminary Plan shall meet NCDOT collector
standards.
2. Homeowners Association documents that provide for maintenance of the Open Space
shall be submitted w ith the preliminary plan.
3. Lot 1 shall have a joint driveway with the William Bird property, all other lots shall have joint
driveways,
4. Show proposed dedication of an additional 5 feet of right-of-way, or 35 feet from C/L of
existing R/W whichever is greater along Arthur Minnis Road on the Preliminary Plan.
S. If this section of Arthur Minnis Road is unpaved at the time Preliminary Plat is submitted a
condition to bring the road up to paved state standards will be recommended by staff.
6. Show five-foot utility easements along both sides of all dghts-of-way. All right-0f-ways to
be 50'with five foot utility easements shown on each side.
Preliminary Plan addresses conditions of approval of the Concept Plan.
• Second Action: Planning Board on June 6, 2002 unanimously recommended approval.
1. Board added a condition requiring signs (3-4 sq. ft) at the terminus of each road that
Indicate the streets are subject to future extension.
2. Board added a condition, agreed to by the developer, that V a lighting plan is to be
implemented within the subdivision, the plans will be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to or
at the same time as the submittal for final plat approval.
• Third Action: I
1. The Board shall consider the application within a reasonable amount of time.
2. During deliberations and consideration of the application the-Board may defer
consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review.
3. If Preliminary Plan is approved by the County Commissioners the applicant shall have one
(1)year to prepare and file a Final Plat or to request a one-year extension from the
Planning Director.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis included as an attachment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration Approval, in accordance with the attached Resolution
of Approval.
Planning Board Approval, in accordance with the attached Resolution
of Approval.
Planning Staff Approval, in accordance with the attached Resolution
of Approval.
Public Comments: Tuscany Ridge(transcribed verbatim)
Gooding-Ray, Chair.We will hold you to three minutes for your comments.
Benedict:The Tuscany Ridge subdivision was approved here at the previous meeting[June 6,2002].It
was put on the agenda for approximately the June IS'meeting of the BOCC. It did not make it onto the
agenda that night because of other agenda items. It was moved to the June 27'"BOCC meeting at which
there were presentations by staff and discussion from the developer and the BOCC did approve the
preliminary plan of the Tuscany Ridge subdivision as of June 27`",2002 consistent with recommendations
from this board with all the conditions stated.
Gooding-Ray: Were there any other unique conditions?
Benedict: No additional conditions were added. It went through as stated including the ten plus
recommendations that came from this board about conditions of approval. It was also accented at that
meeting that the property is in the rural buffer that the density in the rural buffer is 2 acres per unit and the
minimum lot size in the rural buffer from a zoning standpoint is a minimum 2 acre lot size and in general
those two criteria set the design concept for the subdivision.There was some discussion of that matter
there. But right now it has been approved by our Commissioners.
We did want to hear from the public[here tonight]also in the rural buffer. Neighborhood
information meeting program which is typical of other sections of the County is not as part of our
regulations because it is part of the joint planning area and the joint planning area did not have those
requirements in there,so it is not intended to be there.The developer did speak to some residents in the
area as I understand,but I would like to hear from the general public also.
Gooding-Ray:I have a couple questions, first is from what you have said, it is my understanding that
there is nothing that this board can do to change the decision of the County commissioners on this
subdivision. This subdivision has been approved.There is definitely nothing that the planning board can
do. So there is the issue is,what I am feeling like we are going to get public comments on and what is
going to be helpful to us on the board is how to prevent this from happening again. I am going to say it
again;there is nothing the planning board can do to stop this.Hold on[comment to public].What we do
is make recommendations to the County commissioners and they are the ones that make the decisions. So
that is correct And then the other issue if you can explain that again perhaps to the board is,if we wanted
to make a change in the neighborhood notification in this area what would be required for us to make that
recommendation?
Benedict: This board can make a recommendation[regarding notification]if that recommendation is
approved by our Commissioners we would schedule it for a joint planning agreement meeting with
Chapel FEB and Carrboro at the earliest date would be October 9t°of this year where we have a join
planning meeting. That item would be an amendment to the rules and regulations within the rural buffer.
If approved or if heard at that public hearing on October 96',and approved by the three jurisdictions
involved,then it can be inserted through a process and put into our subdivision ordinance.
Gooding-Ray:Do you have a comment before we start our public comments?
Schofield:Yes. I think for information purposes, I was chairing the meeting at which the development
was approved.While the approval may have been against some of the personal preferences of members of
the pluming board,the basis of the approval,based on the information this planning board received is
that,the subdivision application met all of the requirements in the subdivision zoning ordinance. It met
the rules.The information we may have received is imperfect,perhaps,but with the information the
planning board received it was our understanding that all the standards and requirements had been met
and in addition to that the developer had included open space in a conventional plan which was not
required and so,in a sense the staff felt that this developer had gone above and beyond the standards and
so at that point while some of us may have not preferred to approve the development,it is our
responsibility to follow the zoning and subdivision regulations as if any of you had an application before
this body. That is what happened and I just want to let you know that you may have information that we
did not have,granted,but that was the action taken by this board approximately one month ago.
Price:A question.I understand that we need to hear these comments,but this is a matter oC what
happens,we can't make any changes,why are we hearing this and not the BOCC and can the public,can
this body address the commissioners or an appeal of some sort?
Benedict:Two things. One is this is a courtesy hearing tonight that this board would like to know and
staff would like to know what the community issues are. So this is just an informal courtesy opportunity
for the public in this area to voice their concerns.We will put this into our memory banks and if what the
thoughts of the community do not measure up with what our code says and there are needs for
amendment to those codes,then we will link those codes to what the feelings of the Commission and
community are.
The second part of that is how can they address the Commissioners.The Commissioner;do have
the opportunity to rehear the Tuscany Ridge subdivision. They have to take somebody with the
affirmative vote at the next available meeting and it has to be based on.
Price: somebody from where?
Benedict: From the Commission. They[would]have to reconsider their vote.And it would only be on the
basis that would be approved by an attorney that there is a flaw or a procedural subdivision or zoning
inaccuracy that was involved with the subdivision. That is the only way to reconsider it.You cannot
reconsider it on a non-legal basis.
Price: Like I said I don't mind, I think we do need to hear what they have to say because I am wondering
how does this issue get to the BOCC?So that they can look at you know reconsider this plan?
Benedict:Based on tonight's discussions staff will put a report together to the Commissioners so that at
the July 10'"meeting we heard from the community about this.They will bring their comments directly to
you and it will be up to them to decide what to do about it.We will at least aggregate their comments that
they have and send a staff report about what their issues are.And then it would be up to the
Commissioners at their next available meeting to reconsider it,if that is their choice.
Price: Ok,but just putting it into our memory banks is not enough.
Benedict: I cannot overturn what the commissioners have done.Nor can you at this point.It is up to them
to reconsider h.
Price:but we can send a memo,do we send a memo or do you send a report coming from staff?
Benedict: I will send a report that will coalesce tonight's comments.This board together with that or
independent of that can send their own feelings about this project.
Davis:There are verbatim minutes being taken as a request of the Commissioners.
Benedict: So they will be able to read the verbatim minutes.
13
Price:But do we,we could produce some kind of a document?
Gooding-Ray:We could make up some kind of a resolution?
Benedict: That is your option.You can.
Gooding-Ray: OK.I have 27 people who have signed up and are all these people planning on speaking?
When I last took a hand count I got 7. So,could we have a hand count again of how many people are
actually planning on speaking?7,wonderful. So,we would like to give you three minutes. Ok,I am going
to go down this list in order.
Bob Johnson: I would like to go first just because I think a lot of people are here bemuse I put a flyer on
their mailbox. I won't go anywhere near 3 minutes, I'll be 20.You addressed some of our conncems,we
know that you can't overturn what the council members did,but we do know that the plan for Tuscany
Ridge was originally approved here and all these people here,and this is just a small representation of the
people who live within about a mile of the Tuscany Ridge development,these are the people who could
make it out tonight. Everyone is up in arms about such a very dense development being approved in such
an obvious rural area.We have a few 5-acre lots,mostly 10acre lots in the area and this development was
approved at the bare minimum for the county,2-acre lots.We also understand that we are in the rural
buffer and that the notification requirements for the rural buffer are nil.We don't have to be notified.But,
we thought that any reasonable person could look at this development and the area it is going in to know
that some son of notification needed to happen.We have heard you say that the developer says that he
talked with some of the neighbors. I don't think you will find a person here that even knew about the
development up until a week ago when I put a flyer on their mailbox because I noticed surveyors back on
the land and I noticed the road being prepared for paving by the DOT.Apparently to service this
development. So I guess we have three areas or questions or statements really. One along the lines of the
history of the planning for this development and the approval of this development on how we got lot sizes
that were so small. Perk sites on each one of these lots sites when all of us know that having perk sites on
land in this pan of Orange County is very difficult and water issues. Getting wells into 22 lots on this 52
acre tract when people who live within a couple hundred feet of several ofthese lots have wells 400,450
feet deep and... water.We are wondering what the impact is going to be on all of our wells when these 22
new wells go in. Is there any redress for us should our wells go dry once they cap 22 wells?And then the
second area that we will be very interested in is how we make sure this doesn't happen in the firture,
There are several large chunks of land here that are I'm sure going to be proposed for development soon.
And we don't want to be caught by surprise after the fact again on whether there is development going in.
It would be very nice if we knew about it in advance and we could have a chance to voice our concerns
beforehand or even talk to the developer beforehand and find out what he wants to do,what he is planning
on doing and maybe affect his plans from the beginning.That is really all I wanted to say and I know
there are some passions that are running high and we will try to keep it calm.I'll open the microphone.
Gooding-Ray: Ok. If people could say their name when they come up that would be great.
Sam Fudge: My family has lived adjacent to this property since 1963.And I heard about this,I have seen
the open space and pathways,at ten o'clock this morning. I reviewed the subdivision requirements and it
says under 2 page 25 under land suitability on 4B2 this is ....
when reviewing the subdivision proposals the planning board shall consider the overall design of the
proposal in light of the suitability of the land for development to insure that the planning and
development of the subdivision will not create a danger to the health,safety and welfare of Orange
County residents.And suitability shall be determined by an investigation of conditions including but
not limited to floodprone areas,soil drainage,drainage patterns, slope,historic sites and unique
natural areas.
t4
On all of those you did not do any investigation because I live right down below the road,I live adjacent
to road and this property is above me. On your drainage you wrote on 482c:
Each lot shall contain a suitable building area safe from inundation and erosion,sanitary sewer
systems,septic tank drainfields,lot systems,wells,and adjacent properties shall also be protected
from inundation by surface water. Roads,driveways and utilities shall be protected from damage
caused by improper stormwater management.
And it goes on to say that runoff levels from this... . I have been looking over the plat,I'll refer to it,I
won't take too much time,I looked at the height of this property line that raises and drops from 60 to
well, I'll let my wife talk about that. She read this more than 1 did.Thank you.
Liz Fudge:this is the highest point and we call that the dividing line because the water runs from there
towards Borland road and runs here toward,Morgan Creek actually. This runs into New Hope and the
elderly man who we brought our property from informed us of that and I know that it is true.The
contours and the topography of this area,it is very evident on this particular map,this is about a thousand
feet long, and the water will run from here and drain directly into other properties that are beyond this.
The water will also run down here into properties below here. Some design has been made for holding
ponds because there is so much water. There are two new new culverts that come across here which
means that this water will come down through here.Nothing has been said about this.Nothing is
apparently being done about it.And we are really concerned.I don't want my family washed away to
Morgan Creek and I know people over here don't want to see this. This is a beautifid area.Just a beautiful
area.And I flunk that we have worked very hard but the two acre lots are not in character there is a lot of
natural growth,this area in here has not been disturbed for years,it is pity for,I don't think it can be
developed up in there,the slope is so great,and that is just going to really effect all of us in a detrimental
way.The man down here at the and will have water running right into his well. Our son will have water
running into his well.All this water will nm directly into this area and I think you all should take a good
look at this map.
Gooding-Ray:Thank you.Your six minutes are up for you all. I am sorry. Who is next?
Rita Kay Dees Ware: I live on Arthur Minnis Rd.along a section that is scheduled to be paved before the
next County commissioner's meeting.I have been in contact with a number of people including Mr.
Holdvye?And Mr,Holsforo,also Mr.Warren in Hillsboro,and the Chief Engineer Mr.Evelelege with
DOT and his associate Mr. Dove. On June 20d'I asked they would come to we where my well is and
where this property is. My husband and I have built on this property 23 years ago.And we have lived on
this property 23 years.My concern is a five letter word,water,W-A-T-E-R. On my birthday July 3`d,now
after all of these learned people came out,Mr.Holdsveigh from environmental services here said that he
could not guarantee that my well water would be adversely effected or not adversely effected.There is no
guarantee. My well is very close to the right of way of the land. They have,on my birthday I found the
Tuscany Ridge plot,there will be two 20 foot roads beside my home on the West side. And on those
roads they will come within 10 feet of my W-A-T-E-R. And then on the North side of me there will be an
18-foot road.Now I asked and I called every commissioner and I started with Mr. Jacobs,and I talked to
Ms.Brown, ate.They were unaware of a lot of the information that is now privy to a lot of the people
who live and work and sweat out there.Now on my birthday July 3rd I found out the County
Commissioners had approved a preliminary plan,a preliminary plan,not the final plan also after they took
and they said they had to have a unanimous vote, which they did,but afterwards they were talking about.
Gooding-Ray: Ms Dees Ware,your time is up,if you could please wrap up your comments.
Rita Kay Dees Ware: The bottom line is,I guess the sum of the issue I have is that there is no
environmental plan to guarantee anyone in that two hundred,that 800 foot plot of DOT paving that will
A
1�
guarantee us that we will have good water. And I do not have 20 or 30 thousand dollars to sink into more
water wells.
Gooding-Ray:Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
Lucy Adams:I live a little less than a mile away on the other side of that little island of wildness that
Tuscan Ridge is cutting in to. Many of the things that I think are important already have been mentioned.
The suburban development in a rural setting I guess it has no bearing in a planning situation but it is a
little offensive that we have a pretty diverse economically diverse neighborhood, and this is not
economically diverse.The two-acre lots that you are looking at as being something that you use as your
lower standard,that is a minimum when you put 22,2-acre krts together,you do not maintain rural
character. I think that that can be pretty easily understood.A third point of course is the water and septic
issues.That is very very troubling. There are people in our area already that are having dry wells. If you
can't guarantee that we are not going to run out of water because of development after development after
development,what are we going to do?What are you guys going to do for us when we don't have any
water?Finally,it is interesting that you talked about the financial side of the Eno Ridge development,
because looking through the application,I looked at how they did their financials. I understand that when
they do this they use a formula,they use a recipe. They do it like they did every other one before. But,one
thing that struck me when I looked at it was that for the ''z million dollar houses with at a minimum 3
bedrooms,probably more like 4 to 5 bedrooms,they are telling us that the family size is going to be 2.5.
Now,for an average of the school district,that may be the ease.When I just take sort of a head count in
my immediate neighborhood,I count 17-18 houses and 15 children. If you want to,this is very available
you can go on the internet and look at year 2000 census data and find a comparable neighborhood.I
looked at Cheswick.That is comparable in my eyes, I don't know if it is in anybody else's. But their
households are 3.32 individuals and that means that there are 1.32 children per household in Cheswick
which I think would be much more believable in this neighborhood too.
Gooding-Ray: Ms. Adams your time.is up.
Lucy Adams:If you put that into the financials,they are way over. It is not an issue of 2000 dollars per
household to pay off,they are going to be costing the County and it is a significant amount. So that is my
maim point,
Fred Zimmerman:I have a house at 1910 Arthur Minnis Rd.I am fairly new in this neighborhood. So I
won't talk about the history of it,but I just want to raise a couple of procedural issues that occur to me. It
seems to me that as someone who owns property across the street from this development, or like Mr.
Fudge who lives directly across the street from a, it is astounding that we did not know about this:I mean,
we all should have been here in this room I gather,this very room evidently two months ago. And we all
should have been at the County Commissioner's hearing the other night,which I didn't know about
either. I would say to you folks,with all due respect,that an improvement needs to be made is the
procedures of some sort.I personally really hate to admit it when I have made a mistake. But I would like
to ask you people to admit maybe that you made a mistake and tell the County commissioners that you
know have heard a lot of stuff that you should have heard a month and a half ago and furthermore that
you have heard some stuff the County Commissioners should have heard the other night and did not.This
afternoon I was able to watch the tape of the County commissioner's meeting. It was amazing,the staff
director made a very bare bones presentation,then the Commissioners voted unanimously.After they
preliminarily approved it the Chairman expressed an objection to the whole concept following which one
of the members of the Commission said she world like to ask the developer a few questions.And she
apologized for sort of the bluntness of the question,but she said why did you do it this way?Why didn't
you pay more attention to the rural buffer idea?Doesn't the planning board have some model plans that
they showed you or something?He said well,we had this walling trail. So,that was it and it was over.
c
1 �
Nobody spoke in opposition to it and nobody raised any questions about it until the vote had been taken.
So,I'll end where I began,I have some procedures that have been followed. Thanks.
Gooding-Ray: Anyone else that would like to speak?Yes sir.
Randy Marshall: I am not the principle of Carrboro elementary school. I have been a resident of Orange .
County for almost 30 years and a resident of Arthur Minnis road for almost 14.When I first moved out
there I though it was kinda quaint to live on an unpaved road.The charm wore off after about 5 years.The
paving of Arthur Minnis Rd has been up and down, on and off the shelf for a number of years now for a
number of reasons.I have no argument with those folks who don't want to see it paved. I myself have
vacillated on the issue a number of times,but I think it is very peculiar that now 800 feet of Arthur
Minns Rd. will be paved at State and county expense,which seems an awful lot like a subsidy of this
development which could not take phtcc were it not paved. I happen to live along a 4700 foot section of
Arthur Minnis Rd.which will not be paved because people on either end of that 4700 foot section do not
want their piece paved.It just seems kinda peculiar to me that all of a sudden 800 feet on one end can be
paved and get on the paving calendar almost immediately because somebody wants to develop a
subdivision.Which seems rather poorly thought out.That they wouldn't be able to do if that road was not
paved. I would feel much better about it if the developer paid to pave that 800 feet of road. And not my
tax money.
Kim Dodson:We are the Dodson's that ran the dairy farm on Arthur Minns Road. Everybody knows
Rocky Ridge Rd.because of the ice cream.There are not many people that haven't been out there.We are
very happy... We have been out of the Dairy business now for 4 years.The dairy farm ran for 40 years
and for 40 wonderful years my in-laws have had cows out there and we have had children that stopped by
and hung on the fence and we have raised three children there at the farm. The comer property right now
is being raised in hay and that is mainly what we are raising right now.We have been out of the dairy as I
said for the last 4 years. And the property that the folks are talking about being flooded is our corner lot.
It goes down to Morgan Creek. I think it is absolutely amazing that all of you spend your time here and
give to the community and I think it is wonderful,you should all be commended and some of you I am
sure sleep well at night. But, some of you I,want to say,what they want to say,which is shame on you,
shame on you for letting this happen.You can say well we had rules in place, so good for you if that
makes you sleep better,fine. But those of you that raised questions on the Eno project,I applaud you,
Because it is hard to sit there amongst your colleagues and raise tough questions. We have a beautiful
community and look what you have done,yes,you have done and the Commissioners.You have gone
hand in hand. Shame on you.You should have not let this get this far.And now,we have a water
situation.We are in a drought situation.And yet we are worried that our property is going to be flooded.
We are in a drought and we are worried about a flood.What is going to happen?But you will be safe and
sound in your own homes. And when your ride out to get ice cream you think about it. Because you have
helped make this happen. But it can be fixed,but do you have the guts to fix it?Do you really have the
guts to fix it?
Bryant Dodson: I also have some questions and comments.We have 142 acres and I doubt that 20 acres
will perk.It is all in the same few miles.Also I do know of two neighbors in the last few years who have
dug wells that were no good for anything but post holes. So there have been some water problems there in
this neighborhood. So with 22 wells,22 septic tanks there in lies my questions.And with that much
water and as Liz Fudge was saying,we are at a lower height than they are. We have a lot of questions.
Gooding-Ray:That was about 9 people. Is there anyone else?One more.
Robert Newton: I heard what these good people here tonight had to say.And would I thoroughly support
their opinions on this being a negative kind of development. I would request very seriously that this
board,good people of our own community,that they get up and send to the appropriate commissioners
the strongest possible statement reflecting the opinions of these other home owners who are going to be in
a bad spot because of this. Failing to the paving when the subdivision person when the developer should
pay it,our well level situations are already starting to suffer because of the draught,no one has any idea
when it will end,nor have any hydrologic studies been provided to the commissioners along with any of
the other critical information that they should have heard earlier on.I would expect this group of people,
you people,to make a very strong stand for what we are trying now to catch up to.We would appreciate
any effort on your parts to be heard and heard loudly by these commissioners for the benefit of these
homeowners. I thank you. I live at 1715 Borland Rd. close enough that this is going to effect me.
John Potter:We moved to this area about 3 years ago now and we are directly behind the comer of this
development behind here so we are adjacent to the property.We are bordering right on this property line.
I think that is important,if most of the comments are being made are being made to the record,I think it is
important to know that this is only 51 acres here.The original sale of this property is more to the tune of
117 acres.The way on this map here we all need to look here because it is part of the record,there is a
road that leads up to just about the corner of our property.All those roads are open.This road continues
we are sitting right back in here,this road is continued on at some point and this is where a balance of that
property begins.I can imagine that there is going to be fiuther development if this is allowed to go
through.And I think that is an important point. Let's not forget the other 50+acres that are sitting back in
here and what is important about those 50 acres is that a big portion of that is landlocked. The only access
to the additional property is through this development. There are two other points that are important.
Directly next to us is a 10 acne piece of property that was sold two years ago and they did not find a perc
site and had to move on down the road even to build a house. Secondly we have a 400+foot well that
only develops about a gallon and a%a a minute. So,there are some real issues out there. Thank you.
Bobbie Marshall: I primarily have a question.You were quick to point out before our time to talk that at
this point there is nothing that the Planning board can do.My question after making phone calls since I
found out about this is can somebody tell us what there is left that we can do. I don't know where to turn
with this.We and other people have talked. We have a well that is 550 feet deep,it has already gone dry
once because someone at the opposite end of the road put in a well.And ours was completely dry. Even
though it is 550 feet deep we get 1 gallon a minute.That is without this additional development. So,if
you can either give us information about where we can turn or what we can do or direct me to where we
can find that information I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Alice Dawson: 2902 Arthur Minnis Rd. I would just like to,kinda like she said,one of the things that is
interesting about this process tonight is that the Phuming board and staff are here clearly to assist the
developers. I don't mean inappropriately,but that is what you all are doing.Who is going to help us with
this?Will you provide the same services and help to us as citizens and land owners in Orange County
who have lived in and loved this area as you provided to these developers who are going to come in and
destroy what we have all been trying to live for many years.
Gooding-Ray: any discussion?I just want to know. My understanding is that we can prepare a resolution
to the County commissioners or send a memo to them. Benedict,one thing that I would like for you to
address or perhaps you could reiterate what you said before about the process that the County
commissioners could go through so that you all can understand what your possible options are. If you
can't hear please let us know.
Benedict:I will refer this also to the County Attorney because the county attorney will be the one that will
be recommending any actions to be taken by the commission which is where it lies at this point.Goof
Gledhill, is the county Attorney. Based on tonight's discussion,based on the minutes of this meeting,we
will forward all of this information to the County attorney. Any written letter that is not confidential to the
18
Commissioners will be distributed to anybody on this mailing list that we have here today so that as he
recommends the council about what action they can take to rehear or reconsider or whatever action the
County attorney recommends [advises],that information will be made available to the public:We will
take any resolutions that come forth from this board.
One generalized comment,about a month ago this board sent a letter to our County
commissioners asking for limitations or growth control on new development because of a lot of the same
issues that you commented on tonight: water resources,traffic, change in large developments in Waal
areas.Now,all of those issues were also taken up at the June 27a'BOCC meeting. They have again
passed a resolution to the County manager,planning director, county attorney and the planning board to
say what projects and what pipeline. Can you just stop development immediately?No,there are private
property rights and there has to be a reflection on what the rights of undeveloped property are.What
projects,what are the parameter,of large projects?That information is coming back to dais board and will
have to be resolved in the short term.I do not think this board is negligent in identifying that there are
some difficulties with what private property rights are established on our landuse plans,our zoning plans
and what the neighborhood sentiment is.We are trying to operate at some times conflicting points of view
about what those issues are. Later tonight on our agenda we will be talking about those parameters.
To final response to where do we go from here and who will act on behalf of these citizens,we
will take the comments of tonight,verbatim minutes will be prepared,they will be forwarded on to both
our Commissioners and our County attorney about what action can be taken and public information
coming from that will be forwarded back to these residents to give them the opportunity of what steps
they can take to rehear,reverse or whatever opportunities are available. I have made notes about this
situation also.
One last comment,more of a general comment,is that the county is involved in updating its
comprehensive plan, recognizing more concern over water resources and the development of Waal areas
and there is a mismatch that this board has recognized in the rural buffer about existing character and lot
sizes of the land and what are minimums that are here.This board nor staff can say there is a two-we
density requirement,but we want you to go with 5-acre lots. That is not within the preview of this board
or within the purview of staff So,we try to do the best with the regulations that we have, recognizing
some of the constraints.We have in recent years identified more constraints to the land than what was
known even 6 years ago. The USGS maps are starting to identify water resource issues. But,that has not
completely been the basis of new changes to the density and minimum lot size requirements and we hope
to wrap that in with our new comprehensive plan. These residents that are very concerned about the
character of their land,these are the same residents that the Commission and this Planning board and staff
would like to support changes to our comprehensive plan to make.these linkages.Very often when we
change regulations to decrease the density in areas we have a group of people that say you are taking
away my private property rights and we want to develop at will. So,you can see there is conflicting
interest here and we would like to act on behalf of the general community interest,based on the
constraints to the resources that we have in specific areas.
Gooding-Ray:When is the next County Commissioners meeting?
Benedict:August 2&I believe.We will have a report together and also hopefully some sort of response
from our county attorney definitely prior to that in anticipation.I can give to any designee from this group
[community]if they waM to be the lead in our communications,we can forward the status report that is
occurring on this issue.
Bob Johnson: Can I ask a quick procedural question?I am just wondering if it is possible to get a
commitment from the planning department not to issue grading permits or building permits until we have
heard back from the county attorney. That is our concern is that by the time the August commissioner's
meeting happens things are going to be happening at the site.
0
Jq
Gooding-Ray: That was my concern as well that the county commissioners get this information before
anything like that happens.
Benedict:As was mentioned by the citizens tonight,it is a preliminary plan approval.Before it becomes a
final plan approval there is a lot more work to be done mainly in the technical issues.Final surveying,
they also have to go back to the health department and verify that septic systems are available to the exact
dimensions available on each lot. That is what occurs.There is a preliminary indication that septic
systems can be accommodated out there in the lot design that we have.The final septic system designs
and actual construction permits would be issued prior to the final plat. I can not at this time say that I'll
take this response and request for either this board or the public that we will not—Rape ended] [process
things any differently]-
Price: If everything goes along as usual,how long will it take for the final plat to be issued?
Benedict: Typically it takes 6-9 months after the preliminary plans are approved. They are not able to put
the parcels in and get those final technical details before then. That is the typical timefiame, 6-9 months
after the final ph-it.
Price:And my other question is evidently in order for there to be a change right now we need to find
where there was a loophole or some negligence on our part or the commissioner's part and I am
wondering,it seems to me from what the community is saying,that there was not enough information
conveyed or gathered about water resources and I am wondering if this is something,do you feel that staff
did not get enough information together,and I guess it is up to the board here to decide whether there was
enough information gathered and analyzed. Can we use that to approach the commissioners and say that
this needs to be reheard.
Benedict:Two quick responses to that.This has come up before with this board about can we deny a
project if the health department can issue a legitimate septic system permit for it.No,we cannot deny a
project if they say there is an available septic site on it.With Tuscany Ridge we do have a report from our
environmental health office that says from a preliminary standpoint there are 22 septic systems that can be
accommodated out there. So that is the expert information that came from the environmental health
department.From a well standpoint,there is no minimum flow limit,whether 1 gallon per minute is
acceptable to come from a well.As the people that are in this room that have wells with 1 gallon per
minute,they were allowed to use the well. So,there are no minimum limits as long as they can obtain
some sort of water supply.No lot will be permitted unless there is an acceptable well and an acceptable
septic area on that lot. So,what we are saying is that the information that we have received from the
department of health which is not the planning department it is the experts that have the jurisdiction over
this matter as far our development code to justify whether the lot is acceptable or not from a well and
septic system standpoint.
Price: I get the feeling that information,that there is information other than what this department seat to
the planning department that hasn't been considered.The real situation And that is what I am concerned
about not what comes out of a book,but actually from going out there and walking the land like these
people. I have been in the planning profession myself and I know there is a big difference between
reading what is on paper or what is statistically supposed to happen and what happens out there on the
field, in the field,on the land.That is my concern. And that is why I am trying to raise that,-I want to get
that as a possible loophole that we can use to say that bring this up for further 000sideration. Either by the
planning board or the BOCC.The BOCC actually,not us,but something we can present to them.
Gooding-Ray: I see no reason why we couldn't pass a resolution that would include that information and
send it to them.
MOTION:
Bryan: I just have a proposal just to move it along that we could consider.That we request the
commissioners to hold a special meeting to reopen the public hearing on Tuscany Ridge,receive public
comment and as well have staff research recommendations on the issues brought up at this planning
meeting. Those would include the size and configuration of the development,the effect of the
development and land topography on adjoining properties in terms of wells and stormwater management,
the paving of Arthur Minnis Rd.,and the notification process for adjoining property owners in the rural
buffer.
Gooding-Ray:You are making a motion?
Bryan: I am putting it on the table just to move things along.
Gooding-Ray: Move? Seconders?No fiuther discussion?
Price:I think we really need to point out the hydrological situation and geological,because I really think
in order to reopen the hearing we have to show that there is some kind of a flaw otherwise we might not
be able to have a meeting or trigger further,action.
Bryan:What I think I heard was that staff was going to send the minutes from this meeting in total to the
board including those minutes in support of our resolution.,
Schofield: Just one quick comment. I have a series of points where I think it is really our it is a problem of
the regulation that there is not a notification process in the rural buffer that is absurd on its face and it has
got to be changed. And perhaps that should be part of the second point is that I am not going to apologize
for passing Tuscany Ridge and I hope no one else here on the board will either.While we perhaps don't
know all the contours of your community or neighborhood,I don't know that you know the contours of
our board and how hard we anguish to try to stretch the rules and win concessions for the neighborhoods
from every developer that comes before us.But there are rules and we are doing the best we can with
what tools we have got.And,we are not the ones who change the rules.We do-our best to try to limit
those impacts. I am going to support the resolution wholeheartedly,and my hope is that three things
happen from the people who are here today and that is that they make the demands that the
commissioners revisit this issue,that they do pursue a"litigativer track and that perhaps at some point
decide what perhaps they can live with and perhaps approach the developers and see if negotiations to
some agreeable resolution can be reached because that may ultimately be,if you can't stop the
development and your process of delaying it at lease a way of getting to some at least acceptable
resolution and maybe that could include moving the density from 22 to 15 or 11 or some type of density
that you feel is appropriate to the area.I hope that you consider that track as well.
VOTE:
Gooding-Ray: Any further discussion before we have a vote on this?The hearing all in favor say aye,
opposed. It's unanimous. So is then:any further discussion about this issue?
Schofield: I would like to propose that we with all haste,we change the procedure for big subdivisions
proposed in the rule development to include neighborhood notification.
Tadd: I would like to extend that to..I am not in the rural buffer but our neighborhood wasn't told about a
development either so,it is not just the rural buffer,but the rural area including the rural buffer. I want to
extend the notification to include a large area.All neighborhoods ought to be notified about a big
development project. I don't think it should just be in the rural buffer.
a �
McAdams:Well,the current rile is that within 1000 feet property owners are notified. So,are you asking
that that 1000 feet be increased to another number?
Tadd:Yes.
Price:You are asking that other areas also be included right?
Gooding-Ray:What areas do not have neighborhood notification besides the rural buffer?
Benedict:There are no other areas.
Price:There I think we need to look at that also.If you are in a rural area 500 R is nothing.
Gooding-Ray: Does someone have a proposal for how many feet it should be?
Tadd: I would like to suggest that the area of notification be extended to at least a half mile radius in the
rural buffer. 500 feet is absolutely nothing.
Price:What about the nual area?
Craufurd Goodwin: Is this something that requires deliberative thought?Why don't we ask the staff team
to examine this question and return to us with a recommendation and the issues laid out.
Tadd: I will defer to Craufurd.
Howard: I second it.
Schofield: I am not going to accept that. I will comment on this motion.We have 500 feet already in place
it is a gaping hole right now I suggest moving forward and making it consistent with the other
jurisdictions. Give our staff 30,60, 90 days to study,deliberate,I don't want to be open during that time. I
would like to close that gap at least at 500 feet until that time at which we may revisit the issue. That is
my thinking,if you don't like it we can tam it down or come back.
Gooding-Ray: Please restate your motion in its entirety.
MOTION:
Schofield:That all major subdivisions in the rural butler require a neighborhood notification process at
the current standard of 500 feet.
Price: I am wondering since we are going through this process now,if 500 feet is inadequate also in the
rural area.
Benedict:All I want to say is this is definitely a glitch in the rural buffer as exemplified by tonight's
input. I don't want to put together a band-aid approach where we fix one thing,but the underlying root
problem is still a problem.What I would suggest is give staff a chance to talk about the area surrounding
the nual buffer that includes minimum lot sizes and lets bring all that back in a package to
comprehensively look at it and one of the elements will be the justification. (end tape)
Price: I don't like this band-aid approach.
dam+
Triebel: I would like to give staff a chance to come back with some kind of comprehensive list instead of,
I don't see the need of jumping right now at this point without having it fleshed out a little bit more.
Gooding-Ray: I would like to make my comments.I feel an urgent need after listening to these people to
pass something right now.It is very frightening to me if we have any area in the county where people are
not notified.
Price: But this isn't going to go anywhere right?You passed a motion but that requires an ordinance
change.
Gooding-Ray: Yes. So,the county commissioners will have to deal with that. So in the meantime the staff
can research this issue and we can pass another resolution at that time.
Tadd: I would like to address Price's point.Going back once again to the Woodlands,there were only
two people notified because there were only two people that lived within 500 feet of the development but
it affected a huge area.And so,the whole idea of 500 feet,I have to agree with you it is just not nearly
adequate.
Triebel: I agree with that too. I would just like to get the information to do it right,that is all I am saying.
MOTION:
Tadd: That all major subdivisions in the Waal buffer require a notification process at 500 feet.
Lasris 2'd.
Price: so how many yeas and how many nays do we have?
Gooding-Ray:What I heard was that there were 3 nays on the record.But it is not really in place.It is a
resolution.
Benedict:It is a lengthy process and we are going to move with all due speed to get this item on there. I
think that we are going to be able to catch up those other issues.That is the game plan.
Lasris: I want to say one thing for the record. Even if we listen to all these people and we hear their
concerns,we have to follow the ordinances.These developers crossed the T's and dotted the I's and what
else do we have,what else could we have done,but said it is OK.What else could we have done?When
will we have that power to actually change that?
Gooding-Ray:We will never have that power to change the ordinance.
Lasris: Then why do we meet?
Gooding-Ray: The theory will be that the Commissioners have that power. We are here to make a
recommendation to the Commissioners to use that power. We can say we don't like it because of this,
because of that ....because it meets the regulations,but you have to be an elected official in order to have
legislative power in North Carolina and we can beg all we want but we're not going to get it.
Triebel: I'm trying to say I may have made a different recommendation if I'd heard that two wells had
gone dry and one guy had a lot that didn't perk and yada yada yada;that's all valuable information, and
maybe we couldn't have done anything other than what you were saying,but we could have
recommended something different, so I think we do have the power—quote unquote-to do something.
.:.12
Bryan: One gentlemen.... regarding our ordinance —do anything for the possibility for us to address
those concerns,so there is more here that allows us to address those concerns and say what we want to do
about them, sections under the land use..
Gooding-Ray: Well,one thing about...the forum is having David Owen,or someone else in the Institute
of Government come and explain the legislative,quasi-judicial decisions and what we can actually ...
There are going to be teaches the municipal officials, what they can and can't do,I'm not so sure why no
one came and taught us what we can and cannot do,so it you all could get on tbat,it would be fine.
Davis: In section 2 of the Ordinance,The Planning Board Powers,there are two pages that everyone can
read on what your role is and it is not legislative.
Gooding-Ray: Okay,it is 10:00 which means I have to have a motion if we are to continue the meeting,
or not.
MOTION:
Preston: I vote we continue the meeting briefly, and if we can do the board part—I have no patience
when we start at 6:00. I can't sit here until 11:00 at night.
Gooding-Ray: Is there a lad.?
Gooding-Ray: You're not seconding it.
Preston: I said 10:15.
Gooding-Ray: Okay,is there a tad?
Lasris: 2"d
Gooding-Ray: The only comment I would say is I would actually prefer continuing this at 6:30 next time,
as there will be further discussion and were going to go to 10:15.
Preston: Is there anything we really need to cover,that we have to cover,a life and death situation that
can't wait till the next meeting?
Benedict: Let me offer that there will be no discussion,I will just tell you what was in the packet tonight
—and you can take that home with you so, at least,you are not going home without our explaining what is
in the packet—that can be done in 15 minutes.
Gooding-Ray: Okay,then can we continue the rest the next meeting. Do we.know what is on the agenda
for the next meeting? Any fun things like Tuscany Ridge?
Davis: Clear but for Telecommunications Towers—that is our amendments.
Gooding-Ray: So we can continue the other items except for what is in the packet. Okay, lets go.
AGENDA ITEM#10: DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. Growth Control: Discussion of rationale and specificity of
Growth Control/Moratorium Issues
a¢
Name/Address !Telephone Numbers
Doris Friend
5812 Dodson's Crossroads
Hillsborough,NC 27574
968-1013
Rita Kay Dees Ware
1805 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
942-2469
Pete Fudge
1820 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
967-7146
Kathy Fudge
1820 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
967-7146
Martha Martin
1721 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
929-7978
Bob Johnson
1721 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
929-7978
Fred and Martha Zimmerman
1910 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
967-8517
Randy Marshall
2311 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
929-7932
Bobby Marshall
2311 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
929-7932
a �-
Name I Address I Telephone Numbers
Elizabeth Fudge
14 Timberlyne Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
933-9339
Sara Fudge
14 Timberlyne Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
933-9339
Kim Dodson
6511 Rocky Ridge Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
942-7665
Joanne Mangum
1931 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
967-4050
Jeff Mangum
2305 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
967-0595
Virgins Dodfrey
2500 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
932-3473
Sara Emor
12 Sweetbriar Lane
Chapel Hill,NC 27574
493-4863
Lucy Adams
5128 Green Meadow Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
942-8925
Sandy Newton
5009 Boulder Run
Hillsborough,NC 27574
967-6367
Alice Dawson
2902 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
929-0398
Jim Kessler
2902 Arthur Minnis Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
929-0398
Benedict: Growth control--There was an item that talked about a report that went to the Orange County
Board of County Commissioners about what actions are necessary to be done for the growth control
moratorium. You'll notice the underlined area, What the Commissioners asks at their last meeting was
that we need to identify and define the type and scale of a large development project and that they want
the Planning Board to have some input giving details and parameters.
AGENDA ITEM 011: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Board Appointments
b. How Ordinance changes are initiated and processed
c. How Planning Board members can participate in joint board
task forces Regulation Change Procedure
d. Topic areas and Subcommittees and associated concerns
The Planning Board will take these items home for review and discuss them at the next meeting.
Waterston Project will be added to the Agenda and there has been a Public Hearing in
Hillsborough and will be a Td Public Hearing on September 19 so there will be time for me to unfold
information about that. The Commissioners have authorized me to speak on behalf of the County about
more economic developments and service for that area.
AGENDA ITEM#12: ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to discuss,the meeting was adjourned.
Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair
Becky Butler,Minutes Preparer
The following is a list of Concerned Citizens re: Tuscany Ridge
Name I Address I Telephone Numbers
John Potter
5400 Hawes Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
932-9914
Dorothy Potter
5400 Hawes Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
932-9914
Virginia Bakewell
2415 Arthur Minnus Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
942-1956
William Bakewell
2415 Arthur Minnus Road,
Hillsborough,NC 27574
942-1956
, A
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL &HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E.TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 21218
919.732.2196 FROM THEDESK OF
FAX 919.732.7997 GEOFFREY E GLED14ILL
WEBSITE WWW.CGANDH.COM EMAIL=.ffirakdhi]J@ adh.
August 15, 2002
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Margaret W. Brown
Moses Carey, Jr.
Alice M. Gordon
Stephen H. Halkiotis
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27.078
RE: Tuscany Ridge Subdivision
Dea= Board Members:
This letter is a follow up to the letter I wrote to you on
July 12, 2002, a copy of which is enclosed.
I have reviewed the transcription of the Planning Board
meeting of July 10, 2002 concerning the Tuscany Ridge
Subdivision. I have also reviewed a draft of the document
prepared by the -Planning Department staff which sets forth the
issues, public concerns and County response/actions to the
comments made at the July 10, 2002 Planning Board meeting. I am
writing separately to amplify and in some instances clarify the
County response/actions contained in the Planning Department
staff document.
My July 12, 2002 analysis of the legal effect of Board of
Commissioner approval of the Tuscany Ridge Subdivision did not
include the fact that had an error occurred in the process
followed by the County in approving the preliminary plan for
Tuscany Ridge, there would be a basis for reconsideration.
However, it is my opinion, based or. my review of the transcribed
minutes of the July 10, 2002 Planning Board meeting and my
review otherwise of the process followed by Orange County in the
Board' s consideration of the preliminary plan for the Tuscany
a�
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
August 15, 2002
Ridge Subdivision, that the Board cannot reconsider its decision
on the preliminary plan of this subdivision. Any further review
of that preliminary plan decision must be by the courts . The
decision, to approve the preliminary plan for .Tuscany Ridge
Subdivision contained no procedural errors under the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations and was in all respects
consistent with all Orange County land use ordinances .
Furthermore, a number of the conditions of approval for this
subdivision require the applicant/subdivision owner to do more
than the Subdivision Regulations themselves require.
I also want to take this opportunity to make some
observations about some of the concerns expressed by Planning
Board members and the citizens commenting at the July 10, 2002
Planning Board meeting about the process followed for this
subdivision and the substance of Orange County' s regulations
affecting the Rural Buffer. These observations follow:
1 . The Joint Planning Agreement, Section 1. 2.6, defines
the Rural Buffer as being:
a low-density area consisting of single family homes
situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2)
acres . The rural buffer is further defined as land which,
although adjacent to an Urban or Transition. area, is rural
in character and which will remain rural, contain low-
density residential uses and not require urban services
(public utilities and other town services) .
Orange County zoning regulations mirror the minimum lot size and
land use requirements of the Joint Planning Agreement. As
expressed in these regulations, historically, it has been the
view of the Board of Commissioners that its zoning regulations
should go no further than required by the Joint Planning
Agreement and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map.
However, this approach is not required by those planning
documents . That is, it has always been in the County' s power to
require a lower density or a larger lot size or both in its
zoning regulations that pertain to the Rural Buffer. It is also
within the County' s power to establish flexible development
requirements for subdivisions in the Rural Buffer. For example,
Orange County could retain the two acre minimum lot size but
require a three acre minimum density, further requiring that the
difference between the two be open space. In other words the
a�
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 3
August 15, 2002
flexible development technique which is now in place for the
rest of the County' s planning jurisdiction can be put in place
in the Rural Buffer so long as the minimum two acre lot size is
not compromised.
2. Any Orange County ordinance amendments, both zoning
and subdivision, which would have the effect of implementing
flexible development in the Rural Buffer would have to be
accomplished as prescribed in Section 2 . 6 of the Joint Planning
Agreement. That is, the proposal, to the extent that it effects
either the Chapel Hill joint development area or the Carrboro
joint development area would have to be referred to Chapel Hill
and Carrboro respectively for review and recommendation. The
County would have to wait the shorter of 30 days or receipt of
those recommendations before it could act. There is no joint
approval required for any such amendments. So long as the
proposed amendments did not require a land use plan amendment
(and what is used here as an example, in my opinion, would not)
and did not attempt to violate the Joint Planning Agreement,
Orange County' s approval of the amendments to its land use
regulations is all that is required. Furthermore, these
amendments would not have to go through the Joint Planning Area
public hearing process. Only Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan
amendments, Chapel Hill or Carrboro zoning map amendments
affecting the Transition Areas and text amendments to Carrboro
and Chapel Hill' s land use regulations which are inconsistent
with the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan are subject
to a joint public hearing and joint approval.
3 . Presently the County' s regulations do not provide for
neighborhood meetings or neighborhood notice for subdivisions in
the Rural Buffer. And, as you know, Orange County does not
conduct public hearings as part of its subdivision review
process unless the subdivision is presented by the developer as
a planned development under the Zoning Ordinance. If the
subdivision is also a planned development there is a public
hearing, part of the special use permit process. I can recall
very few residential subdivisions being presented to Orange
County as planned developments and only one, Churton Grove,
having been approved. Typically the only time a developer
chooses the planned development, special use process is where
the developer is seeking greater density than the zoning
regulations permit. The Subdivision Regulations can be amended
to require neighborhood meetings and neighborhood notice in the
3b
orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 4
August i5, 2002
Rural Buffer. This can be done without a Joint Planning public
hearing and without approval by either the Town of Chapel Hill
or Carrboro. Although Chapel Hill and Carrboro do not have a
"vote" on this procedural change, both Chapel Hill and Carrboro
should be provided copies of the proposed community meeting and
notice requirements for their recommendations.
4 . In the interim, Orange County can provide notification
of proposed developments in the Rural Buffer and, on a voluntary
basis, conduct community meetings concerning the proposals. That
is, if the County Commissioners (1) want there to be community
information meetings for developments in the Rural Buffer, prior
to or as part of a formal application process and (2) want
notice to residents in the area of proposed developments, they
can administratively direct the establishment of a procedure to
do that . Notifying residents in the area of a development can be
done by Orange County without ordinance authorization provided
there are funds to do so. However, in the absence of an
ordinance requirement for participation of the developer in a
community meeting, the developer' s participation would be
voluntary until it is an ordinance requirement. It is my opinion
that most if not all developers will participate in such noticed
community meetings, whether required by ordinance or not.
5 . A number of the persons speaking at the July 10, 2002
Planning Board meeting expressed concerns about the availability
of groundwater. The groundwater reports and data available to
the County may, with further technical and other work, become a
basis for requiring site specific groundwater analyses for
future developments, particularly in areas where scientific data
indicates that there is a paucity of groundwater. However, until
the analysis on this point is taken to another level, I do not
see a rational basis, a health, safety and welfare basis, for
the County refusing to allow subdivisions in areas of the County
with lesser amounts of groundwater. For the most part the
groundwater concerns are that you have to go deeper to get to
the groundwater and you don't get as much. Even where this is
true, 125 feet deep wells can be very productive within sight of
500 feet deep wells that are marginally productive. However, I
see nothing in the data to indicate that there are places in
Orange County where there is no potable groundwater. Because of
the fragmented rock groundwater system prevalent in Orange ,
County, the well issue is one of where, how deep and how much.
Therefore, an appropriate health, safety and welfare response is
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 5
August 15, 2002
likely to be overlay or special use zoning districts in areas
with minimal groundwater which require larger lots, lower
density or proof presented by the developer that they are not
needed.
6. Groundwater containment requirements (runoff) of
Orange County' s regulations are, for the most part, resolved
after. preliminary plan approval. That is, every development in
Orange County must be done in a manner which insures groundwater
containment . The Erosion Control Ordinance, the Neuse River
Basin rules and other rules contained within the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations accomplish this. The
burden then is on the County in administering these requirements
to insure that the project is designed and developed in a manner
that will comply with those regulations .
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL 6 RARGRAVE, P.C.
offrey G dhill
GEG/lsg
Enclosures
xc: Craig Benedict
Nicole Gooding-Ray for the
Orange County Planning Board
John M. Link, Jr.
lsg:letters\bdofcomtuscanyridge.ltr -
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL &HARGRAVE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
129 E TRYON STREET
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278
919-732.2196 FROM THE DESK OF
FAX 919.732.7997 GEOFFREY E GLEDHILL
WEBSITE W W W.CGANDH.COM E-MAIL pwffxj9WhJ1 @cp.dh. .
July 12, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Margaret W. Brown
Moses Carey, Jr.
Alice M. Gordon
Stephen H. Halkiotis
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
RE: Subdivision reconsideration; Statements made by .
Planning Director in minutes .of last Planning
Board meeting
Dear Board Members :
I am writing this letter before I have received and
reviewed a copy of the Planning Board minutes referred to above
so that you will know what I' ve advised the Planning Department
generally about this issue in the past.
When the Board approves a subdivision preliminary plan,
which action always involves exercising judgment and is
therefore quasi judicial in nature, its decision is res
judicata. The Board may not reopen and rehear the matter. Zoning
Hearings: Knowing Which Rules to Apply, David W. Owens, Vol.
58, No. 4 (Spring 1993). Little v. Board of Adjustment of City
of Raleigh, 195 NC 793, 143 SE 827 ( 1928) . Of course, this res
.judicata right of the subdivision owner is subject to the
conditions of approval and the subdivision owner complying with
the Subdivision Ordinance final plat requirements, both
substantive and procedural.
_ 33
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
July 12, 2002
There is an exception to this res judicata rule where some
material change in conditions occurs after the aperoval. The
conditions must have changed after approval, not the Board' s
awareness of them, before reconsideration would be- appropriate. '
In re Broughton Estate, 210 NC 62, 185 SE 434 (1936) .
Very truly yours,
COLEMAN; GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C.
eoffrey Gl hill
GEG/lsg
xc: Craig Benedict
.John M. Link, Jr.
Nicole Gooding-Ray, for the Planning Board
lsg:letters\bdofc=3ubdrecon.1tr
i
September 22 , 1987
JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT , made and entered into this 2nd day of
November , 1987 , by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE , a
political subdivision of the State of North. Carolina, THE TOWN OF
CHAPEL HILL, and the TOWN OF CARRa0R0, municipal corporations
duly created and existing under the laws . of North Carolina.
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the public, benefits expected to flow from the
cooperative efforts of the parties in establishing a coordinated
and comprehensive system of planning , within their, respective
areas of public concern, the parties to this Agreement . hereby
mutually agree as follows:,
ARTICLE I. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE
Section 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of
coordinated. and. comprehensive planning in the .Orange County
-
Chapei Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area ; as defined herein.
Section 1 .2 Definitions
A. Joint Planning Area . The- area within the Rural Buffer
and Transition Areas designated on the Joint ,Planning
Area Land q`Use ' Map 'lying :outside the extraterritorial
planning jurisdiction 'of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
B. Joint Planning . Area Land Use Plan. The Orange County
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan dated .
1986
April 1966 , adopted by Orange County August 10
1
(revised October 13 , 1986) , amended May 4 , 1987 and
as it may be amended from time to time.
C. Joint Planning Area Land Use Map. The Orange County-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Map,
adopted August 19 , 1986 ( revised October 13 , 1986 ) and
as it may be amended from time to time .
D. Carrboro Joint Development Review Area (CJDA) . The
area lying generally west of a division of the Joint
Planning Area and shown as such on the copy of the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Map attached to this
Agreement , labeled Exhibit. A, and incorporated herein
by reference . Exhibit A is appended to .this Agreement
solely for the purpose of indicating the CJDA and the
CHJDA boundary: Exhibit A is an accurate copy of the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as of the effective
date of this. agreement . However , it will only be
changed as the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map is
amended if the Map amendments change the location of
either the CJDA or the CHJDA.
E. Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area (CHJDA). The
area lying generally east of a division of the Joint
Planning Area and shown as such on the copy of the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Map attached to this
Agreement, labeled Exhibit A, and incorporated herein
by reference . Exhibit A is appended to this Agreement
solely for the purpose of indicating the CJDA and the
2
CHJDA boundary. Exhibit A is an accurate copy of the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as of the effective
date of this agreement . However , it will only be
changed as the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map is
amended if the Map amendments change the location of
either the CJDA or the CHJDA.
F. Joint Courtesy Review Area . A portion of the northern
Rural Buffer Area .bounded on the east by .1-40 and shown
as such on Exhibit A.
G. Rural Buffer. That portion of the Joint Planning Area
designated on the. Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as
such and designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan as Rural Residential , Agricultural , Public/Private
Open Space , Resource Conservation, Extractive/Disposal
Use and the overlay district designated Water Quality
Critical Area.. This area is further defined as being a
low-density area consisting of single-family homes
situated on .large lots having a minimum size of two (2')
acres . The Rural Buffer is further defined as land
which, although adjacent to an Urban or . Transiti'on
area , is rural in character and which will remain .
rural , contain low-density _:residential uses and not
require urban services (public utilities and other town
services )
B. Transition Area. That portion of the Joint Planning
Area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use .Map
3.
as such . This area is further defined as being in
transition from rural to urban or already urban in
density. Urban services (public utilities and other
town services ) are now provided to this area or are
projected to be provided to this area . The portion of
the Transition Area located in the CJDA shall be
further divided into Transition Area I and Transition
Area II on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map. The
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan shall provide that,
within Transition Area 11 , no tract may , after the
effective date of this Agreement , be approved for
development at a density that exceeds one ( 1) housing
unit per gross .acre until at least 75% of the gross
land area of Transition= Area I consists of any
combination of :
1 . lots containing one acre or less; .
2 . residential developments approved for development
at a density of at least one unit per acre ;
3 . streets , roads and utility easements' located ,
outside of lots containing one acre or less;
4. lots or tracts that are used for commercial ,
industrial , institutional or governmental
purposes ;
5 . tracts that are owned by the University of North
Carolina or other non-profit entities and that are
not available for development .
4
I , Development Permit . Major subdivision preliminary plat
approval and any discretionary permit ( whether called
conditional or special use permit or some other term)
issued by the Orange County Board of Commissioners , the _
Chapel Hill Town Council , or the Carrboro Board of
Aldermen.
J. Involuntary Annexation '. Annexation authorized or
undertaken pursuant to G.S. 160A-31 , Article 4A, Part
3 .
£, Voluntary Annexation . Annexation authorized or
undertaken pursuant to G. S. Chapter 16CA-31 or G.S.
Chapter .160A, Article . 4A, Part , 4.
Section 1.3 Effective Date and Duration
A.
This Agreement , except as provided below, shall become
effective on the effective date of an Orange County
ordinance, (1 ) adopting this Agreement (after it has
been approved by Chapel Eill' and Carrboro) ; ( 2 )
amending Orange County ' s Zoning Ordinance (including
Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations as prescribed
in Section 2. 1 of this Agreement; (3 ) amending the
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan to reflect the
existence of Transition Area I and Transition Area 11;
and (4) amending the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map
to show the location of Transition Area I and
Transition Area Ii as indicated on Exhibit A. Rny
previously adopted Agreements shall become null and
5
3�
void upon this date . The Appendix to this Agreement
shall .become effective upon the execution of this
Agreement.
B. This Agreement , including any Appendix hereto, shall
remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement
or by withdrawal of any party. Subject to termination
provisions of this Agreement , annexation provisions of
this Agreement shall be valid for not more than 20
years and may thereafter be renewed. A party may not
withdraw until it holds a public . hearing on the
proposed withdrawal followed by written notices to the
other parties within thirty - (30 ) days .of the public
hearing. The withdrawal shall be effective .one ( 1 )
year following receipt by the other party of the
written notice . Withdrawal of one party shall not
invalidate the . Agreement with respect to remaining
parties .
C.. Upon execution of this Agreement, the parties agree
that each will take , in a timely manner and without
unnecessary delay , all steps (including but not limited
to preparation and adoption of Zoning Naps, appointment
of Transition . Area representatives to Planning Boards
and Boards of Adjustment , and all required land use
ordinance amendments ) recuired to cause this Agreement
to become effective , and will notify the other parties
when those steps have been taken. Orance County will
6
notify the Towns by resolution when this Agreement be-
comes effective . This Agreement may become effective
as to two parties pending completion of steps necessary
to make effective a 3-party Agreement .
ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION , ADMINISTRATION AND
AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS
Section 2 . 1 Standards Within. the Transition Area
A. Chapel Hill shall prepare a Zoning Map for that portion
of the Transition area that lies within the CHJDA and
shall recommend its adoption by Orange County which,
upon approval and adoption as prescribed in Subsection
C of this Section , shall become part of the orange
County Zoning Ordinance . The Zoning Map shall be
prepared. using zoning ..districts which correspond to the
text of the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and
which correspond with the density designations and plan
classification's as prescribed in the adopted. Joint
Planning Area Land Use Plan and the adopted Joint
Planning Area Land Use Map for the CHJDA.
B. Ca.rrboro shall prepare a Zoning Map for that portion of
the Transition area that lies within the CJDA and shall
recommend its adoption by Orange County, which upon
approval and adoption as -prescribed in Subsection C of
this Section, shall become part of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance . The Zoning Map shall be prepared
using zoning districts which correspond with the
7
density designations and plan classifications as
prescribed in the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan and the adopted Joint .Planning Area Land Use Map
for the CJDA. Transition Area II shall have density
limited pursuant to Section 1.2H.
C. Upon completion of the Zoning Maps referred to in
Section 2 .1A and B above , Orange County shall amend its
Zoning Atlas in accordance with said 'Maps . Orange
County shall also adopt by reference ( i ) the Chapel
Hill Land Development Ordinance and make its provisions
applicable to that portion of the Transition area
located within the CHJDA, and ( ii ) the Carrboro Land.
Use Ordinance and make its provisions applicable to
that portion of the Transition area located within the
CJDA.
Section 2 .2 . Standards Within the Rural Buffer
Within the Rural Buffer, the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
(including Zoning "Atlas ) and Subdivision Regulations that
are in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall .
remain in effect unless amended in accordance with Section'
2..6 o�f this Agreement .
Section 2.3 Permit Administration Within the Transition Area
Except as otherwise provided in Sections 2.5 and 2 .6 ,
the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro ,
.respectively, shall perform all functions related to
the administration of the ordinances referenced in
8
Section 2 . 1C. Subject to the remainder of this
Section, Chapel Hill and Carrboro shall administer the
referenced ordinance's just as if the land were located
within the respective Towns ' .planning jurisdictions ,
Administration shall include , but not be limited to,
the following :
1. Receipt and processing of applications ;
2 . Issuance of any required permits and
certifications;
3 . Review and approval of required site/construction
plans ; .
4 . Conducting necessary site/building inspections;
5 — Enforcement of all standards ;
6. Any other -acts or things necessary to administer
the Ordinances;
and shall be carried out in a manner so as to insure
that a developer complies with
all applicable ordinance
requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit
issued ,by the. respective towns . The towns may also
charge fees for processing applications ,, conducting
site/construction plan reviews , and carrying out
site /building inspections in accordance with fee
schedules' .applicable within their respective planning
jurisdictions.
B. Whenever Chapel Bill or Carrboro receives an
application for a development permit as defined in this
a
Agreement relating to land within their respective
portions of the Transition area , it shall forward
copies of the application to orange County for review.
The towns shall establish timetables to insure that
Orange County has an opportunity to make
recommendations regarding such applications within the
framework of the County ' s regularly scheduled meeting
dates . To the extent possible , the timetables of the
County and the towns shall provide for simultaneous
review to expedite application processing; provided , .
however , the towns may not vote to issue or deny a
permit until they have received the recommendations of
Orange County or until the expiration of forty-five
( 45 ) days after Orange County has received the
application, whichever comes first .
Section 2 .4 Permit Administration in the. Rural Buffer
A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2 .6 and the
remaining provisions of this Section, Orange County
shall perform all , functions related to the
administration of the ordinances referenced in Section
2 . 2 in . .the same manner as if, the land were located
outside the Joint Planning Area.
B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for. a
development permit relating to land located within the
C$JDA Rural Buffer or the Joint Courtesy Review Area ,
it shall forward copies of the application to Chapel
10
Hill for review. Similarly, whenever Orange County
receives an application for a development permit
relating to land located within the CJDA Rural Buffer
or the Joint Courtesy Review Area , it shall forward
copies of the application to Carrboro for review. The
County shall establish timetables to insure that the
towns have an opportunity to make recommendations
regarding such applications within the framework of
their respective ,regularly scheduled meeting dates . To
the extent possible , the timetables of the respective
towns and the County shall provide for simultaneous
review to expedite application processing; provided;
however, .Orange County may not vote to issue or deny .a
permit until it has received the recommendations of the
respective Towns or until the .expiration of forty-five
(45 ) days after the respective towns have received the
application, whichever occurs first.
Section 2 .5 Enforcement Remedies .
A. Permit revocation , if necessary and authorized by
ordinance , shall be handled by the same. individual or
board. authorized to issue the original permit.
B. Within ,those portions of the Joint Planning Area where
the ordinances specified in Section 2 . 1.0 are
administered by the respective towns , enforcement
efforts through the use of civil penalties , criminal
penalties or injunctive relief shall be initiated by
11
the respective towns . The towns shall have the duty to
defend at their own expense and shall indemnify and
hold harmless , to the extent they can legally do so,
Orange County, its Board of Commissioners , its advisory
boards, its staff and all members of its boards and
staffs, in their official and individual capacities , .
from any and all claims , actions , proceedings ,
expenses , damages or liabilities , including attorneys''
fees and courts costs , resulting from the towns '
administration of the ordinances specified in Sections
2 . 1 ( C ) .
C. Orange County shall notify the respective towns and the
towns shall notify Orange County as soon as practicable .
thereafter of any such claim, action or proceeding .
Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments
A. Proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan and/or the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map may be
initiated by (i ) Orange County or ( ii ) the Towns or any
other party by filing a request for such an amendment
with Orange County. Any petition or request to amend
the . Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan received by the
County shall be referred: to the respective Towns. No
such amendment may become effective until after it has
been adopted by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro
following a joint public hearing by all three governing
bodies .
12
B. Except as provided herein, proposed amendments to the
text of the Orange County 'Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances that are applicable within the Rural Buffer
as well as proposed changes in zoning district
classifications ('i .e . , zoning map changes ) that affect
property within the Rural Buffer shall be initiated and
adopted in accordance with the ,procedures set forth in
those County ordinances . All such proposals that
affect the CHJDA shall be referred to Chapel Hill for
.review and recommendation , and all such proposed
amendments that affect the CJDA .shall be referred to
Carrboro .for review and recommendation. Orange County
may not adopt such proposed amendments until the
respective , Towns have made their recommendations , or
until the expiration of thirty (30 ) days follo wing such
referral , whichever occurs first.
C. Whenever' Chapel . Hill proposes to amend ' the . text of its
Land Development Ordinance , and whenever,. C'arrboro
proposes to amend the text of its Land Use Ordinance ,
the respective towns shall deliver a copy of the full
text of the proposed amendment to Orange County not
later than thirty (30 ) days before the date of the
public hearing on any such amendment_. however , with,
the written consent of the Orange . County Manaoer or his
designate , this thirty - (30 ) day period may be reduced
to not less than ten ( 10 ) dews . Unless Orange County
..3
files with the respective towns a written objection on
or before the date of the public hearing on the
proposed ordinance amendment , then adoption of the
amendment by the respective town shall automatically
effect a corresponding amendment to the applicable
ordinance adopted by reference by Orange County as
provided in Section 2 . 1C. Any such objection shall be
based on a determination by. Orange County that the
proposed amendment is - inconsistent with the adopted
Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . If a town adopts an
amendment despite Orange County' s objection , then it
shall refer such amendment to Orange County with a
request that the County make corresponding changes as
expeditiously as reasonably possible so that the, town
may continue to enforce within its portion of the
Transition area the same standards that it enforces
within its own planning jurisdiction. In the event of
objection by Orange .County as provided herein , no such
amendment shall be effective within the Joint Planning
Area until it is adopted by Orange County.
D. Orange County may not unilaterally amend the text of
its zoning or subdivision ordinances applicable to the
Transition areas ( i .e . , those ordinances adopted by
reference pursuant to Section 2 .1C ) . Amendments to the
ordinances referenced in Section 2. 1C by Orange County
may be accomplished only pursuant to subsection C above
14
48
( including adoption by Orange County following a
request to do so by the applicable town) . Any
petitions or request to amend these ordinances received
by the .County or , initiated by the County shall be
referred to the respective Towns.
E. With respect to property that is located within the
CHJDA Transition area , changes in zoning
classifications may not be made unless and until an
ordinance approving such zoning map amendment has been
approved both by Orange County and Chapel Hill
following a joint public ' hearing by the two governing
bodies . With respect-- to property that is 'located
within the CJDA Transition area , changes in zoning
classifications may not be made unless and until an
ordinance approving such zoning .map amendment has been
approved both by Orange County and Carrboro following a
joint public hearing by the two governing bodies .
Requests. for rezoning$ within the Transition areas . that
are filed with the County shall be ,referred to the
respective towns to initiate the amendment process
Fc Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement shall
not become effective until approved by . the, towns and an
Orange County ordinance adopting the amendment is
adopted by Orange County.
Section 2.7 Representation of Transition Area Residents
Chapel Hill shall revise its Land Development Ordinance and
15
Carrboro shall revise its Land Use Ordinance to provide that
at least one resident of each town' s respective Transition
area shall be appointed to each town' s respective planning
board and board of adjustment , in the same manner as
representation of extraterritorial planning area residents
is provided for in each Town' s ordinance .
ARTICLE 3 . LIMITATIONS ON ANNEXATION$
section 3 . 1, No Annexation Into Rural Buffer
Except pursuant to the Written consent of all parties to
this Agreement, neither Chapel Hill nor Carrboro may annex
into the Rural Buffer ( whether by voluntary or involuntary
annexation or any other method authorized by law) nor shall
any party seek special legislation accomplishing such
annexation.
. section 3 .2 No Annexation by One Town Into Another Town 's
Transition Area
Except pursuant to the written consent of the other town,
neither Chapel Bill nor Carrboro may annex into the other's.
Transition area ( whether voluntary or involuntary
annexation) or any other method authorized by law, nor shall
either Town seek special legislation accomplishing such.
annexation.
16
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 2nd day of November ,
ChairChair , 0�e County Board of
Commissioners
Attest:
J4gEL
Cle� to t Board of C issioners
ce �Ir�a�
oz, Town of Chapel Hill
�`_• ,C
>ti ,
Attes y
Town Glerk/
ayp Town of Carrboro
Attest:
Town Clerk
17
APPENDIX TO
JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
AMONG ORANGE COUNTY , CHAPEL HILL
AND CARRBORO
WHEREAS, Orange County , Chapel Hill and Carrboro have
executed a Joint Planning Agreement which
agreement is that to which this Appendix pertains ;
and
WHEREAS, a Joint Planning/Watershed Work Group, including
.representatives of the Towns of Carrboro and
Chapel Hill and Orange County , : developed an
" Outline of Agreement in Principle" containing
thirteen (13 ) statements of principle ; and
WHEREAS, the governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Orange •County have , by resolution, each approved
in concept the "'Outline of Agreement in
Principle; " and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement to which this
Appendix pertains implements those matters in the
" Outline of Agreement in Principle" upon which
there is agreement among Carrboro, Chapel Hill and
Orange County except as provided in this Appendix;
and
WHEREAS, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County wish .to
fully implement those matters in the "outline of
Agreement in , Principle" upon which there is
agreement .
1
Carrboro , Chapel Hill and Orange County hereby mutually
agree as follows:
I.. They have requested OWASA to commission a University
Lake , Watershed carrying capacity study. They will request OWASA
to commission a carrying capacity study for the Cane Creek
Watershed . The University Lake Watershed study shall be com-
pleted as soon as reasonably possible .
2 . For the period of time ending ninety ( 90 ) days
following the completion of the University Lake carrying capacity
study the following restrictions on Carrboro ; Chapel Hill and
Orange County shall apply.- ,
a.. Except pursuant to . the written consent of .all . three
<asr
parties , neither municipality may annex into the University
Lake watershed ( whether by involuntary or voluntary
annexation or any other method authorized by law) nor shall
either town seek special legislation accomplishing such
annexation.
b. Except" :pursuant to the written consent of all three
parties , ' no party shall seek or approve or encourage "
extension of water and sewer lines into. the University Lake
Watershed.
3 . The University Lake Watershed is,, for the puraose of
this Appendix, defined. in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan
and located outside o! the corporate limits of Carrboro as those
limits exist on the date this Appendix is executed.
2
- S3
9 . It is the intent of Carrboro , Chapel Hill and Oranoe
County to jointly discuss watershed planning and protection
procedures , standards and/or regulations which may be
incorporated into ordinances and :into the Joint Planning
Agreement .
This Appendix entered into this 2nd day of November ,
1982.
Chair , nge County Board of
Commissi ners
Attest:
Cler,to 4 oard of e6mmissioners
ti1+ � ,fiSayor ,� Town of . Chapel Hill
/I
� s
Aft t:
TowIL Cl k.
Mavo* Town o`_ C rboro
Attest:
Town Clerk
3
APZA
-BUFFER
AICT�4p, N7 MN D �` ..r..•
2SRu. - � y�'f.r^t.°✓-.OUKE;;4� 4 .
CHJD Y •so�ES `I
, ..., b?�:C•�.yjY"3:4�ro-" �MY�A�;Sd,fllr
Ltlranoer -�ae �, � � r
� t •� ..>. r .AUC. w � ��wi•cw" 2�
ar
Id
' ✓ I r_ __C��e. :�p��. MFYx A. ::.Ww, Sr.Q ..
. Cam-=� _ 2 •!4�^ a^-...ems ..Y 'A�
~_ ��, tm ' • � ham' �
� w .
.. � �r4 we SAC�. !/���.'lr�+/.'.�� � •_.���•I.�' ::._._<��� '�
_ 1�• ;jJ-.►,...: .SRO�;.y p � a %�
.L Lam . ter: i.i�=.�
tar-mrD 'Transition Arm 1 Lmive�ity Lace itziersned
U.,Do, 'Transition Arcs 2 in Dranat Louriy
Lmiversity Lace 4atersned
Lnaxl Sill 'Transition Area in Lar.aor :.:.�.
— La–mora/Lnaoel Hill Join. Crory i Sill/LaraDr, Laraaratc
Planning boundary —'"` Lie:s
...=.rater:-imrial 3urisE9:ion Jgint Lourtesy Review Area
(LiiStiny� -
CuJDA Cnaoel Hill Join: Development Review Area
LJDA Carrboro