HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-16-2000-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 16, 2000
Action Agenda
It®m No. 9- ~
SUBJECT; Orange County Subdivision Text Amendments •
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Ordinance -Administration Recommendation
2. Ordinance -Planning Board Recommendation
3. Draft Minutes -Planning Board -April 5, 2000
4. Ordinance. -Public Hearing Recommendation
5. Minutes -Public Hearing -February 28, 2000
6. Approved Subdivision List
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert P. Davis Ext. 2580
Craig Benedict Ext. 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 6$8-7331
Mebane (336)227-2031
PURPOSE: To make a derision regarding proposed Text Amendments
BACKGROUND:
e uest Orange County Administration and Planning Staff propose changes to the ORANGE COUNTY
Subdivision Regulations:
Amend Classification of Subdivisions review period from 24 months to 120 months
Revise the approval procedures for concept plans within all zoning districts except the
Rural Buffer
• Amend the Definitions Section of Subdivision by adding two additional
requirements to be met before a subdivision is classified as exempt
Location The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside
the municipalities and their extraterritorial jurisdictions, if any.
Existin and Pro ns
Existing: • ~ Resubdh-Ision of tracts can occur every 2 years
• ~a No cumulative provision within the ordinance now to measure impacts
Proposed: • ~ Cumulative provision to look at 10 years (120 months) to gauge the total
impact of minor subdivisions
Existing: • z Planniing Board currently approves all Concept Plans whether flexible or
conventional
• za The subdivider may chose the Concept development option he/she wishes
Proposed: • z Planning Board votes on staff recommendation of specific Concept option with
appeal to BOCC if Concept option conflict arises
• za Binding approval of only one Concept Plan option
• sb Preliminary process stays the same for Preliminary Plat review (i.e. Planning Board,
then BOCC)
Existing: • 3 Overuse of recombination process to avoid subdivision rules
• 3a Inability to control access points in the recombination process
Proposed: • 3 Prevent the recombination process from shifting access from lower
classified streets to major roadways (strip development)
Itnnlicat~on~
Pros: Better planning of land division by both owners and review agencies
• Binding concept approval will promote better plans with more open space in the
approval process
• Direct appeal to Board of County Commissioners
• Protection of traffic carrying capacity along major roadways
• Promotes rural character by discouraging strip development along roadways
Cons; More major and minor subdivisions to review
• Potentially more process time and paperwork if appeals, or conflicts, of Concept Plan
are appealed to BOCC
v I ment Proces h I and Acti
• Public Hearing February 28, 2000: Referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation back
to the Board of County Commissioners.
• Staff made modifications to Public Hearing Items based on BOCC, PB, and public comments
Approval of specific development option by Planning Board
• Binding approval of concept plan
• Appeal to BOCC if Planning Board vote and Staff recommendations differ
• First Action: Planning Board recommended approval of amendments at April 5, 2000 meeting.
• Final Action: Board of Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION(S) i tration R o m ndation: Approval of Administration
Ordinance
Planning Bo_ _ and Re~ommendatorl: Approval of Planning Board
Ordinance
minist and Pla ni Board Reco ions are " ital.
Note: Amendman~s to the subdivision regulations are legislative decisions (legislative public
hearing rules apply).
3
Administration Recommendation
An Ordinance Amending An Ordinance To Regulate The Subdivision
Of Land in Orange County
Section 1: (page 7 --Subdivision Regulations) Classification ofi Subdivisions
(1St exception)
All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions except those defined as minor
subdivision in this Section.
A "minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a tract of land that does not:
(1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one- (1)
tract of land in any ten (10) year period.
Section 2: (page 14 -Subdivision Regs) Plannin De artment Review Procedures
Section III-D-1-e
The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation,
including a written analysis of the Concept Plan; its general compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes
and ordinances; and the comments of neighboring property owners expressed at the
Neighborhood Information Meeting. The Planning StafF shall recommend to the
Planning Board -which Development Option Plan is recommended for eventual
Preliminary Plan processing.
The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for
one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is
scheduled to be heard.
Section 3: (page 14 ~ 14-a Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board, Review and
Aooroval Procedures
(1S, 2" , 3`d paragraphs)
After receiving the Planning Department's report or, if applicable, the expiration of the
time period prescribed in Section III-D-1 ~ e, the Planning Board shall consider the
Concept Plans, including both the Conventional Development Option and the Flexible
Development Option, and take action on the proposals. The Planning Board shall base
its action on its findings as to the conformity of the proposals with all applicable
regulations anc~ shall:
Approve ~e one Development Options; or
Approve tie one Development Options subject to conditions;or
Deny the Development Options.
Page 1 of 3
A~
Administration Recommendation
~ rwww.w.ww.~c.l~Iiwr. e.hwll Iww ~y~~y'
def. The Planning Board shall vote on whether the development should
proceed as a Conventional Development Option or as a Flexible Development
Option. If that vote approves the Development Option recommended by the
Planning staff, the vote by the Planning Board is the frnal decision on whether the
d®velopment proceeds as a Conventional Development Option or as a Flexible
Development Option. If the Planning Board vote is other than one approving the
Development Plan Option recommended by the Planning Staff, the application
shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a decision by the
Board of County Commissioners on whether the development shall proceed as a
Conventional Development Option or as a Flexible Development Option.
If the Planning Board approves #~e a Development Options subject to conditions, such
conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable
regulations. If the Planning Board denies #~e both
Development Options, the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the
applicant and entered into the minutes of the meeting at which such action was taken.
Section 4: (page 14-a -Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to Approval
Section III-D-1-g
(1st, 2nd paragraphs)
If tie a Concept Plan Development Options-aye is approved or approved with
conditions, the Planning Board Chair shall endorse the approval on 3 three (3)
copies of easy the approved Development Option. 9He~ep~} Two (2) copies of th®
approved easfa~ Development Option shall be retained by the Planning Department, and
one (1) copy shall be retumed to the subdivider orhis/her authorized agent. One copy
of the unapproved Development Option shall be retained by the Planning
Department for its files. The unapproved Development Option shall be stamped
"NOT APPROVED".
Upon approval of #~qe a Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board, the
subdivider may then
proceed with the preparation of a Preliminary Plan that is consistent with the approval
Concept Plan.
Section 5: (page 14d -Subdivision Regulations) Action Subse uent to A royal
fiction III-D-2-d
(1~ paragraph)
If the Concept Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the Planning Board Chair
shall endorse the approval on } three (3) copies of the Concept Plan. The
Planning Department for its files shall retain two copies and one copy shall be
retumed to the subdivider orhis/her authorized agent. The Planning Department for
its files shall retain at least one copy of any denied conc®pt plan. Upon approval
of the Concept Plan by the Planning Board, the subdivider may proceed with the
preparation. of the Preliminary Plat. The Planning Department for its files shall retain
Page 2 of 3
5
Administration Recommendation
one copy of a denied Concept Plan. The denied Concept Plan shall be stamped
"NOT APPROVED".
Section G: (page 6 $~ 6-a) DEFINITIONS
SUBDIVISION -Subdivision means all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or
more lots, building sites or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building
development (whether immediate or future) and includes all division of land involving
the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets, provided, however, the
following are not included within the definition and are not subject to any regulations
pursuant to this part:
(1) The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and
recorded lots if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are
equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its Subdivision
Regulations.
Resultant lots, as referred to herein shall be deemed to equal standards of the Orange
County /Subdivision Regulation if the following standards are met:
a. No conforming lat standard becomes non-conforming as a result of the
recombination; and
b. Any applicable impervious surface standards are met; and
c. Access is provided to a public road, either direct, or by recorded easement; and
d. A site suitable for sewage disposal is approved by the Orange County Health
Department. Where soil is unsuitable for sewage disposal, or soil suitability is
undetermined, a notice of restricted development potential shall be submitted and
the lots) in question shall be so noted on the plat; and
e. No increas® in the number of access points to a public street over the
number currently existing; and
f. Access is not shifted from a lower classified/volume street to a higher
classified/volume street
(Remaining part of definitions unchanged)
Section 7: This "Ordinance Amending An Ordinance To Regulate The Subdivision of
Land In Orange County, North Carolina" is effective upon its adoption. All major
subdivisions that have received Concept Plan approval may be considered and
approved pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations in effect prior to May 16, 2000,
provided that all Concept Plan conditions of approval are met and provided all
procedural (including time limits) and substantive requirements of this Ordinance are
met.
(Signature)
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
Date and Seal
(Signature)
Chair, Orange County Commissioners
Page 3 of 3
s
Planning Board Recommendation
An Ordinance Amending the Subdivision
Regulations-of Orange County
(Ordinance Review by Planning Board)
Section 1: (page 7 --Subdivision Regulations) Classification of Subdivisions
(1gt exception)
All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions except those defined as minor
subdivision in this Section.
A "minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a tract of land that daes not:
(1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one- (1)
tract of land in any *~••°^*~• ~°.,. -"~'-^°°^~h ten (10) year period.
Section 2: (page 14 -Subdivision Regs) Planning Department Review Procedures
Section III-D-1-e
The Planning Department shall submit to the Planning Board its recommendation,
including a written analysis of the Concept Plan; its general compliance with the
requirements of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable codes
and ordinances; and the comments of neighboring properly owners expressed at the
Neighborhood Information Meeting. The Planning Staff shall recommend to the
Planning Board which Developmen# Option Plan is recommended for eventual
Preliminary Plan processing.
The Planning Staff shall be allowed to defer the application and its recommendation for
one (1) meeting beyond the Planning Board meeting at which the application is
scheduled to be heard.
Section 3: (page 14 8~ 14-a Subdivision Regulations) Planning Board Review and
A_aoroval Procedures
(1 S , 2" , 3 paragraphs)
After receiving the Planning Department's report or, if applicable, the expiration of the
time period prescribed in Section III-D-1 ~ e, the Planning Board shall consider the
Concept Plans, including both the Conventional Development Option and the Flexible
Development Option, and take action on the proposals. The Planning Board shall base
its action on its fiindings as to the conformity of the proposals with all applicable
regulations and shall:
Approve t+ae one Development Options; or
Approve #~qe one Development Options subject to conditions;or
Deny the Development Options.
- IF •In..~ ~I.;....i.... Q°rirrl .~r.r.m~i.... ~hr. I1°ri°Inr~me^~ C1n}i~r.e. °i~M°r r•~i11~ .~~ ruiihh~ ~f
nar ~vwa
f
Page 1 of 3
Planning Board Recommendation
~e~. The Planning Board shall approve only one Development Option and
its decision shall be binding on the subdivider. The Planning Board's decision
shall be based on the characteristics of the site, its suitability for development,
and the intent of the Flexible Development standards as specified in Section IV-B-
10-A. In the event of a tie vote (i.e. no recommendation) on both development
options, or a different recommendation is offered, the application shall be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners and handled as specified in the
Appeal Procedures in this section.
If the Planning Board approves tqe a Development Options subject to conditions, such
conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with applicable
regulations. If the Planning Board denies ~qe both
Development Options, the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the
applicant and entered. into the minutes of the meeting at which such action was taken.
Section 4: (page 14-a -Subdivision Regulations) Action Subsequent to Approval
Section III-D-1-g
(1sc, 2"d paragraphs)
If #qe a Concept Plan Development Options-afe is approved or approved with
conditions, the Planning Board Chair shall endorse his/her approval on ~ three (3)
copies of easy the approved Development Option. Two (2) copies of the
approved eaF# Development Option shall be retained by the Planning Department, and
one (1) copy shall be retumed to the subdivider or his/her authorized agent. One copy
of the unapproved Development Option shall be retained by the Planning
Department for its files. The unapproved Development Option shall be stamped
"NOT APPROVED".
Upon approval of fqe a Concept Plan Development Options by the Planning Board, the
subdivider may then
proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat.
Section 8: (page 14d -Subdivision Regulations) Action_Subsequent to Approval
Section III-D-2-d
(1~ paragraph)
If the Concept Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the Planning Board Chair
shall endorse his/her approval on ~ three (3) copies of the Concept Plan. The
Planning Department for its files shall retain two copies and one copy shall be
returned to the subdivider or his/her authorized agent. The Planning Department for
its files shall retain at least one copy of any denied concept plan. Upon approval
of the Concept Plan by the Planning Board, the subdivider may proceed with the
preparation of the Preliminary Plat. The Planning Department for its files shall retain
7
Page 2 of 3
8
Planning Board Recommendation
one copy of a denied Concept Plan. The denied Concept Plan shall be stamped
"NOT APPROVED". "
Section 10: (page 6 & 6-a) DEFINITIONS
SUBDIVISION -Subdivision means all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or
more lots, building sites or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building
development (whether immediate or future) and includes all division of land involving
the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets, provided, however, the
following, are not included within the definition and are not subject to any regulations
pursuant to this part:
(1) The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and
recorded lots if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are
equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its Subdivision
Regulations.
Resultant lots, as referred to herein shall be deemed to equal standards of the Orange
County /Subdivision Regulation if the following standards are met:
a. Na confiorming lot standard becomes non-confiorming as a result of the
recombination; and
b. Any applicable impervious surface standards are met; and
c. Access is provided to a public road, either direct, or by recorded easement; and
d. A site suitable for sewage disposal is approved by the Orange County Health
Department. Where soil is unsuitable for sewage disposal, or soil suitability is
undetermined, a notice of restricted development potential shall be submitted and
.the lots) in question shall be so noted on the plat; and
e. No increase in the number of access points to a public street over the
number currently existing; and
f. Access shall not be shifted from a lower classifiedlvolume street to a higher
classifiedlvolume street
Page 3 of 3
DRA)HT
,QRANGE COUNTY PLANNIrTG.BOARD
3 MINCJTES
4 APRIL 5, 2000
S
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Allison (Chair), Karen Barrows, Lynne Haltkamp, Nicole Gooding-
? Ray, Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Rachel
8 Preston, James Selkirk, Bob Strayhorn, and Runyon Woods
9
10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Onie Lea (excused)
11 '
12 STAFF PRESENT: Craig N. Benedict (Planning Director), Planners Robert Davis and Eddie
13 Kirk, Christina Moon, Karen Lincoln, and Administrative Assistant
14 Joanna Bradshaw
15
16 AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
17
18 Chair Allison called the meeting to order.
19
20 AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
21
22 There were no additions to the agenda.
23
24 AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF NIINUTES -March 1, 2000
25
26 MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval of the March 1, 2000 Orange County Planning Board
27 minutes. Seconded by Barrows.
28
29 VOTE: Unanimous
30
31 AGENDA ITEM #4: COMMISSIONERS' MEETINGS ACTION REPORTS
32
33 Chair Allison made reference to the County Commissioners' meeting an March 14'~ and asked for any
34 comments.
3S
36 Barrows made reference to page 14, item 9b, and asked about the appeal procedures for minor
37 subdivisions.
38
39 Benedict said that if there is a determination by the staffthat a subdivision is not a minor subdivision but
40 a major subdivisi~; based on the criteria of public roads or otherwise, the appeal will go to the County
41 Commissioners as the deciding authority. This decision was at the urging of the County Attorney that
42 recommending boards do not make final approvals. He explained the amendments of the timeframes for
43 subdivision approval as follows: one month more for staff, one month more for the Planning Board, the
44 item is to be heard by the Commission within 90 days, and the language was changed by the Commission
4S to Say, "shall be decided on within a reasonable amount of time." The Commission must state the reasons
46 for wanting to defer the item to another meeting.
47
48 Chair Allison made reference to County Commissioners' meeting of March 21~ and said that there had
49 been some action on the Greene Tract and asked Benedict to explain this.
SO
51 Benedict said that the original Interlocal Agreement between the towns and the County to take over solid
52 waste facilities was predicated on the clause that 60 acres would be transferred to the County for solid
53 waste matters, and this 60 acres was to be rezoned to handle the solid waste. Based on public input, the
O
:brp
~ ~
~~o ,
~ 1(
~. ~`~ Goodwin asked about the size and value ofthe homes. Kirk said that the lots would cost between $60-
75,000 and the homes would cost between $300-350,000. - --
$0 5 Strayhorn asked Tom ?? how he felt about the joint driveways. Tom ?? said that he would rather not
6 have them.
7
8 Woods said that in some cases shared driveways are a good idea, but not in this case, He said that in this
9 subdivision and in Gregory Woods, it is implied that the improvements that the staff is asking far are
10 directly connected to the price ofthe lots. He said that the high prices ofthe lots are blamed on the cost
11 of unprovements that the County is requiring.
12
13 Goodwin asked how strongly the Planning staff felt about the shared driveways.
14
1S Benedict said that the intent was to limit access along the roads that will interconnect to subdivisions. He
16 agrees with Woods in that. shared driveways are not critical for this subdivision.
17
18 MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval ofthe concept plan for Rose Haven subdivision with
19 ~ the deletion of recommendation #3 and the addition ofthe temporary turn around
20 on Rose Haven Drive. Seconded by McAdams.
21
22 VOTE: Unanimous.
23
24 AGENDA ITEM #9: ITEMS HEARD AT PiTSLIC HEARING 2/29/2000
2s
26 a. Subdivision Tezt Amendments regarding Concept Plan procedures
27
28 Presentation by Robert Davis.
29
3o Davis said that one ofthe first things that was discussed at the public hearing was the changing ofthe
31 review period of subdivisions. At this time, if there is a five-lot subdivision, every two years another five
32 lots can be added. Under this procedure, a potentially major subdivision could be approved under the
33 minor subdivision requirements. It is proposed that the five-lot provision would increase to 10 years so
34 that any cumulative subdivision over five lots would be considered a major subdivision.
3S
36 The second item that was discussed at the public hearing was.the review ofthe concept plans. Based on
37 comments from the Planning Board members and the County Commissioners at the public hearing, the
38 staff is proposing that a policy board be involved in reviewing concept plans. There is now a proposed
39 binding .provision for the specific plan -conventional or flexible -that is to be followed. In the event that
40 there is a tie vote fvr the plans, the application shall be forwarded to the County Commissioners and
41 handled as specified in the appeal procedures. This only applies outside the rural buffer, because there is
42 only one plan for the rural buffer.
43
44 The staff is also proposing to keep three copies ofthe approved option. Two copies would be kept in the
45 files and the developer ofthe subdivision would receive a copy. A copy ofthe unapproved option would
46 also be kept in the files.
47
48 There were also some changes proposed in the subdivision definition section. One ofthe proposed
49 changes is to have no increase in the number of access points to a public street over the number currently
SO existing.
S1
S2 Barrows asked about someone who wanted to subdivide and needed another access point on a public
53 street. Davis.said that it could still be processed as a major or minor subdivision.
ono
2 Davis said that the Planning Board would have this meeting or the next meeting to make a
3 recommendation about the text amendments.
4
5 Selkirk asked if it says anywhere that there would be a provision for some access points on a public street.
6 Davis said that there was a section in the ordinance that addresses this.
7
8 McAdams asked about the ten-year review period and clarified that subdivisions with a sixth lot in the
9 third year are considered major subdivisions.
10
11 Strayhorn said that the abuses of the minor subdivisions have been magnified. He said that the ten-year
12 waiting period bothers him because it could force some people to have a major subdivision and sell all of
13 their land. He would like to address some of the problems of the minor subdivisions without the ten-year
14 waiting period.
1$
16 McAdams thinks that ten years is excessive.
17
18 Woods said that it seems that probabilities are being weighed. He said that someone could come in and
19 dodge the process or a landowner that needs help would not be able to get it quickly. He is sympathetic to
20 the property owner who needs to subdivide quickly and easily.
21
22 Forrest Heath, Jr., a landowner in Orange County, made reference to a notice in the paper that described
23 the regulations that are being discussed. He said that he approached the Planning Department five days
24 before the public hearing to ask for a copy of the exact verbiage that was to be discussed and it was not
25 available to the public. He said that the public did not know what was going to be discussed and therefore
26 had no input to the changes. He said that a lot more restrictions are being placed on property owners and
27 he feels that there has not really been a public forum to discuss the changes. He strongly disagrees with
28 this.
29 '
30 Benedict said that the public hearing process was on February 28, 2000 for oral public input. The public
31 still has the ability to provide written testimony and comments for considerations. He said that
32 timeframes were part of a previous public hearing that went back to August 23, 1999. He said that
33 tonight the issues are the ten-year period and the concept plan approval.
34
35 Chair Allison said that he was a little leery about the ten-year period.
36
37 Katz suggested making a recommendation to approve this with the consideration that the County
38 Commissioners recoasider the ten-year period to reduce it.
39
40 Discussion ensued on how long the review period for subdivisions should be.
41
42 . Gooding-Ray asked about the Planning staffs rationale behind the ten years.
43
44 Benedict said that other towns and counties were researched and most of the subdividing is done for
4S landowners' children. Ten years seemed to be a reasonable amount of time. Some of the towns and
46 counties have no time lnnits. He made reference to the limited access to public roads.
47
48 Strayhorn said that he agrees with the limited access to public roads, and asked if the subdivisions could
49 just have one access, and any future subdividing would have to use that access. Benedict said that the
50 staff is working on some master planning to deal with this issue.
51
52 Goodwin suggested taking two separate votes; one vote far the amendments and a senararP ~~rP f„r +~,p
~~
~o
~~~ MOTION: Goodwin moved approval ofthe subdivision text amendments regarding concept
' plan procedures and to hold the number of years ofthe subdivision waiting
4 period. Seconded by Woods.
7 Barrows said that she wished Mr. Heath had come to the public hearing because no one spoke against the
8 amendments at the public hearing. -
9
10 Mr. Heath said that he would have, but he did not have the specific language of what was being proposed.
11
12 VOTE: - Ayes, 8; Noes, 2 (McAdams and Strayhorn). McAdams is opposed to Section 2.
13 Strayhorn thinks that the option for conventional subdivisions is being lost.
14
15 MOTION: Gooding-Ray moved acceptance ofthe staff recommendation for the subdivision
16 waiting period often years. She feels that ten years seems reasonable in light of
17 the unlimited waiting periods in other parts ofthe state. Seconded by Goodwin.
18
19 VOTE: Ayes, 8; Noes, 2 (McAdams and Strayhorn).
20
21 b. Transportation Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan
22
23 Karen Lincoln made the presentation.
24
25 Lincoln said that the proposal is to upgrade the road classifications that are currently in the
26 comprehensive plan. The classifications are needed because it helps keep the roads functioning properly
27 based on their definition. She summarized the comments made at the public hearing. Someone asked
28 about the average daily traffic counts and road capacity based on the classification ofthe road. The major
29 concerns were environmental protection and combining major and minor local roads into one
30 classification of local roads.. The staffs response to the comment about the average daily traffic counts is
31 that the road is going to function the way it currently functions unless another road is built to pull traffic.
32 Also, the purpose in classifying the road is so that the roads can be protected from encroachment of
33 development. There was a comment about the City of Durham encroaching into Orange County. She
34 said that the City of Durham would have jurisdiction on those areas.
35
36 Lincoln said, in regard to combining major and minor local roads into one classification, that it creates for
37 a very large amount of major local roads. However, it is necessary if the regulations are based on the
38 classifications. -
39
40 Benedict said that some ofthe minor local roads are being scaled up to major local roads because there
41 are properties the access same ofthe minor local roads.
42
43 Katz said that he was under the impression that the language that is being proposed is consistent with the
44 language of other counties in North Carolina. Benedict said that this was correct.
45
46 Lincoln said that another major comment about the comprehensive plan amendments was that there was
47 concern about the super blocks. She indicated twa areas on a map that were in critical watersheds. The
48 proposal is that if there is further subdivision in these watersheds, a mad should be built in such a manner
49 to make a connection to a major arterial or collector road.
50
51 Benedict said that there are different goals that are a part ofthe comprehensive plan of Orange County,
52 (i.e., transportation, reducing traffic, reducing air pollution, and environmental concems). He said that
53 sometimes there is some conflict between the goals.
z3
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations of Orange County
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that
the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance are hereby amended as follows:
Section 1: (page 7 -Subdivision Regulations) Classification of Subdivisions
All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions except those defined as minor
subdivision in this Section.
A "minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a tract of land that does not:
(1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one- (1)
tract of land in any ten (10) year period.
Section 2: (page 14 -Subdivision Regs) Plannin De artment Review and A royal
Procedures
Section III-D-1-e
~~
After receiving an application, complete in all respects, the Planning Staff shall
consider the Concept Plan, including both the Conventional Development Option
and the Flexible Development Option, and take action on the proposals. The
Planning Staff shall either: 1) Approve one option, 2) Approve one option subject
to conditions, or 3) Deny both options. The Planning Staff shall inform the
applicant of the recommended development option (either flexible or
conventional). The applicant shall have two years in which to submit the
approved Development Option as a Preliminary Plan to the Planning Board or
else the Contempt Plan approval shall be null and void.
If the Planning Staff approves a specific Development Option either with or
without conditions, its reasons for approval shall be based on the characteristics _- .
of the site, its suitability for development, and the intent of the Flexible
Development standards as specified in Section IV.B.10.A.
If the Planning Staff approves the Development Option subject to conditions,
- - - - -such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek to insure compliance with
applicable regulations. If the Planning Staff denies both Development Options
the reasons for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant.
Section 3: (page 14 & 14-a Subdivision Regulations) Plannin Board Review and
~proval Procedures
~4
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE
Section 4: (page 14-a -Subdivision Regulations) Action SubsecLuent to Approval
Section III-D-1-g
If a Concept Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the
Planning Director shall endorse his/her approval on ~nre-{~} three (3) copies of the
specific Development Option. The Planning Department for its files shall retain
two copies and one copy shall be returned to the subdivider orhis/her authorized
agent. The Planning Department for its files shall retain at least one copy of the
denied option(s). Upon approval of the Concept Plan Development Options by the
Planning Director, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary
Plat.
From the date of approval of the specific Concept Plan Development Option by
Planning Director, the applicant shall have two (2) years in which to prepare and
submit the approved Concept Plan to the Planning Board along with an
application for the Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the
subdivision has not been submitted within the specified time limit, the specific
Concept Plan Development Option shall become null and void.
Section 5: (page 14-a & 14-b -Subdivision Regulations) Apoeal Procedures
Section III-D-1-h
The decision of the Planning Director regarding the Concept Plan Development
Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall
be filed, in writing, with the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the
Planning Director's decision. If the appeal involves aplan/map approval, twelve
(12) copies of the plan/maps shall be submitted along with the written appeal. The
Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authority, and where applicable, all
Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information and/or conditions
approved by the Board of Commissioners. "
Section 6: (page 14-c -Subdivision Regs) Plannin De artment Review and A royal
Procedures
Section III-D-2-b
2"d paragraph
After receiving an application, complete in all respects, the Planning Staff shall
consider the Concept Plan and take action on the proposal. The Planning Staff
shall either: 1j Approve the Concept Plan, 2) Approve the Concept Plan subject to
conditions, or 3) Deny the Concept Plan. The Planning Staff shall inform the
applicant of its decision. The applicant shall have two (2) years in which to
submit the approved Concept Plan and a completed application for Preliminary
Plat approval to the Planning Board or else the Concept Plan approval shall be
null and void.
If the Planning Staff approves the Concept Plan subject to conditions, such
conditions shall be reasonable and-shall seek to insure compliance with
applicable regulations. If the Planning Staff denies the Concept Plan, the reasons
for such decision shall be stated in writing to the applicant.
~5
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE
Section 7: (page 14-c and 14-d -Subdivision Regulations) Plannin Board Review and
Approval Procedures "
Delete Section III-D-2-c.
Section 8: (page 14d -Subdivision Regulations) Action Subse uent to A royal
Section III-D-2-d
If the Concept Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the 11'^^°^~ Q^^~'-~'"^'~
Planning Director shall endorse his/her approval on 3 three (3) copies of the
specific Development Option. The Planning Department for its files shall retain
two copies and one copy shall be returned to the subdivider or his/her authorized
agent. The Planning Department for its files shall retain at least one copy of the
denied concept plan. Upon approval of the Concept Plan by the Planning Director, the
subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the Preliminary Plat.
From the date of approval of the Concept Plan by Planning Director, the applicant
shall have two (2) years in which to prepare and file an application for the
Preliminary Plat approval. If a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision has not b®en
submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan approval shall become
null and void.
Section 9: (page 14d -Subdivision Regulations) A~peal_Procedures
Section III-D-2-e
The decision of the Planning Director regarding the Concept Plan Development
Options may be appealed to the Board of Commissioners. Any notice of appeal shall
be filed, in writing, with 'the Planning Director within 15 days after the date of the
Planning Director's decision. If the appeal involves aplan/map approval, twelve
(12) copies of the plan/maps shall be submitted along with the written appeal. The
Board of Commissioners shall have final approval authori#y, and where applicable, all
Concept Plan Development Options shall contain information and/or conditions
approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Section 1b: (page 6 ~ fi-a) DEFINITIONS
SUBDIVISION -Subdivision means all divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two or
more lots, building sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale or building
development (whether immediate or future) and includes all division of land involving
the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets, provided, however, the
following are not included within the definition and are not subject to any regulations
pursuant to this part:
(1) The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and
recorded lots if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are
equal to or exceed the standards of the County as shown in its Subdivision
Regulations.
Resultant lots, as referred to herein shall be deemed to equal standards of the Orange
County /Subdivision Regulation if the following standards are met:
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE
a. No conforming lot.standard becomes non-confom~ing as a result of the
recombination; and
b. Any applicable impervious surface standards are met; and
c. Access is provided to a public road, either direct, or by recorded easement; and
d. A site suitable for sewage disposal is approved by the Orange County Health
Department. Where soil is unsuitable for sewage disposal, or soil suitability is
undetermined, a notice of restricted development potential shall be submitted and
the lots) in question shall be so noted on the plat; and
e. No increase in the number of access points to a public street over the
number currently existing; and
f. Access shall not be shifted from a lower classified/volume street to a high®r
classified/volume street.
16
1'
~ - MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
d ' February 28, 2000
.7
8 ~ The Orange County Board.of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Monday,
9 February 28, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge Gordon F. Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
10 ~ `:
11 ~ ~ COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret W.
12 Brown, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs -
13 ~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows and members Barry Katz, Howard
14 McAdams, Theresa Nicole Gooding-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Haltkamp, Runyon Woods, Rachel Preston, Leo
15 Allison, James Selkirk, and Roberk Strayhom
16 ~ ~ COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County ManaOer John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director. Craig Benedict
18 and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (III other staff members will be identii"ied appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE
22 KEPT FOR 5 YEARS.
23
2a
25 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
26 Chair Carey wel~med everyone to the meeting. He said that Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows
27 would be introducing each item on the agenda.
28
29 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
30 Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
31
32 C. PUBLIC H" AF.~ RING ITEMS
33 '-; _ .
34 1. Orange Coun Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
35 planning Director Craig Benedict said that these items have been proposed by the staff based
36 on Board of County Commissioners' goals and Planning Board discussions aver the Last six months. He said
37 that at every quarterly public hearing additional steps would be taken for the preparation of the County's
38 comprehensive plan by bringing forth regulations that go with the-comprehensive plan. He said that tonight's
39 public hearing would address two general areas: subdivision regulations and transportation issues of the
40 comprehensive plan, He said that the staff is in the process of creating a unified land development code so
41 that all of the information about zoning, subdivisions, and economic development districts will be in one book.
42
43 a. Sin 111-8 Classification of Subdivisions
44 Preser~-. there is a 24-month period where an applicant can submit an application for a minor
4S subdivision of four lots, and then after two years, the applicant can submit an application far an additional
46 four Iota. In each case, the applicant can submit an application for an additional four lots after two years.
47 ~ What is being proposed tonight is that the two-year time period would be extended ten years. If an applicant
48 submits an application for any additional lots before the ten-year period, the subdivision will be considered as
49 a major subdivision. This regulation change would give the staff a better ability to evaluate a larger scale
SO project
51 b. Section III-D-1 Concept Plan Approval in all honing Districts Except the Rural Buffer
52 Presently, a concept plan can be submitted for a flexible plan and a conventional plan. The
53 Planning Board has the option of approving or denying the flexible and conventional plans. These plans do
54 not go any further until the applicant brings forth a preliminary plan. About 75-800 of the time, -the applicant
55 chooses the conventional plan. What is being proposed tonight is that the Planning staff would recommend ---.--
56 which plan would fulfill the goals of the County Commissioners and the comprehensive plan. If the applicant
57 does not choose to go with the staff recommendation, he or she can make an appeal to the County
58 Commissioners. - ~ `
~~ .. ee~-i,... u~_n_~ 1'_nnr_Rnt Plan Annrov2l in the Rural Buffer
1
2
4
6
7
8
10
was amended' to reflect the changes as de
scribed above.
d, ~ Section II DIrFINiTIONS
Tlhis item has to dowith anon-vehicular access line. This also can be used in residential and
non-residentiall subdivisions so that when the subdivisions are prepared the approved access points can be
put on the subdivision plat.
Wlhen lots are subdivided, very .often the access points are changed to a road that should not
have additional traffic. The amendment would not allow someone to shift the access point to burden the
-roads that are'~not scheduled for a higher capacity system.
11 e, i Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards (non-Vehicular Access)
12 C ig Benedict made reference to private road standards and said that the staff is suggestin a
13 ~ decrease in th amount of lots that are allowed on a private road from a 25-lot maximum to a 10-lot g
14 maximum. He described the negative things that have occurred as a result of the 25-lot maximum regulation
15 for private rows.
16 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Orange County private road standards and asked
l7 what would ha pen to existing private roads if someone wanted to put a house on an existing lot or split the
I8 lot into two loth.
l9 C ig Benedict said that each of the subdivisions that have private road standards has
'•o something in their homeowners association documents that address additional I
'• 1 road. In some (cases, the cost is borne by the subdivision, ots being subdivided on the
!2 Ggoffrey Gledhill said that the upgrade of the road is required to service the new subdivided lots.
!3 Once the upgrade is done, then all of the lots in the subdivision are jointly responsible for maintaining the
!4 road to the upgraded standard.
•5 Coknmissioner Jacobs made reference to the 1$-foot travel way and asked if that included the
•d swells or if it was just the actual road surface.
;7
Craig Benedict said that 1$ feet was just the actual road surface and that the impermeability that
8 comes forward (from both public and private roads still is counted as the entire roadway. After the swell goes
9 up to the 50-fort area, then there is a certain amount of impervious that would be counted in the remaining
U 50 feet.
i ~ Co , i~aissioner Jacobs asked if it was the same amount of shoulder that must be cleared
2 regardless of w ether it is a public or private road.
3 C ig Benedict said that typically there is the surface course, afour-foot swell down and afour-
4 foot swell up arMd then whatever can be preserved after that.
S Cortnmissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13 and read the first paragraph which says,
6 "Private roads serving mare than 10 lots or dwelling units may be permitted only if constructed to NCDOT
7 public road standards," and said that this contradicts everything which has gone before it.
8 C ig Benedict said that this statement'could be deleted.
9 Co missioner Jacobs made reference to Class A versus Class B private roads and asked if the
~ staff has looked into the cost of hiring a professional engineer.
1 C g Benedict said that the staff has checked into the costs for engineers and the determination
z of one road over the other is negligible in cost because it is the engineer's time to go out and see if the road
3 meets the stan~ards. He said that one of the most important things is if the County is going to continue to
f have private ro dways, the hazards of living on a private road should be reduced as much as possible by
~ having the road certified th the standards. He said that drainage is the key for private roads, and that is
i where the biggest fairng is.
~ Co missioner Jacobs said that DOT had set up a committee to work on subdivision standards
and he is conce~ned that the County is locking themselves in and not allowing an flexibili He is
concerned that there would be no allowance if there were some significant natural resource or rural
characteristic of (the property that might be enhanced by having a private road as opposed to a public road.
He questions eliminating flexibility in the concept plan amendments. He would prefer that the plan be
presented for comment to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners before the staff makes a
ruling.
_ -_ - - - - Cram Benedict said that some of the language could be changed to allow for some flexibility.
Corrhmissioner Jacobs said that he would like to have incentives for people to do things the way
the County would want there to, not making it as a right, but a privilege.
Corrhmissioner Brown asked if the Planning staff could specify the reasons for modifications of
the regulations. '
19
~~~++.,,
r•~
a.
h [~D
,~ ~
o ~
~ ~
~ W N d ~-. o ~D o0 .1 C~ tn ~ w N ~
b
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b7 x Gd '~ ~ ~ b~ x
c
o
~ ~ o m o ~' ~~ ~
~ ~ ~
c ~ o ¢ ~ a c ~ ~ ~'°- ~ ~' O
`~ . •
a ~ x ~; ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ y
~ ~
a
a
~ ~_
~"
~ ~
0 ..
~
H
ae n
o ~
n `~'
c~ ~
e ~
~ ~
C ~
e c
~ c
~ ~
~ c~ ~
~ o
~
~ C •~ •~ ,•* C C C C ~
. r ~ ~ b
w
~ ..
~ ~.
O ~
o .
~ ,
o .-
0 oo G~ ~ ~
N N
~.
.r
r-,+
~..
~. ~ ~ N N
O O ~
~O ~
`O ~
~D ~
~D ~
~O ~ ~ O 4
d
n ~
~ ~ ~
° °
o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r
o
~~ ~ ~°~
o ~ ~
x
,,~
~ O ~ ~D N ~ ~ 00 W ~ W .W.+ N VWi
~1
~` ~r
~
vi
N
~
~
a~
nab
W ~ ~ o o W N
`'' v
~ c„
~ n
Z
~
y.J
l
w
c~i, N
W
a
C~
c~i,
i
o,
°
Q
w
a
~
o b0
e n~
~~
b
O
C
d
LI
~~
I~ I
ICI
h~M
O
b
y
b
~r