HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-05-2000-8q
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF GOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 5, 2000
Action Agend
Item No.
SUBJECT: EC-5 Zonin Ordinance Amendment
DEPARTMENT: Planning 8~ Inspections
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Ordinance -Administration
Proposed Ordinance -Planning Board
May 22, 2000 Public Hearing Minutes
August 2, 2000 Planning Board Minutes
Public Hearing Ordinance
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert P. Davis, ext 2580
Crai Benedict, ext 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider EC-5 Zoning Ordinance amendments.
BACKGROUND:
Requests
• Amends the application criteria for establishment and modification of the Existing Commercial - V
(EC-5) zoning district in Section 4.2.12
• Revises the Existing Commercial -- V (EC-5) locational requirements in the Zoning
Ordinance
Existinc~Ordinance
• No flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance for modification of the EC-5 District
Proposed Ordinance
• Proposes procedures, and strict conditions, for modification of EC-5 Districts when property has
been condemned for a public purpose
Process Schedule a d Actio
• First Action: Ordinance Review Committee met on May 3, 2000.
• Recommended sending the proposal to Public Hearing
• Second Action: Public Hearing
• Joint Public Hearing on May 22, 2000.
• Third Action: Planning_Board met on August 2, 2000.
• Unanimous recommendation to BOCC with two modifications:
• Change proposed 4.2.12 (c) to ...by Board of County Commissioner's Il ise~ action provided...
• Change proposed 4.2.12 (j) to Access points shall be limited to two locations with a maximum of 26 feet
width each...
• Fourth Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration recommends that the Board accept the recommendation of
the Planning Board, and close the public hearing; Administration further recommends approval of
the proposed ordinance.
Proposed Ordinance -Administration
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County
~ =Deleted Text
Bold Text =Proposed Text
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that
the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows:
SE , TION ONE:
4.2.12 Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) District
a) Intent
The purpose of the Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) District is to provide
a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously
unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in
zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is
not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
b) Application Criteria
This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned
townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas
not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing
commercial at the time of application of this ordinance.
c) Notwithstanding Sections a. and b. above, an Existing
Commercial V (EC-5) District eliminated or reduced to a non-
functional zoning lot as a result of apublic-entity condemnation
or partial taking may be amended by Board of County
Commissioner's legislative action provided the following
criterion are met:
REZONING PROCESS
a) The amended district acreage shall not be increased in size
by more than 10% of the existing parcel(s). The use shall be
the same primary use as listed in the Existing Commercial - V
(EC-5) inventory when the district was originally created.
b) The new district shall be contiguous to the existing district.
c) Land not rezoned or not included within the new petitioned
district shall be p®titioned, by the owner(s), to be returned to
the zoning classification of the surrounding land. In the
event there, is more than one adjacent zoning district, the
tract shall be returned to the lowest use category of the
2
Proposed Ordinance -Administration
surrounding adjacent property provided anon-conforming
situation is not created on the subject or adjacent parcels.
d) Additional property added to an existing parcel shall be
recombined by deed into one zoning lot prior to issuance
of zoning or building permits.
e) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan shall not be
mandatory when considering arezoning/relocation of an
EC-5 District, but shall be evaluated.
f) If a condemnation results in less than or equal amount of
property being taken for public right-of-way than is
specified in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
(Transportation Element) for typical right of way
dedication, then this section shall not be used.
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
g) All impervious watershed limitations shall be met.
h) A twenty- (20j feet width landscaped buffer shall
established along the new right~f~vay. Design criteria
shall meet commercial standards.
i) Economic Development District standards shall be used,
where applicable.
j) Access points shall limited to two locations with a
maximum of 26 feet width each and a maximum 3Q-degree
radius. Driveway permit application shall be submitted
along with zoning permit request.
k) Freestanding monument signs shall be limited to six (6)
feet height and fifty (50) square feet maximum. Only the
portion of a sign for fuel pricing may be internally
illuminated.
I) All current Environmental Health regulations shall be met.
m) All other applicable development criteria such as parking,
lighting, loading/unloading areas, buffers, etc. shall apply.
SECTION TWO: This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
(Signature)
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
(Signature)
Chair, Orange County Commissioners
Date and Seal
Proposed Ordinance to Plaa~ning hoard (Past Pte)
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Qrange County, North Carolina, that
the Zoning Qrdinance is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION ONE:
4.2.12 Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) District
a) Intent
The purpose of the Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) District is to provide
a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously
unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in
zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is
not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
b) Application Criteria
This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned
townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas
not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing
commercial at the time of application of this ordinance.
c) Notwithstanding Sections a. and b. above, an Existing
Commercial-V (EC-5) District eliminated or reduced to a non-
functional zoning lot as a result of a public-entity condemnation
or partial taking may be amended by Board of County
Commissioner's action provided the following criterion are m®t:
REZONING PROCESS
a) The amended district acreage shall not be increased in size
by more than 10% of the existing parcel(s). The use shall be
-the same primary use as listed in the Existing Commercial - V
(EC-5) inventory when the district was originally created.
b) The new district shall be contiguous to the existing district
c) Land not rezoned or not included within the new petitioned
district shall be petitioned, by the owner(s), to be returned to
the zoning classification of the surrounding land. In the
event there is more than one adjacent zoning district, the
tract shall be returned to the lowest use category of the
surrounding adjacent property provided anon-conforming
situation is not created on the subject or adjacent parcels.
d) Additional property added to an existing parcel shall be
recombined by deed into one zonina lot.
Proposed Ordinanee to Planning Board (Post PI-~)
e) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan shall not be
mandatory when considering arezoning/relocation of an
EC-5 District, but shall be evaluated.
f) If a condemnation results in less or equal property being
taken for right-of-way as specified in the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element), for typical
right of way dedication, then this section shall not be used.
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
g) All impervious watershed limitations shall be met
h) A twenty- (20) feet width landscaped buffer shall
established along the new right-of-way. Design criteria
shall meet commercial standards.
i) Economic Development District standards shall be used,
where applicable.
j) Access point shall limited to one driveway a minimum of
26 feet width and a maximum width. of 38 feet with a
maximum 30-degree radius. Transportation plan shall be
submitted along with zoning permit request
k) Freestanding monument signs shall be limited to six (6)
feet height and fifty (50) square feet maximum. Only the
portion of a sign for fuel pricing may be internally
illuminated.
I) All current Environmental Health regulations shall be met
m) All other applicable development criteria such as parking,
lighting, loading/unloading areas, buffers, etc. shall apply.
SECTION TWO: This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
(Signature)
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
(Signature)
Chair, Orange County Commissioners
Date and Seal
~i ~ ~ 1
1
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 AND
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 MAY 22, 2000
7
s The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County
9 Planning Board on Monday, May 22, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom,
1o Hillsborough, North Carolina.
11
],Z COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret
13 W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, and Bany Jacobs
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis
is ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leo Allison and members
X6 Karen Ban'ows, Howard McAdams, Crauford D. Goodwin, Rachel Preston, Co-Chair James Selkirk, and
17 Robert Strayhom
18 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bony Katz, Theresa Nicole
19 Gooding-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Holtkamp, Runyon Woods;
20 COUNTY•ATTORNEY PRESENT; Harmony Whalen
21 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict
zz and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
23
24 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TD IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
25 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL
z6 BE K,_,EPT FOR 5 YEARS.
27
2s ~-. OPENING RE^ 11A, ARKS FROM THE CHAIR
29 Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair Moses Carey said that the Orange County
3o Planning Board Chair Leo Allison would be chairing the first two items on the, agenda tonight and he
31 would be chairing the third item.
32
33 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
34 Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
35
36 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS .
37
3s 1. Oranae Cou Zo.~ Ordinance~Text Amendments
39 a. Section 20.fi Public Hearing and Notice Thereof
4o Planning Director Craig Benedict made the presentation. He outlined the items to be
41 discussed as stated on the agenda.
4z He summarized the two Zoning Ordinance amendments. He said that, consistent with the
43 goals that have been put forth from the County, staff looked at the public participation procedures that
44 are a requirement of the zoning code. They found that when a public hearing is called, the first time the
45 public hears about what will be on the public hearing is something in the newspapers. He said that a lot
45 of the public believes, from this advertisement, that all of the ideas have been created and decisions
47 have been made. He summarized the process of a public hearing. He said that the new process is
4s consistent with state law and includes notifications out to the public. He gave an example of changing
49 regulations within a watershed and said that the County would have to notify every person within the
so watershed and every person within a 500-foot radius around the~watershed. The proposal is that a
51 notice will be sent out to have an open house or public forum prior to the public meeting. This would
sz give the staff an opportunity to meet with the public and explain the changes that are being made.
2
1 There would also be another opportunity after the public hearing for more comments from the public,
2 He said that the staff worked with the Institute of Gavemment and an intern that was doing some
3 paperwork on decision making and public policy. He said that bringing in the public at an earlier time
4 usually leads to better understanding. He said that over the next 12 to 18 months, there would be a lot
S of changes in the comprehensive plan and he hoped that the public participation procedures would
6 assist in making the changes mare understandable.
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2$
x9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
47
48
49
50
51
s2
33
UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Commissioner Brown asked what the new procedures would eliminate that are presently being
done. Craig Benedict said that instead of sending out 5,000 notices, the Planning Department would
place ads in a newspaper for four consecutive weeks. In addition, they would have an open house -
meeting at a residence ar location in the specific area. These changes in notification would only be
when the County is changing major regulations. Anyone who petitions for a zoning change to make
their property commercial, ar to build a tower, would have to follow the other guidelines and every
person within that 500-foot boundary would have to be notified.
Commissioner Brown asked if a public information meeting would be done each time. Planner
Robert Davis said that far regular rezonings this procedure would not be followed. There would also be
signs pasted around the property announang the public hearing. Craig Benedict said that the Planning
staff could consider some sort of neighborhood meeting.
Commissioner Brown clarified that the neighborhood meeting could be added and Craig Benedict
said yes, this is a suggested change that the Planning Board will consider.
Commissioner Gordon feels that this process is an improvement but she hesitates to eliminate the
letters and asked if the letters could be retained in the process.
Craig Benedict explained the reasons for not retaining sending out of letters in the process. He
feels that it is a better investment in staff time to meet personally with people in the area where a
change has been requested.
Commissioner Gordon feels that it would help if people received a letter because some people do
not read the newspaper. Craig Benedict said that the staff would consider keeping the letters as
proposals are brought back.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares the concerns of Commissioner Gordon about
eliminating the letters. He made reference to the advertising and Craig Benedict clarified that it would
be four weeks in one newspaper of public record. He likes the idea of open houses and having the
meetings in the communities. He made reference to page five and questioned the posting of signs at
least ten days before the meeting and asked if people could be given additional time and if the signs
could be posted mare in advance.
Craig Benedict said that~the signs could be posted sooner than 10 days.
Commissioner Jacobs would like for the signs to be posted longer than ten days. He made
reference to page six and the advertising according to state statute and the rationale behind placing
larger advertising. The state statute is less than % of a newspaper page in size.
Craig Benedict said that because Orange County sends out individual notices, that the ads have
been smaller in the past._ He said that the staff is suggesting that the County put larger ads in the paper
than what is required by state law. He said that even though the larger ad is expensive, the increasing
amount of letters sent out is also expensive.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page eight and asked if this was the explanation or the
verbiage that would be included in the ordinance. He feels that adjacent' needs to be defined. He said
that he hopes this can be coordinated with developing a citizens guide far dealing with the planning
process. He suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board might want to initiate this project.
He feels that citizens who have attended meetings to speak one way or the other should be included on
the committee. He volunteered to serve on the committee along with Commissioner Brown.
Commissioner Brown asked about the follow up process after the neighborhood meetings. Craig
Benedict said that fallow up would occur. From the neighborhood meetings a mailing list will be
developed and follow up notices will be sent for each step of the process.
~ Thera were no questions from Planning Board members,
2
3 Jahn Link made reference to page 10 and comparing the old with the new procedure and asked
a about the BOCC work session. Craig Benedict said that each item would be presented at a work
5 session before beginning the process of public input. John Link feels it is a goad idea. However,
6 typically work session agendas are full. He wonders if this is workable.
~ Craig Benedict clarified that the notice of the public hearing would follow the item being introduced
S at a work session. He wants, in some way, to notify the County Commissioners that the process has
9 begun on a specific item or issue.
to ~ A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer item
11 C-1-a to the~Planning Board for a recommendation to be retumed to the Board of Commissioners no
12 sooner than June 29, 2000.
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
i5 ~ b. Section 4,2.12 Existing Commercial ~ V (EC-5)
15 Craig Benedict explained that there were 113 separate existing commercial uses, known
17 as EC-5, The Planning staff is suggesting that under extreme circumstances, small existing commercial
18 parcels, less than one acre, would be able to shift from one let to an adjacent one. This would be
19 allowed under a list of ten criteria. The criteria are listed in the agenda. This would allow for the
20 continuation of the commercial use in the future. Any change in the operation would have to meet new
21 standards. He made reference to the criteria and said that if an EC-5 district is wiped off the map,
22 reduced, or becomes non-functional based on some sort of right of-way taking that is in excess of what
23 is required by the comprehensive plan, the property owner would not be able to purchase other land.
24
25 UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
26 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12, item "C" that reads, "Existing district shall be
27 eliminated and retumed to the zoning of surrounding land. If the old district is adjacent to more than
zs one district, the tract shall be retumed to the lower use category." She asked for further explanation.
29 Craig Benedict said that it means that if a portion of the district is made non-functional and they will lose
3o the rights they have of a porkian of the land, that portion of the land would have to revert back to the
31 use designation of the adjacent property. Craig Benedict said that this language would be reworded.
32 Commissioner Gordon asked about item "D" an the same page and asked why expansion would
33 be allowed. Craig Benedict said that this was in~respanse to a cancem to encourage the property
34 owners to redo their building and this would provide an incentive for their potential conversion and
35 adherence to the strict regulations.
35 Commissioner Gordon suggested using an additional square footage allowance as an incentive.
37 She asked if the EC-5 was allowed by right or by condemnation and how it would be decided if the land
38 was condemned whether or not there was an impact on adjacent properties. Craig Benedict said that
39 the process for EC-5 is that if the property owner wants to change the zoning district by purchasing
4o additional property that notification would be given to the neighbors and the County Commissioners
41 would approve through the. regular rezoning process.
42 Commissioner Brown asked of the 113 EC-5 uses how many were operational and Craig Benedict
43 did not know. He has received complaints an quite a few of these propertles.
44 Karen Ban'aws said that it feels that something has happened to bring this item forward. Craig
a5 Benedict said that the best way to address a regulatory change is to address it comprehensively
46 instead of doing it far one ar two people who have requested that this be reviewed for changes. He
4"l said that he has received requests from same of the owners of EG5 properties to expand or change
48 their business in same way. He said that right now there were not enough regulations in the code to
49 direct what the future building should ,look like. He hopes to have some standards for some
5o consistency,
51 Karen Barrows clarified that Craig Benedict has received some inquiries from businesses and also
sz same complaints from citizens and Craig Benedict verified this.
4
1 Crauford Goodwin asked about the logic of this change and said that it seems that the concern is
z the taking of the right and compensating the property owner in same way. Craig Benedict said that the
3 consequence would be that a neighbor would see that a business might move closer or adjacent to a
a person's property line. He said that the neighbor would receive a notification of any changes made.
s Commissioner Gordon asked about the question of what to do with abandoned property. Craig
6 Benedict said that the EC-5 standards do not follow the rule that after 180 days, the use would be lost.
~ It is hoped that road improvements would be made in Orange County that may involve a widening of a
s road of the expansion of an intersection. He foresees this as a problem for some businesses in the
9 future. If a person abandons the business and later wants to reopen, they would have to meet the new
io standards and setbacks.
11 Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to put in writing the impacts that would be
12 considered.
13 Chair Carey asked about a situation which prevents a property from being continued in its
14 intended use if it would revert back to the surrounding land use and Craig Benedict said that it would
is revert back to the least intensive use. However, the applicant could ask for a rezoning.
is Commissioner Brown clarified that what this would do is keep the small businesses. She feels it is
i~ an improvement to offer an initiative for improving the property.
is A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer item C-
19 1-b to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no
20 sooner than June 29, 2000.
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 c. Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Amendments -
24 Craig Benedict said that Christy Anspach of the Erosion Control Department is here tonight
zs and has contributed a large amount of work towards these changes. This ordinance is not part of the
26 zoning text or subdivision text. It is a freestanding ordinance. These rules are ones that have been
a~ created at the state level and it is up to the County to put them into the ordinance. He summarized the
28 changes made to the ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to certain land disturbing activities
z9 which have to do with agriculture. There are also exemptions for forest land and mining activities. He
3o said that the erosion control plan had to match other environmental issues that are attached to the site.
31 Some of the notices of violations and penalties have been amended as well.
32
33 UESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
34 Commissioner Gordan said that gender neutral language should be used throughout. She asked
3S about page one regarding forestlarids and the forest practice guidelines that relate to water quality.
35 Craig Benedict said that there were different guidelines far the state because of the preservation of
37 agriculture and forestry:' The County's guidelines are more stringent.
38 Commissioner Gordan asked about section 18 and the erosion control plan and about the
39 utilization of ditches for the purpose of de-watering or lowering the water table. Craig Benedict said that
ao it was a notification provision so that the Division of Water Quality could know if this type of land
41 disturbance activity could .lower the water table that might affect the fame operation ar wells in the area.
42 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page three and the deadline for reviewing a plan. She
43 said that it seems that this language sounded very similar to the other language that was just revised.
44 Craig Benedict said that this refers to staff. restrictions for a time frame versus an elected body.
4S Commissioner Gordon asked that the issues about the ditches and the forestry be brought to the
46 Commission far the Environment far their information.
47 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff analyze the forest practice guidelines related to
4s water quality and share comments with the boards before they are submitted.
49 Commissioner Jacobs made. reference to page 16, item h, "Consideration of applicant's past
so pertormance", and made an editorial change.
• s1 Cranford Goodwin asked for a definition of plants and animals use for the man. Craig Benedict
s2 feels the list is wide open -any plants and animals useful to humans.
1C
1 Commissioner Brown asked Craig Benedict to be specific about what these amendments would
2 do. Craig Benedict said that mast of the changes will benefit the ordinance and that there would be a
3 clearer process for enforcement of the ordinance.
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the
s Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Contra) amendments to the Planning staff to receive
6 further input from the public prior to it being retumed to the Count<j Commissioners for consideration of
7 adoption no sooner than June 29, 2000.
8 VOTE:' UNANIMOUS
9
to d. Consideration of the Neuse River Basin Storm Water Control Ordinance
11 Craig Benedict presented a summary of the information in the agenda. He said that this was
iz the start of a process that would continue for the next six months. These are rules that have been
13 developed by the state to be enforced by the County. These rules were put forward over the last four
14 or five years primarily for nitrogen control within the water basin. He said that if the County does not
1S adopt its own rules, the state would review all,applications for subdivisions within Orange County. The
16 staff is suggesting that there be a storm water program to implement at the local level, reducing the
17 amount of nitrogen that goes into the water basin. The staff is evaluating some storm water
1.8 management programs with Chapel Hill and Carrbnra to talk about how best to manage erosion control
19 and the amount of nitrogen that gets into the water basin. He said that the County could hire Triangle J
20 Council of Govemments to help in the outreach programs. In August he will bring back a document in
21 ordinance format. At that time, the Planning Staff will ask for permission to transmit this to the state far
Zz review and comment.
z3 Commissioner Gordon said that this program was the same one that she heard about at a
24 Triangle J Council of Govemments meeting. She asked for an analysis of what affect this program
z5 would have on Orange County. She feels that it will have a profound effect on the amount of
z6 development. She also asked far a bigger picture of how the standards are stricter upstream.
z7 Craig Benedict said that he would put an analysis together an the program's effect on Orange
28 County's development.
z9 Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a discussion at Triangle J about impervious surtace
3o storm water runoff per acre and whether or not this might mitigate against infill. There was also a
31 discussion about whether or not there could be an average across the jurisdiction as opposed to per
3z acre, and having a transfer of storm water rights from a rural area to an urban area so that there could
33 be infill and provide the same impervious Surface in the County.
34 Chair Carey clarified that this program submission was not due to the state until August 19"'.
35 The state will then review it and return it. The program will be implemented in Orange County by March
36 1, 2001. - .
37 Chair Carey said that the Cape Fear Storm Water Control Ordinance might have a greater
38 effect on Orange County than this one; He feels that this ordinance should be monitored very closely.
39 Craig Benedict explained the process that would be followed. The model program will be
4o refined aver the next few months.
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to transmit
42 the Neuse River Basin Storm Water Control. Ordinance to the State NCDENRNVQ for review and
43 comment prior to being retumed to the County Commissioners fnr consideration of final. adoption no
44 sooner than June 29, 2000.
4S VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 D. ADJOURNMENT
48 With no further items for the County Commissioners to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the
49 meeting.
5o The next meeting on the regular meeting calendar will be held on Thursday, May 25 at 7:30 p.m.
. s1 in the F. Gnrdan Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
52 Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
53 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
11
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 80ARD
AUGUST 2, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Allison (Chair), Bob Strayhom, Crauford Goodwin, Karen Barrows,
Howard McAdams, Nicole Gooding-Ray, Howard McAdams, Runyon
Woods, James Selkirk
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Holtkamp, Onie Lea, Rachel Preston (sick), Barry Katz
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Craig Benedict, Robert Davis, Eddie Kirk, Carla
Bateman, Joanna Bradshaw
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Allison called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
None
AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF NIINUTES -July 12, 2000
Gooding-Ray made reference to page 8 of the regular meeting minutes (page 12 in the agenda packet), line 8,
and changed, "about the small lot sizes," to "despite the small lot sizes."
Bradshaw said that Onie Lea had not officially resigned, so it should only be shown that she was absent.
MOTION: Barrows moved approval of the Orange County Planning Board July 12,
2000 minutes with the changes as stated above. Seconded by Strayhom.
VOTE: Unanimous
AGENDA ITEM #4: COMMISSIONERS' MEETINGS ACTION REPORTS (April)
Barrows made reference to page 16 and said that Bricewood Acres subdivision was tabled by the
Commissioners. Benedict said that Bricewood Acres was brought back to the Commission on June 29`x, and
it was approved with a recommendation to delete one lot that was encumbered approximately'/a by a stream
buffer.
Bradshaw reported that the Commissioners' meetings action reports would be on the web soon.
AGENDA ITEM #S: PUBLIC CAARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS
None
AGENDA ITEM #7: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment - no meeting
1~
1
2
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
S3
(2) EC-5 Amendments
Benedict made the presentation. The Existing Commercial District S Amendments were on the May 22,
2000 public hearing. This is an existing zoning designation that is in approximately 100 places throughout
the County. These properties are small commercial properties that are not consistent with the master land
use plan to allow commercial uses in all of those little areas. The intent of the ordinance is to allow some
existing commercial uses to move contiguous to the property, out of the right-of--way that may be necessary
due to condemnation, and continue with the use. The standards are noted on page 107 of the agenda abstract.
If the district is to be amended, it cannot be increased in size more than 10%. The use, when it is moved, has
to be the same primary use. Any new land that is added to the existing commercial would have to be deeded
into one zoning lot. He said that since an EC-5 was not in one of the comprehensive plan activity nodes, in
most cases it would be denied from this rezoning. This amendment would say that in the case of an EC-5, it
does not necessarily have to conform with the comprehensive plan so there is still some sensitivity to
surrounding uses in that area. He made reference to item'f and said that sometimes condemnation occurred
in excess of what was contemplated in the comprehensive plan related to right-of--ways. He made reference
to the Building Permit Process and said that this was something to make sure that the new use conformed to
the standards. In summary, he said that if you did not have these regulations, no existing commercial use
could ever survive a condemnation. He said that this was a liberalization of the rules to allow a very narrow
scope of existing commercial uses to be able to continue in the future.
Barrows made reference to the quarry use and asked if it could come and ask for 10% more. Benedict said
that the quarry was not an existing commercial use but anon-conforming use.
Goodwin said that he was concerned about the neighbors if the business had the automatic right to move
closer. Benedict said that it was not an automatic right, but a legislative rezoning process. He said that
wording could be added to address the neighbor's concerns.
Strayhorn said that most of the properties in the EC-5 had been there long before most of the neighbors. He
does not feel that a lot of extra wording should be added about the neighbors. He said that the business
should be able to continue if it had been there for a couple of generations.
Woods agrees with Strayhorn. He has same concerns with the Building Permit Process, specifically item'j'.
He is not comfortable with limiting some gas stations with one driveway. He would also like to know what
the transportation plan is. He is troubled that the sign could not be lit. Benedict made an amendment (the
tape was turned at this point attd I didn't hear it). He said that the transportation plan was the access plan
that was going to be submitted to NCDOT. Regarding the Lit signs, he said that the name of the store could
be lit on the building. It is an issue of light pollution at night.
Chair Allison asked about the building permit process on a building that has been in existence for a long
time. Benedict said that in some cases, the building is going to have to be demolished. He said that any new
buildings or equipment would have to meet new building permit standards.
Several other questions were answered satisfactorily.
The board agreed to change the Building Permit Process to allow for two driveways at a maximum of 26 feet
or one driveway at a maximum of 38 feet.
MOTION: Goodwin moved approval of the EC-5 Zoning Ordinance Amendment with
the change in the Building Permit Process regarding the driveways.
Seconded by Gooding-Ray.
VOTE:
Unanimous
~~b~c ~~a~~~ag ®~d3r~ance
An Ordinance Amending tine Zoning Ordinance of Orange County
Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that
the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION ONE:
4.12.12 Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) District
a) Intent
1 ~~
The purpose of the Existing Commercial V (EC-5) District is to provide
a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously
unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in
zoned townships~to previously zoned commercial property which is
not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
b) Application Criteria
This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned
townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas
not designated ad Activity Nodes in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing
commercial at the time of application of this ordinance.
4.12.13
Notwithstanding Section 4.~12.'f 2 above, an Existing Commercial V
(EC-5) District eliminated or reduced to anon-functional lot as a
result of apublic-entity condemnation or partial taking may be re-
established administratively provided the following criiterion are met:
a) Use of the administratively approved district shall be the same
use as existed on the condemned or partially taken property.
b) New district shall be in close proximity:
c) Existing district shall be eliminated and returned to the zoning of
surrounding land. If the old district is adjacent to more than one
dis#rict, the tract shall be returned to the lowest use category.
d) Resulting lot siz® shall meet or exceed minimum non-EC district
size for applicable use. Use shall not be expanded more than 10
percent. '
e) All imp®rvious watershed limitations shall be met
f) A twenty (20) feet width landscaped buffer shall established
along the new right-of-wav. Design criteria shall be instituted
*,
m..
Pubji~ ~~~~-iug C~~d~~a~uc~
g) Economic Development District standards shall be user3, where
applicable:
h) Access point shall limited to one driveway a minimum of 26 feet
width and a maximum of 40 feet width. Transportation plan shall
be submitted along with zoning permit request.
i) Freestanding signs shall be limited to six (6) feet height and fifty
(sQ) square feet maximum.
j) All current Environmental Health regulations shall be met.
k) A!I other applicable development criteria such as parking,
loading/unloading areas; buffers, etc. shall apply.
I) If a condemnation results in less property being taken for right-
of-way than is sp®cified in the grange County Comprehensive
Plan (Transportation Element), then this s®ction shall not be
used. ~ '
SECTION TWO: This ordinance shall become efFective upon adoption.
(Signs#ure)
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
(Signature)
Chair, Orange County Commissioners
1.3
Date and Seal