Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-19-1999 - 9cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 19, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. 0-ft SUBJECT: Text Amendments: Development Standards In Cane Creek Watershed DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Administration Recommendation 2) Ordinance Amending O.C. Zoning Ordinance 3) Ordinance Amending O.C. Subdivision Regulations 4) '1j-23-98 Public Hearing Minutes 5) 9,1 -99 Planning Board Minutes 6) Executive Summary of Staff Report 7) 11-16-98 Staff Recommendation 8) 8-26-99 Memorandum to Planning Board PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lincoln, ext. 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4601 Durham 688-7331 Mebane .(336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations that will implement new development standards for Cane Creek watershed. Ordinance amendments are legislative zoning decisions. BACKGROUND: Request Amendments, resulting from a three-year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), propose changes to Article 22 (Definitions) and Article V11, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Orange County, Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-13-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes incorporate subsequent recommendations made in October, 1997, by the OWASA Board of Directors. Location The proposed amendments will affect future development within the Cane Creek watershed. Existing and Proposed Conditions Existing: ® Maximum density: 1 du/2 acres. • 33% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions using the conservation, or cluster option (conservation-cluster). Proposed: • Maximum density: I du/ five acres; Lots of record existing on date of adoption may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as small as two acres in size. Flexible development subdivisions; allowed with overall density of 1 du/2 acres provided 60% of total area is reserved as open space. 0 50% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions within the Cane Creek watershed. g:\ txtamend \canecrk\boccabs.doc \10- 6 -99 \kl j� I 2 Development Process, Schedule, and Action • Public hearing held on November 23,.1998 (minutes are attached beginning on page 27). ® First Action: Planning Board, on September 1, 1999, voted four (4) to two (2) .to approve the proposed amendments to decrease the maximum density in the watershed and not to approve. the amendments allowing flexible development within the watershed (at an overall density of 1du /2 acres with 50% open space). Minutes of the September 1, 1999, Planning "Board meeting are attached (beginning on page 34). The attached August 26, 1999, memorandum to . the Planning Board (pages 43 - 45) gives additional information for which the Planning Board had asked for in an earlier meeting: ® Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider proposed amendments.." New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the .item is readvertised and /or referred back to the . Planning Board for recommendation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable: RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Board Recommendation: eApprove density of 1 dwelling unit per five acres with lots of record allowed not more than five lots as small as two (2) acres. eDo not approve Flexible Development allowing an overall density of 1 du /2 ac. Administration Recommendation: Approve amendments per the attached Administration Recommendation beginning on page 3. (Proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance begin on page 5; proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations begin on page 12.) ® Maximum density: 2/6 OPTION: 1 du / five acres; Lots of record existing on date of adoption may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as small as two acres in size. AND FLEX OPTION: Overall density of 1 du / 3 acres (minimum lot size of 1.5 acres) allowed in subdivisions developed .using flexible development provisions provided 50% of total area is reserved as open space. ® 50% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions within the Cane Creek watershed. An Ordinance Amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is attached on pages 16 -23. An Ordinance. Amending the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is attached on pages 24 -26. g:\ bctamend \canecrk%occabs.doc \10 -6 -99W ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 4 Proposed Amendments Orange County. Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE VI APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS *6.23 EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS. *Amended 1/1/94 Pursuant to requirements of North Carolina General Statute '143 -214.5 (Chapter 143, Article ' 21), thirteen .(13) Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, as described in Article 4.2.27 of this Ordinance, have been established for lands within the. watersheds of existing or potential drinking, water rivers and reservoirs: These districts overlay other zoning districts established in this Ordinance and delineated on. the Orange .County Zoning Atlas. Wherever standards of the underlying_ zoning district differ from the watershed overlay, standards, the more restrictive provisions shall apply.' 6.23.1 LAND USE RESTRICTIONS 9: \txtamend\canecrk\zamend n.doc \10- 6 -99\kl ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 5 Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table below, or as required. by the underlying zoning district, whichever is less. . `Amended -: 1 -17 -95 DISTRICT MAXIMUM DENSITY UNIV CA.... 1 du /five acres. UNIV PW Lots .of record existing on' October.2, 1989 may contain up .'to, but no more. than, five lots with a density of one du /two acres. Contiguous lots of record existing ..on October, 2, 1989 may. be . combined. into one parcel for development. The number of two -acre lots and the total number of lots in the combined parcel cannot .exceed the sum of the .number of lots which could be created from each lot of record. CANE -CA 1 du 12 aerg CANE -PW 1 du/ five acres Lots of record existing on October 19. 1999. may contain up to, but no more than, five lots as small as two acres in size. Contiguous lots of record existing on October 19, 1999, may be combined into one parcel for development. The number of two -acre lots and the total number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the' number of lots which could be created from each lot of record*. ,OR. In Flexible Development subdivisions, an overall density of one du /three acres is permitted. provided at least 50% of the land within the subdivision is set aside as open space (see Section IV.B:10 of the Subdivision Regulations) U- ENO -CA 1 du 12 acres LITTLE -PW HYCO -PW 1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre) FLAT -PW U- ENO -PW Maximum density.is as permitted in, the underlying zoning district. L- ENO -PW HAW PW Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1 JORDAN -PW dwelling unit per acre. Refer to Article 6.23.3c9. BACK -PW g:\ txtamend\ canecrk\zamend_n.doc \10- 6 -99 \kl ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.3 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION 2., Non- Residential Development Amended 114/94 . 6 DISTRICT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON- RESIDENTIAL) UNIV -CA Same as Residential. (See previous Table) UNIV -PW CANE-CA' D ; Am_ mini ,,,, ,.,, W ;.,�. 5 -acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999; AND . 6% impervious surface limit. BMPs cannot be.used to satisfy watershed requirements.. CANE -PW 2 aeFe minimum let s 5 -acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres "for lots of record October 19- 1999• AND 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND 12% ISR for all other non- residential uses; AND on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non - residential use (139 acres in CANE -PW ). BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. U- ENO -CA 2 -acre minimum lot size AND 6% impervious surface limit BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. HYCO -PW 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; FLAT -PW AND 12% ISR for all other non- residential uses; AND on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff;... AND a limit of 1 % of the watershed for non - residential use (37 acres in HYCO -PW, 66 acres in FLAT -PW). BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. HAW PW 24% impervious surface limit. JORDAN.PW BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. g:\ bctamend \canecrk\zamend_n.doc \10- 6 -99Ud ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 7 Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF' STRUCTURAL BMPs (DETENTION PONDS) 6.23.6 PLACEMENT OF STREETS, DRIVEWAYS AND BUILDINGS 6:23.6 UNDISTURBED AREA 6.23.7 STREAM BUFFERS 6.23.8 •WATER SUPPLY /SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES *Amended .1 -17 -95 7 -1 -96 DISTRICT . WATER.SUPPLY /SEWAGE DISPOSAL:... UNIV -CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to _ UNIV -PW . individual wells and on -site septic tanks systems or individual on- G.A. N., IE ❑�1ni -� .GAN F= GA IJ -ENG GSA site alternative.disposal systems, , pits (tannic P" GFitieal GA), the e Fine: .�:�,,. and -AF , — and rr t. All Watershed Overlay Districts No new, treatment system will be permitted where effluent disposal occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation; provided, .however, off -site systems shall be permitted in all Watershed Overlay Districts except the University Lake .Protected.. Watershed (UNIV -PW) and Critical Area (UNIV -CA) when located in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in accordance with Section IV -10 -B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. UNIV -CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers; or 300 feet from.a reservoir or perennial or. intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, whichever is further. CANE -CA U- ENO -CA New septic tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenances shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 150 feet from a reservoir. New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream.. buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 300 feet from a reservoir. g:\ txtamend\ canecrk\zamend_n.doc \10- 6 -99\kl ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY /SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES DISTRICT 'WATER SUPPLY /SEWAGE DISPOSAL CANE -PW Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited . CANE -CA to individual wells and septic tanks or individual on -site alternative disposal systems; provided however: off- site U- ENO -CA systems shall be permitted When located in a Flexible Development subdivision .approved in accordance with Section IV- 13-10'of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. UNIV -PW CLUSTERING REQUIREMENTS New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located CANE -PW UNIV -PW outside of any stream buffers and at least 1.00 feet from. a perennial U- ENO -PW each lot contains a minimum of one acre.. or intermittent stream as shown on'the USGS Quadrangle maps. . HYCO -PW Overlay the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. LITTLE -PW BACK -PW HAW PW JORDAN -P.W L- ENO -PW FLAT -PW 6.23.9 CLUSTERING DISTRICT CLUSTERING REQUIREMENTS UNIV -CA Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV -B -9. of UNIV -PW the Orange County. Subdivision Regulations, with the additional provision that each lot contains a minimum of one acre.. All Other Clustering of residential lots is permitted in accordance with Section IV -B -10 of Overlay the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Districts ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.10 _ APPLICABILITY *Amended 1-17-95.. a). Existing Development 9 For the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance, existing development is. defined. as a residential or, non - residential structure which 1) : was constructed prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the` CANE -CA and CANE -PW districts); or 2) was, constructed in accordance with a valid building permit issued prior to January 1, 1994 ' (October '19, 1999, in the CANE -CA .and CANE -PW districts ; or 3) was_ included .as part of a Site Specific Development Plan approved by the Board of Commissioners prior.-to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the- CANE -CA and CANE -PW districts); or 4) had.otherwise established a vested right under. North Carolina Zoning law - prior to January. 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, 1n the CANE -CA and CANE -PW districts). Existing development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to requirements of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance. b) Redevelopment. The rebuilding or replacement of residential or nonresidential structures which are defined as existing development according to Article 6.23.11a is. allowed, . provided that the. rebuilding or replacement does not result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach .any farther into stream buffers or setbacks from reservoirs than the previous development. A structure which is rebuilt or replaced. in accordance with these provisions is I deemed conforming with respect to setbacks from streams. and reservoirs required by Articles 6.23.7 and 6.23.8 if this Ordinance. c) Existing Lots An existing lot, for the purpose of determining compliance with Article 6.23, is defined as a lot which was .created prior to January 1, 1994, a lot within the Cane Creek watershed (CANE -CA or CANE -PW districts) which was created prior to October 19, 1999, and nonconforming lots of record. . g:\ txtamend \canecrk\zamend_n.doc \10- 6 -99Ud ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 10 Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.10 APPLICABILITY c) Existing Lots Stream buffers as required by Article 6.23.7, and setbacks for septic systems as' required by Article 6.23.8 may be reduced to .the extent necessary to allow development of the lot, provided that all of. the following criteria are met: 1.. The septic system is sized to serve no -more than four bedrooms; and 2.. The :septic tank,.: drainfield and. repair area (where required) can be accommodated on 20,000 square feet of area or less;. and 3. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health and /or the Orange County Engineer has determined that encroachment of the structure into the'. stream buffer and /or encroachment,. of the septic system or repair area into the stream buffer or reservoir setback is necessary in 'order to provide adequate area for septic disposal and, repair while maintaining required separations between wells, septic systems, structures and property lines; and 4. The Orange County. Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental. Health and /or the Orange County Engineer, has determined that the relative locations of the well, septic system and structure maximize the amount of watershed protection. that can be achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, an exception to setbacks for repair area is preferable to -an exception for the initial septic system, and encroachment of structures or gravity 'septic systems into the. setback Is preferable to the installation of aseptic system pump. 5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the minimum amount which can be obtained while meeting the above criteria. g:\ txtamendlcanecrk lzamend_n.doc \10- 6 -991k1 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 11 Orange County Zoning- Ordinance Section 22 Definitions Amended Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design 7-1-96 creativity is, encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands natural and.cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through development. approaches. At lease one-third (33%) of the land within: a Flexible Development . subdivision must be set, aside as open space, whiph ."A'greater percentage of open space may be required based on the density requirements. in certain overlay zoning districts. In Cane Creek. watershed; at least 60% of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open'space. In order to meet open space requirements, open space may be preserved, through: (a) An "estate Jot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four `(4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50%) are established for each lot, and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space;.or, (b) a "conservation" approach. where all -land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved r through the use of conservation easements, applied to portions of individual lots; or (c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes.are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or (d) A "village" or, modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or (e) Some combination of the above. g:Xtxtamend\canecrk\zamend—n.doc\1 0-6-99*1 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 12 Proposed Amendments ORANGE COUNTY. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Section II. DEFINITIONS Amended Flexible. Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility'and design 7 -1 -96 creativity is encouraged and allowed to .preserve agricultural and, forestry lands, natural and cultural features,.and rural community character that might . otherwise be lost through development approaches. At lease one- third (33 %) of the land 'within a Flexible Development subdivision must be `set aside. as open spacer —wh fit.. A greater percentage of open space may be required `based on the density requirements in certain overlay zoning districts. In Cane Creek, watershed, at least' 50% of the land within a Flexible Development subdivision must, be set aside as open space In order to meet open space requirements, open space may be preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided 'into lots four (4) - acres or greater in size, building limits .(50 %) are established for each lot, and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or (b) a "conservation approach where ail land is subdivided into :.lots, and open space is preserved through the use. of. conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or (c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or (d) A "village" or modified cluster approach -where dwelling units are clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and :the village, is surrounded by open space; or (e) Some combination of the above. g:\ bdamend \canecrk\sramend.doc \10- 8 -99*1 ` . ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 13 Proposed Amendments ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Section IV -B -10. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section A PURPOSE - Section.B APPLICABILITY Section C 'OPEN SPACE STANDARDS CA Minimum Required Open Space Where a developer, elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as specified herein, at least thirty -three percent. (33 %) of the total land area in the Flexible .Development must be .set aside as protected .open space except in the Cane Creek Watershed where at least 50% of the total land area must be set aside as protected open space. -,Such open space.shall meet these.standards unless the developer chooses to seek approval of . a conventional. subdivision as specified herein C.2 Types of Open Space C.3 Ownership of Open Space C.4 Maintenance of Open Space Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DA Estate Lot Option D.2 Conservation Option D.3 Cluster Option D.4 Village Option Villages represent a modified form of cluster. development intended to serve as physical, social, and economic focal points in rural portions of the 'county. Consequently, villages are appropriate locations for civic uses, such as'schools and churches, as well as avariety of economic functions, including stores and workshops, and residential building .types designed -to accommodate a range of socio - economic groups... ® The village conservancy is a continuous open space area surrounding the village proper, representing the land from which dwellings have been transferred. to the village proper. In lieu of a continuous open space area, a village conservancy may consist of open space and estate lots, provided all estate lots meet the standards of Section D.1. . 0 Open space within the village conservancy shall consist of designated Primary and /or Secondary Conservation Areas. g: \txtamend \canecrk\sramend.doc \10- 8 -99Ud ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Section IV- B -10.. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section D DEVELOPMENT. STANDARDS D.4 Village Option 1.4 0 The amount of land set aside as open space in the village conservancy. shall comprise at least thirty -three .percent (33 %) of the total land area in the subdivision and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any. place, except for short connecting links. In Cane Creek watershed, the village conservancy shall comprise at least 50% of the total land area in the subdivision and . shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any place except for short connecting links: 0 Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas within .the village conservancy shall be restricted from further development, through dedication to Orange County,. another unit .of local government, the .State of North: _Carolina, a private non - profit.land conservancy or a homeowners association, ' including the: recording of conservation easements. The specific standards applicable to the village proper and its component parts are described on the following pages..: D.5 Street Standards D.6 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities Water supply and sewage disposal facilities to serve Flexible Developments may be provided, except where prohibited by overlay districts in Section 6 23 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, through the use of: ® Individual wells and septic tanks provided either on each lot or in off -lot locations protected through recorded easements; or m A community water and /or sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules, regulations, and policies; or ® Connection to a water and /or sewage disposal system operated by.a municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions are permitted only in accordance with applicable water and sewer, and land use .policies and shall be .sized only to serve the Flexible .Development for which the system. isextended; or ® A combination of the above alternative g :\ txtamend \canecrk\sramend.doc \10- 8 -99Ud ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 15 ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Section IV -13-1 Q. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT Section E DESIGN GUIDELINES EA Determining Density or Lot Yield E.2 Design Process Section F EVALUATION CRITERIA F.1 General Criteria. F.2 Forest Land /Natural Areas Conservation F.3 Farmland Conservation F.4 Conservation of Scenic Views F.5. Historic and Archaeological features F.6 Recreation Provision Section G DENSITY BONUSES The maximum number of building lots or dwelling units in a Flexible Development shall not exceed the number that could .otherwise be developed by the application of. the minimum lot size requirement and /or density standard of the zoning district or districts in. which the parcel is located. However, increases in the number of building lots. or dwelling units are permitted through one or: more of the following options: GA To Encourage Additional Open Space A density increase is permitted where more than hiFt.y three- peenent (' 31 4) ef,,the - tetal land aFea the required percentage of open space (as defined. in C.1 of this section) .in the Flexible Development is set aside.as protected open space. The.amount of the density. increase shall be based on the following standard: For each additional acre of protected open space provided in. the Flexible Development, one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted... G.2 To Encourage Affordable Housing G.3 Location of Open Space Bonus Units g:\txtamend \canecrk\res.doc \10- 8 -99Ud - 17 Orange County Zoning Ordinance SUBSECTION 6.23.2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 6.23.2 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Maximum residential density shall be as indicated in the Table below, or as required by the underlying zoning district, whichever is less: . *Amended 1 -17 -95 DISTRICT " MAXIMUM DENSITY UNIV -CA 1 du/five acres. UNIV -PW Lots of. record existing on October 2, .1989 may contain up to, but no more than, five lots with a density of one du /two acres:. Contiguous lots of record existing on : October. 2, .1989 may be combined into one parcel-, for development. The number of two -acre. lots and- the. total number of lots in the. combined parcel cannot exceed the. sum of the number of lots which could be created from each lot of record. CANE -CA 1 du/ five acres CANE -PW Lots of record existing on October 19; 1999, may contain up to, but no more than,, five lots as, small as two acres in size. Contiguous lots. of record existing ion ..October 19, 1999, may be combined., into one parcel for development. The number of two -acre lots. and .the total .number of lots in. the combined parcel cannot. exceed the sum of the number of lots which could be created from each lot of record;. OR. In Flexible Development subdivisions, an overall density of one du /three acres is permitted provided at least 50% of the land within the subdivision is set aside as open space (see Section IV.13.10 of the Subdivision. Regulations) U- ENO -CA 1 du / 2 acres LITTLE -PW HYCO -PW 1 du/ 40,000 square feet (.92 acre) FLAT -PW U- ENO -PW Maximum.density is as permitted in. the underlying zoning district. L- ENO -PW HAW -PW Structural BMPs are required in some cases where density exceeds 1 JORDAN -PW dwelling unit per acre. Refer to Article 6.23.3c1. BACK -PW gAb damend \canecrk\res.doc \10- 8 -99*1 Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.3 STORMWATER INFILTRATION AND DETENTION ..2. _Non-Residential Development Amended 1/4/94 18 DISTRICT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON- RESIDENTIAL) UNIV -CA Same as Residential (See previous Table) UNIV -PW CANE -CA .5 -acre minimum lot size, with' potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots .of record October 19, 1999; AND 6% impervious surface limit. BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. . CANE -PW 5 -acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to .1 five' as small as . two acres for lots..of record October 19, 19.99;. AND " 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; . AND 12% ISR for all other non - residential uses; AND on -site infiltration. of the. first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1.0 % of the watershed for non - residential use (139 acres in CANE -PW ). BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. U- ENO -CA 2 -acre minimum lot size. AND 6% impervious surface limit BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. HYCO -PW 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers, FLAT -PW AND 12% ISR for all other non - residential, uses; AND on -site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1 % of the watershed for non - residential use (37 acres in. HYCO -PW, 66 acres in FLAT -PW). BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed. requirements. HAW PW 24% impervious surface limit. JORDAN -PW BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed requirements. g:\ txiamend \canecrk\res- doc \10- 8 -99\kl SUBSECTION 6..23.8 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES *Amended 1-17-95 7-1-96 DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL UNIV-CA Water supply and sewage treatment systems shall be limited to UNIV-PW individual wells and oft-site septic tanks systems or individual Oh- site alternative'disposal systems. All Watershed Overlay No new treatment system, will be permitted where effluent disposal Districts occurs on a separate lot from the source of wastewater generation; -provided, however,, off-site systems shall be permitted in all ri ' Watershed Overlay Dist cts. e xcept the University Lake Protected Watershed (UNIV-PW) and Critical Area (U,NIV-CA) When located., evelopment subdivision approved i ' accordance with in a Flexible ' D n. Section IV -10 =B of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations., UNIV-CA New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers, or 300 feet from a reservoir, or perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS:'.. Quadrangle maps, whichever is, further.. CANE-CA New septic tanks, pump tanks and their appurtenances shall be U-ENO-CA located Outside of any stream buffers and'at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream, as shown -on, the USGS Quadrangle maps,. and at least 150 feet from a reservoir. New nitrification fields shall be located outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps, and at least 300 feet from a. reservoir. gAbdamend\canecrk\res.doc\1 0-8-99\kl Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.8 WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES DISTRICT. WATER SUPPLY/SEWAGE DISPOSAL CAN.E­PW Water supply and 'sewage treatment systems shall be limited to CAN E­CA individual 'wells and septic tanks or individual on-site alternative U_ENO-CA disposal systems; provided however, off-site system s shall all be permitted when. located in a Flexible Development subdivision approved in accordance- with Section IV -B -10 of the Orange County Subdivision Requiations. UNIV_PW. New septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located CANE-PW outside of any stream buffers and at least 100 feet from a perennial . U-ENO -PW.. or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS Quadrangle maps. HYCO-PW LITTLE-PW BACK-PW HAW Pw JORDAN-PW - _PW F L-P% I -r- V V SUBSECTION 6.23.10 IS AMENDED TO READ.-AS FOLLOWS: 6.23.10 APPLICABILITY *Amended 1-17-95 a) Existing Development For the purpose of determining compliance with or applicability of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance, existing development is defined as a residential 'or non- residential structure which was constructed prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the CANE- CA and CANE-PW districts); or 2) was constructed in accordance with a valid building permit issued prior to' January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the CANE -CA 'and CANE-PW districts); or 3)-- was included as part of a Site Specific Development Plan approved by the Board of Commissioners prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999, in the CANE-CA and CANE-PW districts); or g:\ bdamend \canecrk\res.doc \10- 8 -99\kl 21 Orange County Zoning Ordinance 6.23.10. APPLICABILITY 4) had otherwise established a vested 'right under North Carolina Zoning law =prior to January 1, 1994 (October 19, 1999,. in the CANE -CA and CANE PW districts). Existing development is hereby deemed to be conforming with respect to . requirements of Article 6.23 of this Ordinance. Redevelopment The rebuilding or _replacement of residential or nonresidential structures which are defined as existing development according to Article 6.23.11a is allowed, provided that the rebuilding or replacement does not result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, and does not encroach any farther into stream buffers or setbacks from -reservoirs than the previous .development: A structure which is . rebuilt or replaced in accordance. with these provisions is deemed conforming with respect to setbacks from streams and reservoirs required by Articles 6.23.7 and 6.23.8 if this Ordinance. c) Existing Lots An existing lot; for the purpose of determining compliance with Article 6.23, is defined as a lot which was created prior to January 1,.1994, a lot within the Cane. Creek watershed (CANE -CA or CANE -PW districts) which was created pr-ior'to October 19, 1999, . and nonconforming lots of record. c) Existing. Lots Stream buffers;as required by Article 6.23.7, and setbacks for septic systems as required by. Article "6;23.8 may be. reduced to the extent necessary to allow development of the lot, provided that all of the following criteria are met: . 1. The septic system is sized to serve no more than four bedrooms; and 2. The septic tank, drainfield and repair area (where required) can be accommodated on 20,000 square feet of area or less; and 3. The Orange County- Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange County Environmental Health'and /or the Orange County Engineer has determined that encroachment of the structure into the. stream buffer and /or encroachment, of the septic system or repair area into the stream buffer or reservoir setback is necessary in order to provide adequate :area for . septic disposal and repair while maintaining required separations between wells, septic systems, structures and property lines;.and g:\ txtamend \canecrk\res.doc \10- 8 -99*1 22 Orange County.Zoning Ordinance 6.23.10 APPLICABILITY 4. The Orange County Planning Staff, in consultation with Orange C* ounty Environmental Health and /or the . Orange County Engineer, has:* determined that the relative .locations of the well, septic system and structure maximize. the 'amount of watershed protection that can be achieved while allowing development of the lot. Generally, , an exception to setbacks for repair area is preferable to an exception.. for the .initial septic system, and encroachment of structures or, gravity septic systems into the setback ois preferable to the installation of a septic system pump. 5. The amount of encroachment into the stream or reservoir buffer is the minimum amount. which can be obtained. while meeting the above criteria. g:\ txtamend \canecrk\res.doc \10- 8 -99Vd 23 ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS IS AMENDED BY CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Amended Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design Creativity is encouraged. and allowed to .preserve agricultural and forestry lands, natural. and cultural features, and rural community character that might otherwise be lost through development approaches. At lease one -third (33 %) of the land within.a Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space. A greater percentage of open space may be required, based on the . density ..requirements in certain overlay zoning districts. In Cane Creek watershed, at least 50% of the land within. a Flexible Development subdivision ..must be set aside as open space. In order to meet open space requirements, .open space may be preserved through: (a) An . "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50 %). are established for each, lot, and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or (b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and open space is preserved through the use of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or (c) A "cluster'. approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or (d) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are= clustered around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or (e) Some combination of the above. AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED BY THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED. AYES: NAYS.. g:Xbdamend \canecrk \res.doc \10- 8 -99 \kl . 24 AN ORDINAINACE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION 11 AND SECTION IV -B -10 . TO IMPLEMENT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN CANE CREEK WATERSHED THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS: Section. If Definitions is amended by changing the definition of flexible development to read as follows. Amended Flexible Development - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and design ...7-1-96 creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and forestry lands; natural and cultural features, and rural community character that. might otherwise be lost through development approaches. At lease one -third (33 %) of the land Within a Flexible Development subdivision must be set .aside as open space. A greater percentage of open space may be required based on :the density requirements . in certain overlay zoning. districts. In Cane Creek watershed, at least .50% of the. land within a ' Flexible Development subdivision must be set aside as open space. In order to meet open space ,requirements,. open. space maybe preserved through: (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4) acres or greater in size, building limits (50 %) are established for each lot,. and the land area outside such limits is preserved as open space; or (b) a "conservation" approach where all land is subdivided into lots, and :.open space is preserved through the use '.of conservation easements applied to portions of individual lots; or (c) A "cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space; or (d) A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are clustered -around a village green and supporting shops, and the village is surrounded by open space; or (e) Some combination of the above. g:\bdamend \canecrk \res.doc \10- 8 -99Vd 25 SECTION IV -B -10, SUBSECTION CA (SECTION C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS) IS AMENDED TO READ I AS FOLLOWS: CA Minimum Required Open Space Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Development as. specified herein,, at least thirty-Ahree percent.(33%) of the total land area in the Flexible Development must be set aside as protected open space* except in the Cane Creek Watershed where at least 50% of p d the total, land area must be set aside as protected open space. Such open. space shall meet these standards unless the developer chooses to seek approval of a conventional subdivision as specified herein. SECTION. IV -8 -10, (SECTION'D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) SUBSECTION 0.4 VILLAGE OPTION IS AMENDED BY CHANGING THE SECOND DIAMOND LISTED IN THE VILLAGE CONSERVANCY DEFINITION (LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 65 -E) TO READ AS FOLLOWS:, 0,1 The -amount of ..land set aside. as open space 'in .the village conservancy shall, comprise at least.thkty-three percent (33%) of the total land area ,in. the` .'subdivision and shall be no less,than. 100 feet in width at. any place, except for short connecting links. In Cane Creek watershed, the village conservancy shall comprise at least 50% of the total land area in the subdivision and shall be no less than 100 feet in width at any place, except for short connecting links. SECTION IV -B -10 (SECTION D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) IS AMENDED BY ADDING LANGUAGE TO. THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SUBSECTION D.6 WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Water supply and sewage disposal facilities to serve Flexible Developments may be provided., except where prohibited by overlay districts in Section 6.23.8 of the Orange -County Zoning Ordinance through the use of: • Individual wells and septic tanks provided either on each lot or in off-lot locations protected through recorded easements; or • A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed, constructed, and maintained in conformity with all,applicable state, federal, and local rules, regulations, and policies; or • Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality, association, or water or sewer authority. System extensions are permitted . only in accordance With applicable water and sewer, and land use se policies and shall be sized only to serve the Flexible Development for Which the system is extended; or • A combination of the above alternative. gAbdamend\canecrk\res.doc\1 0-8-99*1 26 SECTION IV -B -10 (SECTION G DENSITY BONUSES) IS AMENDED BY CHANGING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SUBSECTION G.1 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: G.1 To Encourage Additional Open Space A density increase is permitted where more than the required percentage of open space. (as defined in C.1 of this section) in the Flexible Development is set aside as protected open' space. The amount of the density increase shall be based on the following standard: For each additional acre of protected open space provided in the Flexible Development, one (1) additional building lot or dwelling unit is permitted. -_ AT THE REGULAR MEETING. OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND SECONDED, BY THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED. AYES: NAYS: g:\ txtamend \canecrk \res.doc \10- 8 -99\kl 27 APPROVED 2/16/99 ORANGE COUNTY. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 23,1998 q. MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, November. 23i. 1998 at 7:30. p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of holding a joint Public Hearing:: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brown, .and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Moses Carey, Jr., and Steven Halkiotis. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner William L: Crowther. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and members Nell Andrews, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., James Selkirk, Robert Strayhorn, and Elizabeth .Walters. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M.: Brooks, Libby Searles, and Runyon Woods. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill, STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk. to the Board Kathy Baker. All other staff will be identified as necessary.' A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Brown requested that an item.be added to the Agenda regarding Carrboro's intent to repeal the junk car provision in their Ordinance: If this provision is repealed it would. become the responsibility of Orange.County to enforce the County's provision .regarding junk automobiles. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to add this item to the agenda. - VOTE: UNANIMOUS . Chair Brown indicated that she would Chair Items C.1 and C.2.b and that Karen Barrows, Chair of the Planning Board, would Chair the remainder of the items. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge H: \BOCC \NOV2399.MTN 28 North side of this property. She feels that changing the zoning of this property. will affect their land. They are concerned and opposed to the rezoning:of this property. A motion was made by`Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for. a recommendation to be returned no sooner than February 2, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment a) Cane Creek Watershed Overlay. Districts 4 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment a) Flexible Development in Cane Creek Watershed These. items were presented together by Planner David Stancil for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on. Proposed text amendments to the Orange County.Zoning Ordinance and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development_ standards for. Cane Creek Watershed. Changes are proposed t6-Section 2.2 (Definitions). and Section'6.23 (E)tra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes, .along with the companion amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, result from a three -year study. of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and subsequent recommendations by the OWASA Board of Directors in October, 1997. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would offer two sets of development standards for protecting water quality. The first option would change the minimum lot size for new development in the watershed from two acres to five acres, with a provision allowing up to five lots as small as two `acres in size for all lots of record: A second option is available for Flexible Development in Cane Creek. watershed. In this special option, new major subdivision development could occur at the current two -acre lotdensity, but new proposed standards for the County's Subdivision Regulations would change the.amount of open space from 33% to 50 %. Specifically, the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would alter a.. definition and change the existing protected watershed (CANE -PW) and critical area (CANE -CA) overlay districts for Cane Creek. The changes to the definitions section would reflect the special 50% open space standards for the Flexible Development option within the watershed. The changes .. to the overlay districts would apply a minimum lot size of five acres in the watershed, and allow for up to five lots as small as two acres in size for lots of record as of January 1 1999. Also,':changes are proposed to the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision Regulations to implement these new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. Specifically, these amendments to Section IV.B.10 of the. Subdivision Regulations would amend the open space standards of Flexible Development to recognize these special standards in Cane Creek Watershed, and also clarify other subsections which specify the previous open space percentage. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None: QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. H: \BOCC \NOV2399.MIN 29 QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM. CITIZENS: Mr. Bill Strom, a member of the OWASA Board of Directors, spoke on behalf of the. OWASA Board. He stated that forty counties in North Carolina :contain portions of WS -II water supply. watersheds. Of these.forty, Orange County contains almost twice as much; in both absolute area and percentage.within its jurisdiction as any other county within the State of North Carolina. It is therefore appropriate that Orange County's watershed protection requirements are the most progressive and proactive in the State of North Carolina. OWASA staff provided hire with a map showing that aside from certain. critical Class I Watersheds, Class II are considered the most `.important watersheds to protect. -A copy of that map is in the permanent. agenda file in the Clerk's ti office:. In Orange County we are the stewards of 100% more than any other county in North Carolina. That is the driving force behind this request for rezoning. A copy of his comments along . with the map, in their entirety,. are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Ms. Marie Albright, a resident of this area,. spoke in opposition to* this proposal. She felt that ` her land would lose a great deal of its value if .this were adopted. She could not give her children anything. She asked the Board of Commissioners to consider her concerns'when making their decision. Ms. Joyce Stanford, a resident. of Stanford Road, stated that they have been stewards of this land for over 200 years. They have defended the property against.the British, the carpetbaggers, and Yankees. For the last 30 years she has been defending this property.against,OWASA. They have taken her. home, dairy business and land. Now they seek to deny her further use of .the.land left.,in the watershed by asking-for 5 -acre zoning. This is a "taking" from her and her descendents. The 5th amendment of the. Constitutions guarantees no private property being taken for public use without just compensation.. The 5th and 14th Amendments uphold the Constitution core idea that man's. life, liberty and property not being subject to uncontrolled power of the state. This is not a benefit to her or her property. She asked that the two acre minimum be upheld and that the five- acre minimum be denied. Mr. Allen. Spalt,� a Carrboro resident and a member of the Cane Creek.Watershed Study Committee, stated that that Committee.undertook a thorough, balanced and open study of the watershed water protection situation. It is too much to expect that everyone agree with the results but it is fair to. saythat people went into this with the expectation that measures substantially different from those required for University Lake would be required to protect Cane Creek. They learned when the ' first -phase of the consultants report came back, that although Cane Creek is a high quality water supply, it is not as high as was originally expected nor is it free from substantial vulnerability from activities in the watershed both natural and from agricultural and development use; There is stratification .of the water and high manganese content in the lower water that is somewhat problematic. There is also the potential for and actuality of algae blooms in the water that make it such that it requires more protection than was anticipated. When the technical work was done they .were faced with the situation that instead of being substantially different from University Lake it turned out to be comparable. The recommendations that are before you, which probably seem familiar, are comparable to those in University Lake. They have attempted to try to provide H: \330CC \N0V2399.MIN 30 measures of compensation to deal with issues affecting the community. However, they are faced with a situation where prevention, through watershed protection, is by far the best measure. It is'- -the : safest way to protect the water supply. Engineering solutions are used in treating the finished water but the end of the pipe kinds .of solutions are not as good or as reliable. As water standards become tighter, the prevention strategies are more desirable. The phrase that the 'current watershed protection that is,in place now is insufficient to prevent deterioration of the.water quality" is the key. : The kind of recommendations that are before, you are to provide that protection for the water. quality. In regard to the Flexible Development..Plan he asked that they look very carefully at the record of Community Water Systems and Waste Water Treatments Systems, before approving any kind of Proposal that would allow that kind of system. He mentioned the situation in University Lake where . a company described as "the Cadillac of private- public utility companies" installed alternative . systems. In the last ten years, every one of the systems installed by that company has gone bad and has been bailed out by local governments. or residents. The company itself is bankrupt. These are problematic systems: Mr. Carl Shy'stated that,the'issue here is one of "d.isequity" in the treatment of the people, who are residents in the Cane Creek Watershed. They would lose some of the economic potential for development of this land. There are no provisions being made for the loss of this economic , opportunity. The issue is protecting the watershed which is based on the amount of discharge. Two five -acre properties could have more discharge than five two -acre. properties. The real issue is to protect the watershed from discharge.. There must be other options that would limit discharge so.that there is not an excess of discharge from. the two -acre lots: Technology could be used to limit the discharge. The Air Quality Act.is a good example of an emission budget being issued. Then emissions were considered as a whole in the budgeted area. Something similar could be established with regard to the discharge within the'entire watershed. People could decide on their own if they wanted to develop at two - acres. People with more land could be compensated if they did not develop:` If this proposal is implemented, there would be, no benefits to the people who live there now. The benefits are all going to the consumers of the water supply. Ms. Peggy Ritch, of 4211 Dairyland Road, spoke in opposition to this proposal. She stated. that if it was passed., the average person who. grew up in Orange County would not be able to afford to live here. This is not fair. Mr. Barry Jacobs stated that the open space option that does allow two -acre lots seems to be forgotten in this discussion. He was told that although the Planning Staff has not found other jurisdictions who have used open space development for watershed protection, he suggested that they should look at Howard County, Maryland and places in California. He asked that this be included in future considerations. He also pointed out that the problems with off -site septic systems or the County's current flexible development ordinance, can be addressed. Those problems are not ..necessarily fatal flaws. Ms. Lucy Baldwin stated that her mother's estate is near the watershed. She opposes the five -acre option because it would not be possible to divide for the children. Mr. Lonnie Kirk stated. that the majority of these land owners are farmers or have been H: \BOCC \NOV2399.MIN 31 . farmers in the past. This land is the retirement for these people. OWASA is negatively affecting their retirement. He stated that this proposal.would take money out of the home owners. pockets.. These landowners are concerned about the quality of the water but they do not want to give up their retirement income for the OWASA customers. He was opposed to the five -acre minimum lot size. Mr.. Patrick Mulkey,.a resident of the Cane Creek community, spoke in opposition to this `request to rezone this area to a five -acre minimum lot size. He stated that Orange Water & Sewer 'Authority requested a five -acre minimum lot -size for Cane Creek. The Board of County Commissioners agreed to a two -acre lot minimum for the entire 18,000 acre watershed. In the meantime, Orange Water & Sewer Authority commissioned another $100,000 study which. has come up with the original recommendation of five -acre lots. He felt that this finding was a foregone conclusion because it was what Orange Water & Sewer Authority wanted in the first place. He referred. to a friend of. his, Jim Smith, who retired from a career in the water. resources field and recently passed away, who reviewed this study. Mr.t Smith stated that each Orange Water & Sewer Authority. customer could pay $0.10 more each month and get the same amount of protection without, changing the minimum .lot size. He felt that,Orange Water &.Sewer Authority has pushed their way into this community and have disrupted the way of life. The farmers are having to get permits to,shoot deer on their land because of the explosion in the deer population. In spite of this problem, Orange Water. & Sewer Authority does not allow any hunting on their land. They already. own 3000 -plus acres in Bingham Township and ;now want another 1,200 acres. They pay no taxes. Although Orange Water & Sewer Authority did offer land to the schools for a park, he felt that they knew it was a sure bet that the offer would not be accepted. r There is a great need for a park in Bingham Township; Orange Water & Sewer Authority has land that could be used for a park. He distributed a copy of a. memo he sent to Orange Water & Sewer Authority addressing this need. A copy of this memo is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. He asked the Board of County Commissioners if they were going to become a party to this injustice or stop this injustice now. Mr. Edward Mann, of 8525 Stanford Road, stated that his wife is a Stanford, and they own some property which will be affected by the proposed change in the zoning ordinance. He served for 8 years on the Orange Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors. He does understand the need for water protection — water quality protection. He served on the Orange Water & Sewer Authority' 'Board.when they acquired the property and began construction of the Cane Creek Reservoir and is very familiar with some of the issues involved in that acquisition. He has lived on' Stanford Road since 1970. He goes to church in the'community and has become friends and neighbors with a. number of farmers who have a lot more at stake in.the proposed rezoning than he does. As he said, he owns some property that would be affected but he and his wife are not developers and have no plans to do any developing. Their concern is creating the proper and needed and justified .controls on water protection. The five -acre standard has become a standard without justification. He and his wife. attended some of the meetings with the Orange Water & Sewer Authority Board when this.. notion was first introduced and a number of possible solutions were suggested. He asked some questions at that time; that he still has not gotten satisfactory answers to are there trends. in the development in the water shed that have lead us to believe that we need to put some controls in at this time? Information that was presented at some of those meetings was that there has been some accelerated development in the Cane Creek Watershed. Average landmass per dwelling is about 5- H:\BOCC\NOV2399.MIN 32 acres. That's without putting in any additional components. He felt that our present zoning is } obtaining the desired result, so why change it ?. Another question is, is there documented deterioration in water quality that would lead us to believe that we need to, make some changes. He stated that Mr.. Spalt mentioned that maybe the water quality was not as good as was anticipated but he did not say that it was a degradation that was caused by the development that is taking place. He. merely mentioned that there are chemicals in the water, maybe, that were not known to .be there prior to the study. If thatis coming from farm runoff then this acreage change is not going to have an effect on that. You heard earlier tonight some talk about impervious surfaces and runoff. Dr., Shy talked about discharges. He felt that those are the sort of things that we should be cocerned with. He did not fee that five -acres is a magic figure. It may be that two-.acres' is perfectly satisfactory. He. asked for some sort of scientific justification for five - acres. `Its been mentioned that . that what has been used over at University Lake. University Lake's development pressures are highly. different than the development pressures around Cane Creek. University Lake is near town, adjacent to Chapel Hill and Carrboro with a lot of development pressures. We area different community-, not have the.water,and sewer facilities that are.available in town. So, to try to justify five - acres for Cane Creek because they have it at. University Lake - it is not apples and . apples. It has been mentioned before, but who should properly pay for clearing up the water? Should it be the people who use it or should it be the people who, by accident, 1ive in the vicinity of the water supply. That's an equity issue that he wanted the Board of County Commissioners to think about too. Mr. Wes Cook indicated.that he did not live in the Cane Creek Reservoir, but that he did oppose this request. He is 'a resident of Little River. Township which is presently zoned for 2 -acre lots.. The Durham County line is approximately % of a mile from his house. That area is zoned 1 -acre lots and is. in the same watershed as his property. Also, Alamance County is 1 -acre lots as well. He mentioned that there is a nuclear power plant at Lake Norman, which is the drinking source for Charlotte. That area is zoned for one -acre lots. He mentioned.that New Orleans gets their water from the Mississippi River. He strongly recommended that this request be denied and the lots be left at 2- acres. . Mr. James Thomas, a farmer residing in the Cane Creek Watershed, spoke in opposition to this proposal. - In 1972 he bought a farm that was split by Tom's Creek. He has farmed on that land since that time. He, and his neighbors have paid in order to provide this water to Orange Water & Sewer Authority customers, although they do not receive any of the benefits of this water. He felt` this rezoning would.cut the value of his farm in half. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to deny this request: Mr. Alton Thomas, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He asked the_ Commissioners not to approve this request. He stated that he, and other family members, would be losing much of the value and use of their land. Planner David Stancil stated that if this land is rezoned, parcels that have less than 12 acres. in size will not see any change. Owners could have five two- acre lots, assuming that the land perked. He also mentioned that the five -acre option would be only one of the options; another would be the cluster option with. 50% open space and the same number of lots. H: \BOCC \NOV2399.MIN 33 A copy of a Resolution was received from the Town of Chapel Hill reiterating the Council's support for water quality in the Cane Creek watershed and supporting the proposed zoning changes. This Resolution, in its entirety, is incorporated herein by reference. A motion was made. by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board 'of County Commissioners no sooner than February. 2, 1998. VOTE: UNANIMOUS . ENFORCEMENT OF CARRBORO'S JUNK AUTOMOBILE PROVISION: Interim Planning Director Gene Bell stated that Town of Carrboro. will be holding .a Public Hearing on December 1., 1998. At that hearing they will receive comments regarding their intent to repeal the.junk.car provision in their Ordinance. .If this provision were to be repealed it would then be the responsibility of Orange County to deal with junk. automobiles.. Although the timeframe is very short, it would be possible to send Carrb.oro an official notice of opposition to this action. He mentioned that this short timeframe was an oversight on Carrboro's part. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested, that the County object to this. action. County Attorney Gledhill stated that the objections would have to be on the basis of the 10 day turnaround. He indicated that there is a larger problem involved here in that this is not compatible with the Land Use Plan. He felt that the County should object to the larger. issue. County Manager John Link.stated that this is a.legal matter and the County needs more than 10 days notice. It should be communicated that we request at least a 30 day notice for this type of. action. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the County Attorney and Interim Planning Director to draft a letter to the Town of Carrboro requesting a minimum of 30 days notice before action is taken. VOTE:. UNANIMOUS C. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be .held on Tuesday, December 1, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Margaret W. Brown, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk H: \BOCC \NOV2399 -.MIN . .34 APPROVED 10/6/99 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 } MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows (Chair), Leo Allison, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jim Selkirk, Bob Strayhorn. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Holtkamp, Onie Lea, Runyon Woods. STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Karen Lincoln, Robert Davis, Jim Hinkley, Jane Garrett, Debra Graham. 'AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Barrows called the meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 4,1999 Lincoln added to the August 4, 1999 minutes, page 4, insert after fourth paragraph: Selkirk asked if there. was a problem with steepness. of the property so that the proposed property line (of lot 6A) could not be moved from the (northeast) corner to (some point along) the private road (so that both lots would be regularly shaped lots having access on Sparrow .Hawk Crest).. Hines responded that there was not and that the proposed property line could be moved. Barrows referred to Sketch C on page 25 (sketch submitted by the applicant) and stated that looking at the anticipated house sites and drives on both lots, it does not appear'to be much farther to extend a driveway to Sparrow Hawk Crest (from Lot 6A to Sparrow Hawk Crest with respect to extending a driveway to Sparrow. Hawk Crest from New Lot 6) so that,. if a drive can be constructed from Sparrow Hawk Crest (to proposed, house site on New Lot 6) for one it could be done for the other. (proposed house site on Lot 6A). She stated that, based on, staff observation, the access from Ode Turner is also steep (the topographical conditions along'Ode Turner Road to the house site are similar to the topographical conditions along Sparrow Hawk Crest). Allison asked. if the terrain were such that you could not get a road in there (from Sparrow .Hawk Crest to proposed house site on Lot 6A). Lincoln responded that a driveway from Sparrow Hawk. may cost a little more (than a driveway from Ode Turner Road). because of the terrain,. but it could be done. Selkirk reiterated that the distance between the two house sites from Sparrow Hawk Crest is not that much different so it would seem that the terrain is amenable to constructing a driveway and a driveway could be done (constructed from Sparrow Hawk Crest to the proposed house site on Lot 6A) without that much of a problem. Benedict pointed out that the Subdivision Regulations promote the subdivision `of land to be off access roads so as not to burden the existing public roads. He noted that this is what the Planning Staffs point of view was in the abstract and they are asking the Board to agree with .that point of view. The regulations use words like `.`promote" and "encourage" because they are not fashioned on a case by case basis and cannot provide an exact language for each particular situation. 35 MOTION: Holtkamp stated that promoting subdivision lots to be off access roads (so as to b. Text Amendments Related to Watershed Protection Measures in Cane Creek (November 23, 1999 Public Hearing) (1) Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (a) Article VI, Section 6.23 Extra Requirements in Cane Creek Watershed (b) Article 22 Definitions (2) Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations (a) Section IV -B-10 Flexible Development Presented by Craig'Benedict. PURPOSE: To prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners concerning proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development standards for Cane Creek watersheds.. BACKGROUND: Request Amendments, resulting from a. three -year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), propose changes to Article.22 (Definitions) and. Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV -11-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange.. County. Subdivision Regulations to implement_ new ,watershed protection . measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes incorporate subsequent recommendations made in October, 1997, by the OWASA Board of Directors. Location The proposed amendments will affect future development within the Cane Creek watershed. Existing and Proposed Conditions. Existing:. ® Maximum density: 1 du/2 acres. O 33% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions using the conservation or cluster option (conservation- cluster). Proposed: ® Maximum density: 1 du/ five acres; Lots of record existing on date of adoption may contain up to, but no more than, five, lots as small as two acres in size. Overall density of 1 du/2 acres allowed in flexible developments using the conservation or cluster (conservation - cluster) options provided 50% of total area is reserved as open space. s 50% open space requirement in flexible development subdivisions within the Cane Creek watershed.. Development Process, Schedule, and Action ® Public hearing held on November 23, 1998 (draft minutes are attached). ® First Action: Planning Board consideration of proposed amendments. Option: L' Action to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Option: 2. Action to recommend denial of the proposed amendments. Option: 3. , Action to recommend changes to the proposed amendments that are not significant in nature. ' 36 ® Final Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider proposed amendments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable. RECOMIIIENDATION(S): Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Article VI, Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) and ' to Article 22 (Definitions) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B -10 (Flexible Development) of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Board had many questions when that board reviewed the proposed amendments at its July 13, 1999, meeting. Many of those questions are answered in the attached Memorandum to the. Orange County Planning Board beginning on page. The. major concern of Cane Creek area residents who attended the public hearing was just compensation. for the taking their property, rights in order to protect drinking water to which they will not have access.. Citizens expressed concern.that,they were bearing the cost for development in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Staff asked OWASA staff to clarify the studies on which they based their recommendation: ® if the study evaluated the impact on watershed quality of development occurring at a'zoned lot size other than 2 or 5 acres, or combination thereof; and ® what percentage of the watershed could be ' developed using the creative open space option before a tributary sub - impoundment is required for water quality protection: Response from OWASA states: ® OWASA model evaluated 12 increments of lot sizes between two and six acres and found that water quality goals are met when build -out occurs with lots of five acres or larger. Thus; the water quality goals can be met with the proposed five acre zoning with five two -acre lots allowed for lots of record if OWASA acquires 1,265 more acres of watershed. ® 10% of the watershed may ybe developed using the flexible development provisions (1 du/2 acres with 50% of total acreage preserved in open space) without requiring additional water quality protection. Please refer to the attached letter from OWASA in reply to staff's inquiry. Benedict discussed the questions that the Board had at the July 13,.1999 Planning Board meeting and the staff response to those questions. He distributed and. discussed a handout that shows the rate of growth in each township (copy attached). Katz asked about.transfer of development rights. Benedict responded that programs have been discussed regarding transfer of development rights. Ed Holland stated that OWASA is currently purchasing development rights on property. He stated that they are actually buying conservation easements from willing property owners in the watershed which does not require a transfer of development procedure. He stated that these are the people that use the water. Strayhorn asked how is the fair market value determined.. Holland responded that they look at the. development potential of the property as of right now. Strayhorn asked what was the last price that OWASA paid per acre. Holland responded for a conservation easement, approximately $2,000.00 per acre which leaves the property in the owners' name with restrictions. McAdams stated that he would be opposed to this iten i. Selkirk stated that he understands what the concerns are for clean water in the future. He noted that he is concerned with the 200 or so large landowners who are going to be very negatively impacted by this. Allison stated that his preference would be to leave as is. Katz stated that he understands the water quality issue and what they are trying to preserve but you have to look to the future. He stated that. he is in favor of the recommendations by staff. Strayhorn stated that he would prefer to leave it as it is. He stated .38 Val :ark► . Orange County Planning & inspections Department 306E Revere Road :Hillsborough, NC 27278 �V1. Telephone: (919) 732 -8181 FAX (919) 644 -3002 .tar G4NE CREEK WATERSHED STAFF REPORT EXE( U'I'NE SUIIRMARY. October 30,199$ The .Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) report entitled "Final Recommendations for Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply" was referred to Planning staff to 1) evaluate the watershed study, and 2) prepare a staff report with applicable recommendations, prior to the development of any proposed ordinance amendments. Accordingly, this summer, planning staff members formed the Cane Creek Analysis Team (CCA'l) to evaluate the implications of the Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study and final OWASA recommendations. Because of the cost and time required to quantify impacts, and the unitnown cost- effectiveness of such research, assessment of the .watershed study and OWASA recommendati ons impacts was largely of a qualitative nature. At this point, staff are able to Provide Preliminary recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Following.,additional input, staff will prepare a final recommendation for the November 23, 1998 public hearing. Staff Analysis. Preliminary.analysis of the watershed study and OWASA recommendations reveals that.ensuring adequate and reliable long term protection of the water quality of Cane Creek Reservoir necessitates a reduction.inthe pattern; intensity and/or amount of future development activity in the watershed. Such a reduction can only be accomplished with certainty through land use controls that cause development to occur in either large -lot or cluster configurations. Based on staff's analysis, there appear to be three watershed management options that would accomplish the needed long -term water quality protection. Each offers potential benefits and drawbacks. Option l: Mandatory Flexible Development/ Large Lot Current two -acre zoning along with mandatory flexible development (33% open space) outside of the watershed critical area. In the critical area; five -acre lot zoning with 'up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record. OWASA 20 year plan for land acquisition resulting in 1,266 acres. Option 2: Creative Open-Space Development ( "Open- Space" or. "Cluster'} Current two -acre zoning along with mandatory "Creative Open -Space Design" (50% open space with one acre minimum lot size). Tributary detention ponds on Caterpillar Creek and Watery Fork would-be needed. OWASA would acquire 1377 acres of land (413 through fee- simple and 964 through conservation easements). Option 3: Large Lot/ Creative, Open Space Design (OWASA Recommended) Rezone watershed to 5 -acre lot zoning (with up to five two -acre lots for lots of record), or "Creative Open Space Design" with 50% open-space and currenttwo -acre zoning (1 -acre minimum lot size). Possible construction of tributary detention on Caterpill ar or Tom's Creek, depending on participation rate in cluster development and effective lot size of developed lots. OWASA acquisition of 1266 acres of land.' All of the. options are capable of protecting water quality to the same general level. Differences ° lie in the certainty of water quality'protection, the substantive variation in the ability of the options to meet ' other non -water quality considerations, and perhaps in the economic feasibility of each option. The benefits offered under each option are as varied as the. differences. Mandatory Flexible Development / Large Lot uses azi existing, knownprogram and may provide greater developer flexibility in site design; since only 33 % of the tract would be required to remain in open space. Additionally, land acquisition by OWASA and the focus on non- structural controls in the critical area adds to the certainty of protecting water quality - although regional -scale structural controls in the rest of the watershed may offset any gain in certainty and the downzoning in the critical area would affect property owners. Creative Open Space Design guarantees that 50% of all new major subdivisions will be open space and may minimize landowner costs, since there would be no change in zoning. As a result it offers significant resource protection benefits that transcend water quality and could also preserve natural areas and wildlife habitats, flora and fauna and cultural or archaeological resources. It would, however, result in higher costs to OWASA customers due to needed structural controls. The Large Lot / Creative Open Space Design ( "OWASA Recommended ").is a hybrid of two options recommended by OWASA. It offers the most developer familiarity —using conventional single- family lots without open space set - asides. The lower residential yield and density should reduce the level of public services provided by the County to serve development, but also affects landowner impacts. This option offers the highest certainty of protecting water quality, but the exact level of certainty may depend on the level of participation in the "clustering option. Preliminary Staff .Recommeridation. . Having identified three alternatives for consideration, staff plans .to use. further research and feedback from the Board and stakeholders to make a final recommendation for the November 23, 1998 public hearing. Regardless of the management options ultimately selected, .staff feels that implementation through amending existing Cane Creek watershed zoning districts and/or a special section in the Flexible Development provisions for Cane Creek (please see page 31 of staff report) would be the best approach. Finally, the OWASA recommendations on potential "tradeoffs ", to the watershed community were not evaluated herein, since they, do not relate to water quality. V___­_ 0 ..... 4u rr r t Rl To. John Link, County Manager From:.. Planning Staff Date November 16, 1.998 Subject: Cane Creek Watershed Recommendation On October 20,.the Planning staff presented a staff rep' on the Cane Creek . 1Nafiershed Study and subsequent recommendations for protecting water quality'by the. OWASA Board of Direcfiors� Staff would like to take this opportunity to provide a recommended development management option for Cane Creek watershed. The October *20 staff report identified three management options that were recommended for further evaluation: 1• Mandatory Flexible Development (with Large -Lot Zoning in the' critical areal): 2: Creative Open Space Design, and 3• Large -Lot Zoning /Creative Open Space (the OWASA- recommended approach). As mentioned in the staff report, staff indicated that the. options, would be discussed at a community meeting, in the watershed. These three options .were presented to ' 25 citizens at a .community: meeting at Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department on October 29, 1998. In addition.,. staff was to complete its research on these options and, make a single recommendation by. the time of the public .'hearing on November.23. As You may .recall, the primary downside to the Mandatory Flexible Development and Creative Open Space options ( #1 . and. #2) was whether these options .could protect water quality given their use of Cluster development pparent :requirements for using . p (and the ..a structural impoundments to do so): Staff completed its research into this issue. 1n, late - October. We have been' unable'. to find any examples of .communities that, have used cluster development solely for water quality protection, 'with car without relying on structural controls (detention basins) .or very large -lot base zoning. As such, we have found no evidence to counter the.findings of the Cane Creek Watershed Study - that options #1 and #2 above will not protect water quality to the same level of certainty as the OWASA- recommended . approach ( #3) of large -lot zoning design. /creative open space In conducting the research, staff contacted planning jurisdictions that had been identified in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) publication REffective Watershed Management for . Surface Water' Supplies" as currently .employing or-con idering employment of cluster . development for water quality - purposes. Based on' the AWWA report the following 'plan departments ' and agencies _ were, contacted: Fairfax..County (VA) Planning; Prince William . County VA Plannin Loudoun. -Coup ( ) 9,- ty. (VA) Planning: and the .Northern Virginia' District Planning. Commission*. All of these planning :entities hold responsibility for protecting the water quality of the Occcoquan River bas!n. . Discussions with the. identified :planning`. departments & `agencies revealed that: .1) Fairfax: and Prince 1Nilliam Counties permit rural. clutter. development, but do so for reasons other. than water quality protection, 'and 2) both counties have a lower underlying .density than is currently, or. anticipated to be,,: in place in. the Cane Creek. . Watershed. As a result of this lower density, the need for alternative or off -site wastewater systems .'necessitated under cluster, development options Is eliminated. In addition, staff conducted an Internet -based literature search to locate other` municipalities or counties. which employed .cluster development. None were found. Given this, staff recommended ..on' November 4 that, to simplify matters for the public. hearing, only option #3. (OWASA .-recommended) be taken. the November 23 public hearing. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations have been drafted to implement this management option. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will alter the definition of Flexible Development to ' allow for 50% open space in Cane Creek watershed, and to provide for a, five acre minimum lot size, with up to five lots as small as two acres in size. The amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would" amend the open space standards to provide for 50 %. open space`. in Cane Creek, and to clarify other sections that specified: 33% only: The draft amendment to. the Zoning Ordinance recommends one modification to the OWASA package - that the effective date for lots of record (the "up.to five lots as small as two acres" test) be set at January 1,'1999, rather than the proposed date 42, of June 26, � 1997. This would be� in keeping with the last round of watershed overlay zoning district ' changes in 1993 -94, which set an effective date of January 1; 1994. Recommendation The Planning staff recommends that the County approve the ordinance :. and subdivision regulation text amendments implementing management option . #3 (the. OWASA- recommended option): Our.: reasons for this -recommendation are as follows: 1. ,Our corrtpleted research on the use of cluster for water quality, protection has not yielded any other, programs that use cluster development for water uali q ty protection, with or without using structural controls :(detention ponds and basins) or large -lot base zoning. 2. In the Cane Creek Watershed. Study, the other two options did not protect- woter.quality to the same degree of certainty as the mit! re miti commended approach..Staff has not determined any gating factors that alters this finding. 3. Option #2 (Creative Open Space) is not a true alternative, as it could be done through the OWASA- recommended -approach. 4. In addition to the lack of supporting data for options #1 and #2 for water. quality certainty, there was also no support for these two options at the October 29 community information meeting2. 1. The October 20 staff report failed to note that Option #1 (Mandatory Flexible Development) also Included large -lot zoning in the critical area. 2. At the community meeting, participants were asked to participate In a straw poll of the three options at the close of the meeting. Four persons supported Option #3 (OWASA), while the. remainder supported none of the above. No one voted for Options #1 and #2. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 43 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �,ll,► 1, o 0 u � ' 'b Gatolo MEMORANDUM �TO: Orange. County Planning Board cc: Craig Benedict, Planning Director FROM: Karen Lincoln, Planner III DATE: August 26, 1999 SUBJECT: Ordinance Text Amendments (Cane Creek Watershed). At the July 13, 1999, meeting the Planning Board had many questions regarding the proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance .and Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new watershed protection measures within Cane Creek watershed. The following lists questions posed by the board and staff response to those questions. 1. What is the total acreage that will be affected by the proposed changes to the zoning. ordinance? Approximately 18,502 acres (90 %) of the 20,227 acre watershed is in Bingham and Cheeks Townships, Orange County. 2. What is typical acreage of existing properties in Cane Creek watershed? RANGE (ACRES) NUMBER OF PROPERTIES PERCENTAGE 'OF TOTAL LOTS TOTAL ACREAGE IN wS* PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL . ACREAGE 0 - 10 678 64% 2,500 15% 10+- 20 187 18% 2,503 15% 50 103 10% 3,296 19% -20+- 60+-100 49 5% 3,422 20% >100 35 3% 1 5,163 31% TOTALS: 1 1052 1 100%-, 1 165884 100% * Represents about 80% of the watershed area and does not include OWASA owned property, Alamance County. parcels, and a limited number of Bingham Twp. Parcels located along the northern township border or parcels with significant area outside the watershed. Memorandum to Orange County Planning Board 44 August 26, 1999 3. What is typical subdivision lot size in Bingham Township? . Major Subdivisions 1987 -1994 AVG. LOT. NO: OF LOTS SIZE 1994-1998 AVG. LOT NO. OF LOTS SIZE 229 2.36 45 4.79 Minor Subdivisions 199 4.46 113 3.43 Exempt Plats 163 13.87 104 15.14 4. What is the value of raw land sales? W RAW LAND COST /ACRE Location Price Acres Price /Acre Dairyland St $'52,000 7:00 $ 7.429 West Ten Road. $ 28,000 3.75 $7.467. Yarborough Road $ 32,500 4.12 $ 7.888 Flora` Saline $ 25,000 3.07 $ 8.143 Preston Loop $ 22,500 2.74 $ 8.212 Carowill Cou $ 27,500 3.31 $ 8.308 Hawes Road $ 45,000 5.37 $ 8.380 Flora Saline $ 35,000 4.16 $ 8.413 Forest Knoll $ 65,000 7.66 $ 8.486 5. What is the value of lost units? Real estate sales indicate that the value of land per acre does . not appear to deviate significantly based on the amount of units that can be built per. acre. While there is 'a high variability between ' cost per acre, the variability does not directly correlate with units per acre. 6. What is the cost of water quality degradation if proposed zoning amendments are not.adopted? (What are the estimated costs for structural measures and water treatment ?) Unknown... g:\bctamend \caneck \pbmem.doc \8- 26 -99Ud1 Memorandum to Orange County Planning Board 45 August 26, 1999 7. What reduction in' impervious area is sought to ensure a certain level of water quality (.agreed-upon quality targets ')? Allowed impervious surface is currently 6 %. That' percentage will remain as the maximum allowable. impervious surface. However, residential uses on five acre lots may not require 6% (13,068 sq. ft.) of the five acres in impervious surface whereas "normal" residential coverage of a two .acre lot will require most, if not all,' of the 6 % (5,227.2 sq. ft.). 8. Should the standards be different for the critical area and the remainder of .the watershed? (Is it necessary to implement the same water protection measures in the remainder of the. watershed as in the critical area ?) Per OWASA, the watershed is so small that all tributaries of the reservoir should have the same protection as the reservoir itself.. 9. In other down - zoning projects, what compensation methods, if any,, . were employed? The Planning. Department does not know of any down -zoned areas in which landowners received compensation for the loss of allowable density. 10. Did OWASA know of water quality needs during the reservoir siting proposal? Per OWASA; during the siting proposal, OWASA was aware that water quality needs would have to be addressed but those needs could not be determined until further study. g:\ txtamend \caneck\pbmem.doc \8- 26- 99\kll