HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-13-1999 - 21
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA .ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 13 , 1999
Actiort Agenda
Item No
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENTS: FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENTS Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): - INFORMATION CONTACT:.
1) .Administration Recommendation Karen Lincoln, Extension 2583
2) Planning,.Board Recommendation Craig Benedict, Extension 2592
3) 5-24-99 Public Hearing Notice TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
4) 8-23-99 Public Hearing Notice Hillsborough 732-8181
5) 5-24-99 Draft Public Hearing Minutes Chapel Hill , 968-4501
6) July 13, 1999, Planning.Board Minutes.; Durham 688-7331
7) Ordinance Amending Subdivision Regulations Mebane (336)227-2031-
8) Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance
PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations
provisions .for flexible development and companion amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Request Amendments to the Orange County- Subdivision Regulations, Section II (Definitions),
Section 11-D-3 (Preliminary Plat Approval), and Section IV-B-10 (Flexible Development) propose
changes. to delete undesirable aspects. of the conservation approach, to enhance preservation of rural
character in flexible development subdivisions, and to provide incentives for :using the estate lot
approach..- Proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance define "flexible
development" and. "open space" in a .manner. that is consistent with existing and proposed. provisions.
of the subdivision regulations
Location The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety. of Orange County lying. outside of
the Rural Buffer and outside the. municipalitiesand their:extra-territorial jurisdictions, if any.:
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing: • Flexible developmenf conservation: option subdivisions have not demonstrated
creativity in design to preserve open space as intended by the flexible. development provisions
and do not reserve/protect-any:.natural areas that-would riot be protected by other existing provisions:
in the zoning ordinance-and subdivision regulations.
Thedefinition of "Flexible.development".includes #our approaches to preserving open space.
in flexible- development subdivisions: an "estate" lot approach; a "conservation" approach; a
"cluster" approach; and a "village" or modifed cluster approach.
• "Open space" in the zoning ordinance is defined with .respect to calculating land use
intensity ratios for zoning applications and does not include a definition that compliments required
"open space" in a flexible development subdivision.
2
Proposed: Proposed amendments: • correct inadequacies of the conservation option to
provide subdivisions with intended features of flexible development; • clarify other flexible
development provisions including estate lot provisions; and address inadequacies of the
conservation option that are common. for other flexible development approaches. An attached
document giving existing ordinance language and proposed amendments contains staff annotation
for each proposed amendment.
In summary, proposed amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations,, Section II
Definitions, Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development. and to Orange County Zoning Ordinance,
Article 22 Definitions:
• A. Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and combine the desirable
elements of that approach with the cluster approach to create the conservation-cluster
(cc) approach;
• B. Clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development may not increase
density allowed by the zoning ordinance within protected watersheds. and their critical
areas
• C. Clarify and define configuration and placement of open space (i.e. contiguous-
stretches)
• D. Add provision fora 100'( cc approach) or 150'( estate approach) buffer along adjacent
public roads to enhance preservation of rural character;
• E. Modify setbacks and percentage of open space allowed for .placement of septic systems
(25% allowed for repair area);
• F. Reduce minimum lot size of estate lots from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot
.size of 3.5 acres;
• G. Provide for Internal access for all lots in the estate approach; and
• H. Add a definition to the Article II of the zoning ordinance for "Open space (flexible
development)".
Development Process. Schedule. and Action
• Public Hearing May 24, 1999: Major comments were that flexible development would not be
- used if those options did not offer some incentive to the developer Draft minutes are attached.
• Public Hearing August 23, 1999: Additional amendments addressing comments from the
May 24, 1999, Public Hearing were brought back for public comment.
• First Action: Planning Board Recommendation:
Planning Board reviewed the amendments July 13, 1999, including the proposed amendments
presented at the August 23, 1999, Public Hearing. Minutes are attached.
• Final Action: Board of Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not Applicable.
~.\L.._.y _.. J\d...J _.~___L_ J..\O AO 8/111.1
3
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Planning Board Recommendation: Approval of the proposed amendments to the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations Section 11, Definitions, Section III-D~, Preliminary ,Plat
Approval, and Section IV-B-10, Flexible .Development, and to the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance, Article 22, Definitions, .per the attached PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
beginning on page 19.
Administration Recommendation: • Approval per the attached ADMINISTRATION
RECOMMENDATION (in Strike through =Delete; highlight =add format) on pages 5 -17.
Amendments to the Orange Counfy SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
AMENDMENT CORRESPONDS WITH b b b BULLET STRIKE THROUGH =
ON PAGE DELETE FORMAT
2 PAGE S
AMENDMENT 1 SECTION II DEFINITIONS: AMEND DEFINITION OF A 6
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT 2 SECTION IV-6-1 O, SECTION C, AMEND SUBSECTION C.3 C 7
OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
AMENDMENT 3 SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D, AMEND .SUBSECTION D.1 D, F, G, 8 - 9
ESTATE LOT OPTION E
AMENDMENT 4 SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D, DELETE SUBSECTION D.2 A, E 10 -11
CONSERVATION OPTION
AMENDMENT 5 SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D, AMEND SUBSECTION D.3 A, B 12 -14
CLUSTER OPTION
Amendments to the Orange County ZONING ORDINANCE:
AMENDMENT CORRESPONDS WITH b b ~ BULLET STRIKE THROUGH =
ON PAGE DELETE FORMAT
2 PAGES
AMENDMENT 1 ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS: AMEND DEFINITIONS OF H 16
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE.
Note: the Administration does not recommend the following amendments proposed in the
Planning Board Recommendation: A. proposal for only Planning Board approval of estate lot
preliminary plats (pages 21 - 22);
B. proposal to decrease the proposed buffer along estate lot
boundaries adjacent to public roads from 150' to 100' (50'
. R01Rn or 125' (60' + ROV1~ (pages 25 - 26).
A CLEAN COPY DF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS begins on
page 53 and A CLEAN COPY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IS
included on pages 61 -62.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments
SUBDIV/S/ON REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
SECTION II DEFINITIONS
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold- underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-s~r~il~# print.)
g:~txtamendlflexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1
6
AMENDMENT 1 AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION II
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10.
A. CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE LOT APPROACH _
THAT CLARIFIES PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA.
B. DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR THE CONSERVATION APPROACH AND ADJUST .
C. MODIFY THE NAME OF THE CLUSTER APPROACH TO PRESERVE THE CONNOTATION OF
"CONSERVATION" AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION TO SPECIFY THE CONFIGURATION
AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE.
SECTION IL DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 design creativity is encouraged and allowed to preserve agricultural and
forestry elands, inatural and cultural features, and rural community
character that might otherwise be lost through conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land. within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which maybe
preserved through: _
(A) (a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided -into lots #ear-{4}
three 3 acres e~ and greater in size, building ~~~1s{~°~6-} lot area
including setbacks are established on 50°° #eF of each lot, and the
land area outside such ids area. is preserved as open apace
provided that front and .side yard setback areas shall -not be
counted toward meeting the minimum open- space requirement
except as saecified by pirovisions of Article IV-B-10 Section D 1:
or
(c) (s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on seaarate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of
local government; 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:lbdamendlflexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-991k1
7
c, AMENDMENT 2 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION C.3 (OPEN SPACE STANDARDS)
OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT '
WITH OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT BY A) SPECIFYING THAT OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS
AND B) CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
WHICH ALLOWS THE {NDIVIDUAL .OWNERSHIP OF .OPEN SPACE (AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.)
SECTfON IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible .Development- may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
• Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local govemment, the-
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
• Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may -apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions .of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
• Ownership by a homeowners associatior- where specific .development
restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and
as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
• Ownership by individual property owners;-eepesiall} of estate tots ewaer=s onl ,
where -specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements are
included as part- of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation
easements applicable to such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal,. the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided:
g:lbctamendlflexdevladminrec.doc~8-17-991k1
8
a? AMENDMENT 3 AMEND SECTION D.1 ESTATE LOT OPTION TO A) REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE FROM 4 ACRES TO 3 ACRES WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 3.5 ACRES; B) CLARIFY WHAT
MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE AREA IN THE OPEN SPACE
THAT MAY BE USED FOR SEPTIC EASEMENTS FROM 5O% OF THE AREA IN OPEN SPACE TO 25%
WITH AND ADDITIONAL 25% FOR REPAIR AREA ONLY, IF NEEDED; D) INCREASE SPACING
REQUIREMENTS TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER; E) DELETE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; F)
PROVIDE INTERNAL ACCESS TO ALL LOTS; AND G) PROVIDE A 150 FT. BUFFER ALONG
FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS ADJACENT TO THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
D.1 Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
(A)
• Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least #e~-(4} three 3 acres
with an average lot size of three and one-half (3.5) acres for all lots.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns, and driveways.
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas..
(B)
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted.
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and
shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the
front or side yard contains significant Brimary or secondary conservation
areas.
(~)
• Aseptic system and/or well site-may can only be located
el~elepe within the secondary conservation area provided f#-deer the land
designated for the septic system and/or well site is not esse~more than #~atf
one ug arter of the secondary conservation area
of the lot. A repair ,area may be located outside of a
buildina lot area provided it does not occupy more than one quarter of the
conservation area nor any cart of a Primary Conservation Area. No septic
system repair area and/or well site can be located in the primary
conservation area of a lot.
g:\txtamend\flexdev\adminrec.doc\&17-99\kl
9
AMENDMENT 3(CONT.)
(D)
• Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing
standards:
Building Envelope Spacin Standards for Estate Lots
Minimum spacing between building envelo es on adjacent lots X9100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision ~ 150 feet
boundary oroff--site ublic street right-of--way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 4~ 50 feet
or private- street ri ht-of--way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and. any other lot 29 30 feet
line
Minimum spacing between building envelope and. wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.)
(E) _
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots.
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary `and/or .Secondary Conservation Areas;
provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles;. and satisfy all
building envelope spacing standards,
#ellevwfls
0 The minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet
for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and 'T' turnarounds.
• Estate lots .shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements..Primary and Secondary.
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted
against further development through conservation easements and/or -deed
restrictions. .
(F)
• Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to_.provide internal access
to all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state
maintained roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to
lots in the subdivision.
tG)
• A 150 foot Type F buffer meeting -the requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall
be provided along the frontage of -all existing state maintained roads .
adjacent to the- subdivision boundaries. In areas of dense mature forest,
existing vegetation may be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If
.additional planting is required, new plant materials that satisfy the buffer
requirements of- Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and maintained in
accordance with Qrovisions of Article IV-B-8-f.
gatxtamend~flexdevladminrec.docl&17-991td
~o
AMENDMENT 4 DELETE SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.2 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CONSERVATION OPTION.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
' DELETE ENTIRE SECTION
•,
-,
~~
g:\txtamend\flexdev\adminrec.docl8-17-99Uc1
g:~txtamendlfiexdevladminrec.docl8-17-99Ud
12
b? AMENDMENT 5 AMEND SECTION N-B-10, SECTION D.3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CLUSTER OPTION BY A) CHANGING THE NAME TO "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER"; B) CLARIFYING
CONFIGURATION AND PLACEMENT OF OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCING ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF
OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR SEPTIC OR WELL EASEMENTS FROM 5O% TO 25%;
D) CLARIFYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS;
E) REDUCING MINIMUM. LOT WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE CLUSTERING; F) CLARIFYING LANGUAGE
REGARDING. REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT.FRONTAGE; G) PROVIDING FORA 100 FT. SETBACK
ALONG SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES; AND H) RENUMBERING SUBSECTIONS D.4, D.S, AND D.6.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(A)
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A (conservation,-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together.
through a transfer of allowable density within .the subdivided tract provided the
transfer of density within the subdivision does -not increase the average density
in any overlay zoning district In aconservation-cluster subdivision designed .
with density_ transfer, lots Ssmaller .lets than
the minimum lot. size permitted in the zoning district are allowed
provided such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following
standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall .consist of designated Primary
and/or Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
(B)
• Both Primary -and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units fqa~ that may be enjoyed by all residents of
the subdivision- and. if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the .largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should. abut. undivided
open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and
. convenient pedestrian access to the open space .from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case. of farmland or .other resource areas
vulnerable to -human disturbance. The design must meet Section F
Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area desicln
characteristics.
• Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous. parcels,
no parcel.shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to-
g:lbctamend\flexdevladminrec.docl8-17-99Ud
13
AMENDMENT S(cONT.)
width -ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for .
neighborhood. commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links.
(~l
• Each lot must. contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a
single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses,- .including, but
not limited to, storage buildings and .garages, patios and decks, lawns, and
driveways. Aseptic system and/or well. site may be .located in an open space
area. provided it .does not occupy .more than One quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and :desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of .designated Primary. and/or Secondary.. Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements: as specified in Article
4.1.2 of the- Orange County Zoning Ordinance may. be reduced- as set forth
below.
(~~
0 Minimum lot area- requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%)
of the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any
overlay_district requirements ;
however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40,000 square feet
within a watershed protection overlay district where lots are served by
individual seatic systems.
(E~
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced °
to 100 feet in the AR and R1 Districts.
Minimum lot width requirements. may be reduced by 30% in all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10) feet,
(F)
0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for
lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
(G)
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision
boundary or off-site aublic street right-of--way shall 6e 100 feet and may
be counted as oxen space.
• Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
g:ltxtamendlflexdevladminrec.docl8-17-991k1
14
AMENDMENT 5(CONT.)
(H)
~:4 D.3 Village Option
H)
~a D.4 Street Standards
H)
D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities.
g:lbctamendlflexdevladminrec.docl$-17-99Ud
15
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments with Staff Notes to the
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-s#file~g# print.)
g:ltxtamend~flexdevladminn3c.docl&17-99Uc1
16
AMENDMENT 1 A)AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED .THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE
SUBDIVISION. REGULATIONS; B) TO DEFINE OPEN SPACE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSISTENT.. WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN THE FLEXIBLE .DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS; AND C) TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR --
LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED-FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE
APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS.
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 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 conventional development
approaches. At .least one-third (33%) of -the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which. may be
. preserved through: . .
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots #si~r-{4~
three 3 acres eF and greater in size, building s~8~63 lot area
including setbacks are established on 50°° #91= of each. lot, and the
land area outside such s area is preserved as open space
provided that front and side ward setback areas shall not be
counted toward meeting the minimum open space requirement
exceat as saecified by arovisions of Article IV-B-10. Section D.1:
or
4~ "
(s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots. owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(~ ~ 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:uxtamend~flexdev~adminrec.docl8-17-99W
17
AMENDMENT 1 (CONT.)
(B~
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS ~ -
Open Space - (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and
"Secondary Conservation Areas". as defined in Section 1V-B-10. C.2 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations. which are areserved through
conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible development
subdivision.
(c) _
Open .Space - (land use intensity) 1) Open space is -the total horizontal area of
uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject
to limitations set forth below.. 2) Uncovered open space. is total gross residential land
'area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior, balconies: and roof areas improved as
recreation space. 3) Covered open -space is usable open space closed to the sky, but
having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be
construed as fifty percent or more. ,Examples of covered space are covered balconies,.
covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on .
columns or posts or .cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open
space sha11 not exceed the square .footage of the open space sides.
g:ltxtamend\flexdevladminnsc.docl8-17-99\kl
19
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
. Proposed Amendments-
SUBD/VlSION REGULATIONS, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
SECTION II DEFINITIONS
SECTION 111-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT -
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-s#~~~eag# print.)
g:lbctamendltlexdev~pbrec.docl8-17-99Ud
20
AMENDMENT 1 AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SECTION II
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10.
A. CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND ADD LANGUAGE TO DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE LOT APPROACH
THAT CLARIFIES PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDABLE LOT AREA.
B. DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR THE CONSERVATION APPROACH AND ADJUST .
C. MODIFY THE NAME` OF THE CLUSTER APPROACH TO PRESERVE THE CONNOTATION OF
"CONSERVATION" AND ADD LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION TO SPECIFY THE CONFIGURATION
AND OWNERSHIP OF THE OPEN SPACE.
SECTION IL DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 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 .conventional development-
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible : .
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space whichmay be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach. where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or .greater in .size, building ~i#~;{gA~e} lot area including
setbacks are established on 50° 0 #ef of each lot, and the -land
area outside such s area is preserved as open. space provided
that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted
toward meeting- the minimum open space requirement exceat
as specified by arovisions of Article IV-B-10. Section D.1: or
~ ~~
(s bJ A "conservation-cluster". approach where lot sizes are reduced
and the land saved through. such reductions is preserved as open
space on separate lots owned and maintained through a
homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or
unit of state of local government; 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:ltxtamend~flexdev\pbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1
21
AMENDMENT 2: AMEND A) SECTION III-D-3 PREUMINARY PLAT APPROVAL; B) SECTION IV-
8-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT, SECTION B APPLICABILITY; AND C) SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION
D.1 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ESTATE LOT OPTION TO MODIFY MAJOR SUBDIVISION '
APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTATE OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BY THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD (NO
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS). THIS WOOD SHORTEN THE TIME
REQUIRED TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR SUBDIVISION.-
(A)
SECTION III-D-3 PRELIMINARY PLAT:APPROVAL
'*111-D-3-c. Planning Board Review Procedures
*Amended
1/8/90 The Planning Board shall review the application and the Planning
Department's report and shall prepare a written recommendation.#o
the Board of Commissioners. All interested, persons shall be given
the- opportunity to speak and ask questions regarding the application.
The Planning Board may place reasonable and -fair limitations on
comments, arguments and questions to avoid undue delay.
The Planning Board shall take action on the application solely on its
findings as to compliance with applicable regulations and. conditions
and shall:
(1) Recommend approval of the application;
(2) Recommend approval subject to conditions; or
(3) Recommend denial of the application.
Preliminary plat applications usinsl the estate .lot option of
flexible development shall be approved by the Planning Board .
and do not reQUire aeAroval by the Board of County
Commissioners. The Planning Board shaft take action on an .
application using the estate lot option of flexible development
(reference Section IV-B-10. Section D.1) solely on its findings as
to compliance with applicable regulations and conditions and
shall:
Recommend aQaroval of the application;
JU Recommend approval subject to conditions; or
Recommend denial of the application.
g:ltxtamend~f{exdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-99~c1
22
AMENDMENT 2: (COnt.) .
The Planning Board shall prepare its recommendations within '
forty-five (45) days of the meeting at which the Planning Department's
report is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in
writing by the applicant. If the Planning Board fails to prepare .its.
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners within the specified
time- period, or extensions thereof, the .Planning Board shall be
deemed to have advanced the application without recommendation.
If the Planning Board approves the .application subject to conditions,
such conditions shall be reasonable and shall seek ~ to .insure
compliance .with applicable regulations .and the provision of utilities
and/or other facilities needed to serve the proposed. development. If
the Planning Board recommends. approval of the application with
conditions, the applicant may amend his/her application to conform to
all or some .of the conditions, provided the Planning .Department
.reviews the amended application for compliance with... applicable
regulations and certifies that the. amendments conform to .the
conditions of -the Planning. Board recommendation. In such. cases,
the Planning Department may .amend its report to conform to any or
all of the Planning Board's .recommendations. The: Planning.
Department. shall then forward its report- and the Planning .Board's
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at its next available
regularly scheduled meeting.
(B)
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section B APPLICABILITY
Amended
6/2/97
Flexible Development' is permitted in -all residential zoning districts except the Rural
Buffer {RB) zoning district, but only upon approval of ~a Major Subdivision Preliminary:
Plat by the. Board of County Commissioners or approval by the Planning Board for
subdivisions developed using the estate tot option. All Flexible Development
subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and standards specified herein and
in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they, are
not in conflict with these provisions, provided, however, that Flexible Developments
located within the Stoney- Creek. Basin. Overlay District shall comply with provisions of
Article 6.30 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Applicants seeking approval of a
Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department are encouraged to work with.
the Planning Department staff in identifying and preserving open space areas, as part of
such developments.
g:1b<tamend~flexdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-99Ud
23
ZQAMENDMENT 3 AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION C.3 (OPEN SPACE STANDARDS)
OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE LANGUAGE CONSISTENT. .
WITH OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT BY A) SPECIFYING THAT OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE LANDOWNERS
AND B) CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTATE OPTION IS THE ONLY OPTION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
WHICH ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF OPEN SPACE (AND INDNIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR.MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING OPEN SPACE,)
SECTION- IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section C -OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible Development. may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further.subdivision.
• Fee simple dedication #o Orange County, another unit of local govemment, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
• Dedication of _conservation easements to Orange County,. another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit -land. conservancy.
. Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association .and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
• Ownership by a, homeowners association where specific development
restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as .part of its bylaws and.
as irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
• Ownership by individual property owners; espesialla} of estate lots ewt~e~s only, .
where specific development restrictions and maintenance requirements .are
included as part of restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation
easements applicable to such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent. (33%) open space requirement`provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the Land to be subdivided.
g:~txtamend~flexdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-991W
24 .
a? AMENDMENT 4 AMEND SECTION D.1 ESTATE LOT OPTION TO A) REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE FROM 4 ACRES TO 3 ACRES WITH AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 3.5 ACRES; B) CLARIFY WHAT
MAY BE COUNTED AS OPEN SPACE; C) ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO OPEN SPACE FOR REPAIR
AREA FOR SETIC SYSTEM IF THE BUILDING LOT AREA DOES NOT CONTAIN A SUFFICIENT AREA OF ,
SUTIABLE SOILS FOR BOTH .SEPTIC DRAINFIELD AND REPAIR AREA. D) INCREASE SPACING
REQUIREMENTS TO ENHANCE RURAL CHARACTER; E) DELETE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; F)
.PROVIDE INTERNAL ACCESS TO ALL LOTS; AND G) PROVIDE A 100 FT. BUFFER ALONG
FRONTAGE OF EXISTING STATE ROADS HAVING A 50 FT. RIGHT-0F WAY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO
THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY; PROVIDE A 125 FT. BUFFER ALONG FRONTAGE OF EXISTING.
STATE ROADS HAVING A 60 FT. OR GREATER RIGHT-0F--WAY THAT- ARE ADJACENT TO THE
SUBDMSION BOUNDARY.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be .prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
D.1 Estate Lot:Option
-For lots created as part of an estate lot development, -the following standards apply:
(A) .
• Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least #ea~4} three 3 acres
with an average lot size of three and one-half (3.5) acres for all lots.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. -
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include. designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
(B)
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be .counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and
shall not include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the
front or side yard contains significantj~rimary or secondary conservation
areas.
(~)
• A repair area for a septic system and/or well site may be located outside of a
building el~eleye-lot area provided it does not occupy ~ #ai~e€-#~ie
any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
gatxtamendlflexdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-99Ud
25
AMENDMENT 4(CONT.~
(D)
• Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following .spacing
standards:
Building Envelope S acing Standards for Estate Lots
Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 89100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope.. and subdivision X5150 feet
bounda or off-site- ublic street ri ht-of-way
Minimum. spacing between building. envelope. and on-site public 48- 50 feet
or rivate street right of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope .and any other lot 28 30 feet
line -
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes,' onds, streams., etc.)
(E) '
• Provided the arrangement, .design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable. sites for building; contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary. Conservation Areas;
provide convenient access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all
building envelope spacing standards,
#e#ewit~~-stat~da~ss:
0 The. minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20 feet
for flag lots, and lots ~ftonting on cul-de-sacs and "T' turnarounds.
• Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through .deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. 'Primary and Secondary.
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted
against further development through conservations easements and/or deed
restrictions.
(F~
• Estate lot subdivision road(sLshall be designed to provide internal access.
to .all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall not have access to
existing state maintained roads.
(G)
• A 100 foot buffer shall be provided along the frontage of all existing state
maintained roads having a 50 foot right-of-waY that are adjacent to the
subdivision boundaries. A 125 foot- buffer 'shall be provided along the
~frontacte of all existing state maintained roads having a 60 foot or ra eater
right-of--way that are adjacent to the subdivision boundaries In areas of-
dense mature forest, existing vegetation may be used to fulfill the .buffer
requirements. If additional slanting is required, new plant materials that
g:ltxtamendlflexdevtpbrec.docl8-17-991k1 -
nG
26
satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be installed and
maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-8 f.
g:ltxtamendlflexdevlpbreadoc~8-17-99t1d
27
AMENDMENT 5 DELETE SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.2 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CONSERVATION OPTION.
SECTION IV-B-10 t=LEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
,.
•, •, ;
~~
g:lbctamend~flexdevlpbrec.doc~8-17-99Ud
g:ltxtamend~flexdev~pbrac.docl&17-99Uc1
28
29
'7 AMENDMENT 6 -AMEND SECTION IV-B-10, SECTION D.3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
CLUSTER OPTION BY A) CHANGING THE NAME TO "CONSERVATION-CLUSTER"; B) ,CLARIFYING
. CONFIGURATION AND PLACEMENT OF -OPEN SPACE; C) REDUCING ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF
OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE USED FOR SEPTIC OR WELL EASEMENTS FROM 50% TO 25°Jo;
D) CLARIFYING MINIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN WATERSHED PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS;
E) REDUCING MtNlMUM LOT WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE CLUSTERING; F) CLARIFYING LANGUAGE
REGARDING REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE; G) PROVIDING FORA 100 F'r. BUFFER
ALONG SUBDIVISION BOUNDARIES; AND H) RENUMBERING SUBSECTIONS D.4, D.S, AND D.6.
SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXfBLE DEVELOPMENT
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(A)
. D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A (conservationl-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract .provided the
transfer of density within the subdivision. does not increase the averaue density
in any zoning district including overlay districts. Smaller lots than those required in
conventional subdivisions are :permitted, provided -such lots and subdivisions .are
developed in accordance with the following standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated .Primary
and/or Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary. and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
(B)
• ,Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shalt be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units that may be enjoyed by all residents of
the subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general aublic.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to provide residents with direct. views and access. -Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other .resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The. design must meet Section F
Evaluation Criteria which sets forth conservation area design
characteristics.
• Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to-
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
g:~bdamendlflexdevlpbrec.docl8-17-991ki
30
(c)
•
(o)
0
Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%
of the minimum lot size :permitted by the zoning district including am
overlay district requirements ;
however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than 40.000 square -feet
within a watershed arotection overlav district where lots are served by
(E)
(F)
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife.corridors; or trail links.
Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size- to accommodate a .
single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but
not limited to, storage buildings and .garages, patios and decks, lawns, and
driveways. A septic system- and/or well site may be located in an open, space
area provided it does not occupy more -than fia4€- one quarter of the
conservation area nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area
Provided the arrangement, design, and -shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum -lot area, lot width, -and setback requirements as specified in Article
4.1.2 of the. Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced ,as set forth
below.
individual septic systems.
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced
#0 100 feet in the AR and R1 Districts.
Minimum lot width requirements may be r®duced by 30% in all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum ftont, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10) feet.
0 Minimum lot frontage. requirements may be reduced to twenty: (20) .feet for
lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
(G)
0 Minimum- spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision
boundary or off~ite public street-right-of-way shall be 100 feet and may
be counted as open space:
• Cluster .lots shall be restricted against further subdivision.. through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
g:~txtamend\flexdev~pbrec.docl8-17-99Uc1
31
AMENDMENT 6 (CONT.
{H)
~8:~4 D.3 Village Option
' H~
8:a D.4 Street Standards
H)
S:6 D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
g:~bctamendlflexdev\pbrec.doc~8-17-99Vc1
32
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION:
Proposed Amendments
ZONING ORDINANCE, ORANGE COUNTY, N. C.
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
(Proposed amendments are highlighted in bold underlined; proposed deletions are
shown in-st~il~#~ print.)
g:lbctamendlflexdevlpbrec.docl8-17-991k1
33
~A-MENDMENT 1 A)AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS TO REFLECT CHANGES PROPOSED THROUGHOUT SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; B) TO DEFINE OPEN SPACE IN -THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE" IN .THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS; AND C) TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFINlNT10N OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR
LAND USE .INTENSITY CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE
APPLICABLE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDMSIONS.
ARTICLE 22
DEFINITIONS
Amended FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision in which greater flexibility and
7-1-96 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 conventional development
..approaches. At least one-third (33°l0) of the land. within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
.preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or. greater in size,. building ls(} lot area including
setbacks are established on 50° #ea: of each lot, and the land
area outside such limos area is preserved as open space provided
that front and side yard setback areas shall not be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement except
as saecified by provisions of Article iV-B-10. Section D.1 L or
~ ~~ ~~
(s ~ A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced
and the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open
space on separate lots owned and maintained through a
homeowners association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of .
state of local government; or
(d ~ A "village" or modified cluster approach where dwelling units are
clustered around a viDage green and supporting shops, and the
village is surrounded'by open space; or
(e d) Some combination of the above.
g:lbdamendlflexdev~pbrec.doc~8-17-99Uc1
34
AMENDMENT 1 (CONT. .
(B)
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
Open Space - (flexible development] "Primary Conservation Areas" and
"Secondary Conservation. Areas", as defined in Section IV-B-10. C.2 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations, which are areserved throuch
conservation easements or other restrictions in a flexible development
subdivision.
(c)
Open Space - bland use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal area of
uncovered -open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject.
to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered, open -space is total gross residential land
area. not covered by buildings, plus: open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as
recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to .the sky, but
having two clear unobstructed open orpartially open sides. Partially open sides is to be
construed as fifty percent or .more. F~camples of covered space -are covered balconies,
covered portions of improved roof areas, or space .under buildings supported on .
columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open
..space shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides..
g:ltxtamendWexdev\pbrec.doc~6-17-991k1
35
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New
Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina,. on Monday,
May 24, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak
for or against the following items: .
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1: Z-02-99 Johnny. Cates
Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre: property at 3102
West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural: Residential to AS
Agricultural Service.: -The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in
the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential .uses .which support. the
horticultural, silvicultucal,, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. The property. is
approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt. Willing Road interchange with I-40/85 and is referenced in
the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel identification number 9854-14-8385.
2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom
Emie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be
rezoned .from AR Agricultural Residential to AS .Agricultural Service. The- purpose of the
Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural
non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, silvicultural, and agricultural
uses of the AR districts. The property is located on the south side of Sawmill Road West. (SR
1545) approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and 3,000 feet west of Wilkerson Road, SR
1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records Office by parcel ident~cation
number 9868-43-4251.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. The Orange County Planning Board proposes an amendment to Article 22, Definitions, to
modify the definition of Flexible Development to maintain consistency with proposed
amendments to Section IV B-10 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations: The
amendment proposes to delete (b) a "conservation° approach,for preservation of.open space
from the definition of Flexible Development and to rename (c) a "cluster approach" to a
"conservation-cluster" approach which will include certain conservation. approaches for open
space. _
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. The Orange County Planning Board, in addition to planning staff, proposes amendments to
Section IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT to allow open space .within a flexible
development to be held by individual property owners only within developments using the
36
estate option whereby lot size must be a minimum of 4 acres. The proposed amendments will
amend .Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space and will combine development standards under
Section D.2 Conservation Option and Section D.3 Cluster Option into one section as the
Conservation-Cluster Option. Proposed amendments to several sections of Section IV B-10
will clarify provisions of open space and buildable lot area. Proposed amendments to Section
D Development Standards will increase building envelope spacing standards for estate lots,
reduce the amount of conservation area that may be used for septic systems, and provide for
minimum spacing of 100 feet between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary and/or
off-site public street right-of-way for cluster developments.
-All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be
received during the .public hearing.. Following ,the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals. which reflect debate, objections and
discussion at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange. County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306E Revere Road, Hillsborough, North- Carolina
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2034
(Mebane/Graham). Please .ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff
member who will answer your questions.
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
May 12, 1999 May 13, 1999
May 19, 1999 May 20, 1999
37
NOTICE OF PUBLIG HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom ofi the New
Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, -North .Carolina, on Monday,
August 23, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an 'opportunity to
speak for. or against the following items:
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-02-99 Johnny Cates
` Johnny C. Cates requests that a 2.8 acre (121,968 SF) portion of his 5.1 acre property at 3102
West Ten Road, Cheeks Township, be rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential ` to AS
Agricultural Service.. The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District. is to provide sites in the:
rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support. the horticultural,
silvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts.. Permitted uses within. the AS District that
are not permitted in the AR District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales);
Agricultural Services Uses; Animal Hospitals;. Veterinarians, Farm Equipment. Sales, Feed, Seed,
Storage & Processing; Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is approximately 2,200 feet east of Mt.
Willing Road interchange. with I-40/85 and is ,referenced in the Orange County Land Records
Office by parcel identification- number 9854-14-8385.
2. Z-03-99 Ernie McBroom
Ernie McBroom requests that his 10.01 acre. (436,036 SF) parcel in Cedar Grove Township be
rezoned from AR Agricultural Residential to RS Agricultural Service. The purpose of the,
Agricultural Service (AS) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural
non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticu{tural, silvicultural, and agricultural
uses of the AR districts. Permitted .uses within the AS District that are not permitted in the AR
District are as follows: Garden Center (On Premises Sales); Agricultural Services Uses;
Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians, Farm Equipment .Safes, Feed, Seed, Storage & Processing;
Sawmills; Stockyards. The property is {orated on the south side of Sawmill Road West (SR
1545). approximately 4,600 feet east of NC 86 and .3,000 feet west ofi Wilkerson Road, SR
1507) and is referenced in the Orange County Land Records. Office by parcel identification
number 9868-43-4251.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Orange County Planning Staff and NC Child Care Commission propose amendments to
Article 4, Section 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), Article 6, Section 6.27 (Large Day Care Homes),
Article 8, Section 8.8.16 (Day Care Facility), and Article 22 (Definitions) that change language
in ordinance provisions for child care facilities to conform with language in .North Carolina
General Statutes regarding licensing provisions for child care facilities.
g:Udinco1nW899phad.doc~8-4-99Uc1
38
2. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to revise the
time constraints in Article 2 (The Board of County Commissioners. and its Administrative
Mechanisms), Article 3 (Establishment of .Zoning Districts and Atlas), Article 6.29.3
(Development Standards for Economic Development Districts), Article 8 (Special Uses), and '
Article 20 (Amendments). Proposed amendments will:
~ Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review ftom all applicable
agencies prior#o completing reports to boards;
• Provide adequate timefor board review of projects; and -
• Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations
if processing time cannot be met.
ORANGE COUNTY SUBDNISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Orange County proposes amendments to the Orange County Subdivision .Regulations to
revise the time constraints in Section III (Application and Approval Procedures), Section IV-B-7
(Sites for Public Use), and Section VII-D-4 (Action .Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing):
Proposed amendments will
• Provide adequate time for staff to receive complete development review ftom all applicable
agencies prior to completing reports to boards;
• Provide adequate time for board review of projects;.and
• Delete provision that allows approval of applications that do not meet ordinance regulations
if processing time cannot be met.
• Revise process for appeal of staff decisions concerning subdivision classification (minor vs
major) and approval of minor subdivisions.
Z. Orange County .Planning Board and planning staff propose amendments to the .Orange
County, Subdivision Regulations Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development: a. to amend D-1
Estate Lot Option to 1. reduce minimum lot size from 4.0 acres to 3.0 acres with average lot
size of 3.5 acres; 2. provide .a 150 ft. buffer along state maintained roads adjacent to
subdivision boundaries; 3. restrict lot. access to internal subdivision roads; and b. to amend
D.3 Cluster Option to clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development will not.
result in a greater density within any specific zoning district than the average density allowed
by .zoning restrictions within that specfic district including overlay districts, (eg: flexible
development proposals spanning the critical area (CA) and the balance (PV1~ of a protected
watershed cannot shift density ftom a higher density zoning (PV11) to a lower density zoning
(CA))•
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be
received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and
discussion at the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306E Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
g:VclincolnW899phad.doc~8-4-99Ud
39
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel ,Hill-Carrboro} or .227-2031
(Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension. 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff .
member who will answeryour questions.
PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald
August 11 1999 August 12, 1999
August 18, 1999 August 19, 1999
g:UclincotnW 898phad.doc~8-4-991kf
®~~~ 40 .
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MAY 24,1999
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners, and the Orange County Planning Board
met in joint session on Monday, May 24, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle
Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North. Carolina,
for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon, and
Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows
and members Leo Allison,-Nell Andrews. Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Robert Strayhorn
and Runyon, Woods
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, James
Selkirk, ,and. Elizabeth Walters ,
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict,
Planners Robert Davis and Karen Lincoln and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other
staff members present will be identified in the minutes as appropriate.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Gordon convened the meeting. She indicated that both of the items on the
agenda would be chaired by Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Gordon dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
Ms. Barrows indicated that a letter of support for both the proposed Subdivision
Regulation Text Amendments-and the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments was received from
Dan VanderMeer, Chair of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of .Directors... Mr.
VanderMeer stated that "Orange Water and Sewer Authority recognizes that the County's.
Flexible Development provisions are an important component of the Creative Open Space
Design - or Clustering -approach that we have recommended as a development option in the
Cane Creek Watershed. Orange Water and Sewer Authority believes that the proposed
amendments would appropriately strengthen some of the current open space requirements for
cluster developments in ways that will more adequately protect the Cane Creek water supply.-
Although our Board of Directors has not had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed
amendments in detail, we generally support their adoption and look forward to providing
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter , in its
entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office.
Ms. Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items
C1 and C2. Mr. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department's staff,
Robert Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in
municipal engineering.
9 ~ C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
10 1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
11 (a) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT
12 (1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space.
13 (2) _ Section D.1 Estate Lot Option
14 (3) Section D.2 Conservation Option
15 (4) Section D.3 Cluster Option
16 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
17 AMENDMENTS
18 (1) Flexible Development
19 (2) Open Space
20' Planning Director Benedict indicated that the Flexible-
21 Development Standard regulations are in two sections of the Code. One has to do with
22 subdivision regulations and the other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible
23 Development Standards have been reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance
24 Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning Board has discussed the pros and cons of these
25 regulations in depth. For example, the intent of the Flexible Development Standards is to
26 preserve open space and to orient open space in certain locations. However, when the
27 developers use the regulations they sometimes use them in a way that does not align itself with
28 that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at the regulations and make sure that
29 they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that does align with the vision of the
30 Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the regulations as they currently
31 exist and. explain the suggested changes. There are four issues that are being reviewed. -
32
33 The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1)
34 conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach he
35 stated that this is a four acre lot minimum which would cause a subdivision to be divided into
36 lots four acres in size. For example, a 100 acre subdivision would: be divided into twenty-five
37 4-acre lots. There have-been no estate requests in the time that Flexible Development
38 Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this option. However, it
39 is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in this. type of
40 development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster approaches would be
41 focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation approach is that the area
42 being designated for the conservation area was included on the buyer's deed in fee simple.
43 Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on the entire lot, when in fact,
44 part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest undesirable effect of the
45 conservation approach.. In order to monitor the use of the conservation areas. it would require
46 an extraordinary amount of independent work on the part of county staff. Because of this
47 concern the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) have recommended that
42
the provision be removed. Homeowners would no longer have on-site conservation land
included on their deed in fee simple. Anew approach,' called the conservation cluster
approach, would replace the current conservation designation. He presented a visual example
of the conservation cluster option which has smallerlots with the land to be preserved being '
clustered in one area. This approach leaves significant amounts of land. undeveloped and
available for the community to enjoy for recreation and for its visual effect. The.conservation
land would be controlled by a homeowners association, a conservancy or by the county, if the
county had a corridor planned in the general area. He indicated that perimeter buffers is a new
requirement being suggested in the Flexible Development Standards. This refers to perimeter
buffers which would allow more buffer for the adjacent properties. Part of the Flexible
Development Standards was an offshoot of the Rural Preservation goals that were completed in
1994/1995, Roughly one-half of the property would be in the conservation areas.. The
committee also considered where the conservation areas should be located. and agreed that it
made sense to locate them along stream buffers, wooded areas and/or meadows which-would
preserve. the general character of the area. The conservation areas need to be contiguous so
that they can be enjoyed by the majority of the people.. He mentioned that they are now
beginning to research the landscape section of the code and will be presenting new landscape
requirements to the Board of County Commissioners to help augment the roadside buffers.
That section of the code is scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners
sometime in the fall
I3
12
s
i;
Although the estate option has never been used, it states that two acres of each estate
could be placed in a conservation -area and two .acres of that area could be used for septic
fields. That meant that one acre of the two acre conservation area could be encroached upon
for septic fields. It does not seem necessary to encroach-upon a conservation area for this
additional 40,000 square feet given that there are already 80,000 square feet on the
unencumbered part of the lot. The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) is suggesting that the
encroachment of septic fields on conservation areas be decreased to 25% of what would
normally be allowed in the lot. That is being suggested in both the estate option and the
conservation cluster option. Currently the code allows a 50% encroachment upon all of the
conservation easements. The Planning Staff will continue to research the question of how
much encroachment, if any, is actually necessary within the conservation area. ~ Depending on
what size lot is being considered, it may be possible to scale the encroachment back even
further.
The conservation .cluster option is a much smaller lot which results in a high degree of
open space. This option would most likely be used in areas where public water and sewer were
already available. The lots would be approximately % acre in size and would not be expected to
serve a septic field.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Brown asked if the village cluster approach was going to be discussed.
Mr. Benedict stated that they were not suggesting changes to the village cluster
approach. This is another approach which would require public water and sewer and there
have been no applications requesting this approach.
43
1
2 Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open
3 space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations.
4 ~ -
5 Mr. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the,
6 regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for
7 example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The.
8 enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county ismuch stronger
9 -than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another
10 organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would, be aware of the fact
11 that those portions, of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion
12 of the land was restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down
13 and that public use would, or would not, be available. The Triangle Land Conservancy is
14 looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the
15 conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners. would be more clear that it is not theirs
16 in fee. simple.
17
18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open
19 space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amountof open
20 space is sufficient.
21
22 Mr. Benedict stated that-they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of
23 developing a model which would show how much open space is necessary fora buildable lot.
24 That is determined by the size of the septic field versus the buildable lot. He commented that he
25 felt we should wait until -the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number.
26 He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open-space constraint. Staff will
27 be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall.
28
29 Chair Gordon asked Mr. Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation
30 cluster option in terms of the number of {ots allowed.
31
32 Mr. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option- and the new conservation
33 cluster option the number of lots allowed is the same. The only change is that the ownership of
34 the conservation. areas would not rest with the landowner.- However, it is possible that the
35 conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that
36 the Planning staff wi{I be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the
37 summer many standards will be reviewed. ~ These include the Protected Watershed Standards,
38 Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir Regulations... They want to
39 make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the
40 manner in which they are intended. They will present various scenarios to see how the different .
41 standards actually impact the different options. -
42
43 In response to a question, Mr. Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option
44 was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use.
45 '
46 Planner Karen Lincoln stated the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be
47 located is zoned either A-R or R-1 and the minimum- allowed lot size in both of those districts is
44
40,000 square feet. The minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be allowed only in ~-
R-8
zoning which is unlikely in efaage the County. Also, within the protected watersheds, the
septic facilities must be on the lot where the residence is located. That requires approximately
40,000 square feet for the residence, septic system and repair area. The land would have to be
in a transition area or an-area that already has water and sewer if the lot size was reduced to
5,000 square feet. ~ -
¶For developments that are not in a protected watershed, off--site wafeF septic. - .
easements are permitted. Tgefe#e~e; The ~epesal• amendment proposes fs to reduce the
amount of open space ~ which can .be used for an off-site septic system. Currently,
' 50% of the required open space may be used for off-
site septic easements, and e-p~eyesiAg the amendment proposes that the
amount of open-space allowed for septic. easements be reduced to 25°i°.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS- FROM THE PLANNING BOARD .None.
.Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 7, #3 and asked if a carport would be
considered open space. After some discussion it was determined that it could be interpreted to
mean that a carport could be considered open space. There was a consensus that the Board
of Commissioners did not intend for carports to be considered open space.
¶Planning staff explained. that the Zoning Ordinance defines open
space with respect to calculating land use intensity. The amendment adds a
definition with respect to open space in flexible development subdivisions.
Attorney Gledhill suggested that rather than changing the definition it would work to
have a separate definition of Open Space for Flexible Development purposes. This would
protect the land use intensity system. by making sure that the overall definition of open space,
which does not pertain to Flexible Development issues, is not changed inadvertently..
Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board of County Commissioners look at the
overall definition of open space as it is used throughout the ordinance.. Some of the original
language came from regulations being used in snore urban areas and this might be a good time
to review that language.
Mr. Benedict indicated that they will be sure that the definition of open space refers only
to Flexible Development Subdivision Open Space. He indicated that they would also review.
the definition of open space throughout the ordinance.
Ms. Barrows referred to page 3, bullet 3 and asked if the 100 foot buffer referred only
to Flexible Development.
Mr. Benedict indicated that the 100 foot buffer referred only to Flexible Development,
however, in the future the possibility of including this buffer for other areas will be considered.
45
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
This needs to be approached carefully so that a unexpected burden is not created on
conventional developments. Also, in the future, the Planning Staff will review roadside buffer
requirements in the future.
Commissioner Carey referred to page 5, Article 22, Definitions (a) and asked if there
had been cases where developers attempted to use front and side yard setbacks as open
space.
Mr. Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as
open space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open
stretches, however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered
open space. .Hopefully,. some of those loopholes have been closed.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3rd bullet "...house IQts should abut
undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where. possible" be included. A
significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be
possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked if there
is a requirement that utility lines be buried.
Mr. Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner
Jacobs comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be
underground. He indicated that they would double check this and reportback to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet #4 and asked how developers could make
sure that their open space is contiguous to that located'on adjacent lots.
Mr. Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by
making sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to
come up with several different options so that they can see which works best fior the
circumstances. This will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that. this wiH be .
accomplished wherever possible.
Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this
bullet.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS .
Mr. Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there
was no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible
development are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using
these standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of
which can be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open~space: He
stated that there was no incentive to use this options. He referred to Section C.3 and
commented that it was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or
just those parts that refer to the ownership of the common areas.
46
Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually
regulates.
Mr. Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option which addresses the length to
width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a
wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common? There needs to be guidelines which make this
more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by
prohibiting the use of fences.. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be
contiguous open space area. ~ :
Chair Barrows asked Attorney Gledhill if another_ public hearing would need to be held if
the wording in the proposed amendments was changed prior to being returned to the Board of
County Commissioners.
_Attomey Gledhill felt that-would not be necessary, however, he indicated that he would
look at that question more specifically prior to the Planning Board's recommendations being
retumed to the Board of County Commissioners. If, a# that time, he determined that another
public hearing is necessary, he will advise the Board of County Commissioners.
Planning Board member Katz stated that the conservation option as it currently exists
has been a failure. Side. yards were used by almost all of the developers as open space. The
proposal being presented does present -clear conservation areas. Developers using this new
options would be creating beautiful open space for recreation. Under the plan in place now it
was hit or miss as to whether that would happen.
Commissioner Jacobs commented that a logical. solution to this situation is to decide if
Flexible Development should be mandatory. He asked staff and the Planning Board to consider
this as an option.
Mr. Benedict agreed that the new standards are not going to have developers lining, up
to use the conservation cluster options, however, it does delete an option. that was
dysfunctional. He hoped to come forward with a Flexible Development option later in the year
after full consideration of the issue. This proposal will be both feasible, from the development.
standpoint, and attractive with regard to the preservation goals.
Commissioner Jacobs said that if the proposal being suggested. this evening does not
generate, even in the short term, more flexible open space application, he would argue that we
have gone in the wrong direction. Possibly requiring flexible development in the short term,
while the issue is being further researched and improved, might result in some flexible
development.
Commissioner Brown commented on Commissioner Jacobs suggestion that the
Planning Department staff return with more recommendations on flexible development,
including making flexible development mandatory. She asked if Mr. Benedict would retum with
those suggestions in the fall.
47
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
Mr. Benedict indicated that he would return in the fall with those recommendations. He_
will research this issue and solicit input from the public and developers. Also, they will take
various properties and put them through the processes that they will be suggesting prior to
presenting them to the Board of County Commissioners. The soil suitability analysis and
minimum lot size will be carefully reviewed. They will hopefully return with standards that would
be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in such a way that developers would
actually use them.
Commissioner Brown stated that if Flexible Development is .implemented in such a way
that it achieves the goal of rural character and preservation of open space, she would want to .
see it becomethe development option forthe county.
Chair Gordon referred to Section F, Evaluation Criteria and asked how it would be
decided which goal would be pursued. For example, under forestland in Natural Areas, the goal
is to preserve forestland. and within farmland conservation the goal is to preserve.. farmland.
She pointed out that with forestland preservation the development would be in the open space.
However, in farmland preservation, the development would be in the forest area. The question
is, does the staff complete an analysis and then steer the developer?
Mr. Benedict stated that Dave Stancil's area is developing maps will be used by the
planning staff to identify conservation areas. For example, developers will be made aware of
where wildlife conservation corridors, etc.,. are located. When developers .initially approach. the
Planning Department, they will be made aware of all areas of importance which will need to be
given consideration. To date, a prioritization for environmentally sensitive areas has been
developed. What they, have not yet developed is a comparison between the areas and a
ranking of what is more important. That comparison will guide the decision. when there are.
conflicting areas to be preserved. That ranking system will include items such as "how rare is
the resource in the county, is it in the path of development, and what is the integrity of the
resource"
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown,. to
refer the proposed. amendments #o Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance and to Section lV B-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision.
Regulations to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County
Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 1999.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADJOURNMENT:
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to
40 adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners. will be held on
41 May 27,1999 in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Old Court House, Hillsborough, North
42 .Carolina.
43
44 Alice M. Gordon, Chair
45 Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
46
48
PLANNING BOARD NIINUTES
JULY 13,1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows (Chair), Lynn Holtkamp, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams,
Bob Strayhorn, Runyon Woods.
Leo Allison (arrived at 8:50 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nell Andrews, S.A.M. Brooks, Onie Lea, Jim Selkirk, Elizabeth Walters.
.STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Gene Bell, Karen Lincoln, Robert Davis, 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 NIIIViJTES
June 2,1999
MOTION:. Katz moved approval. Seconded by McAdams.
VOTE: Unanim ous.
AGENDA ITEM #4: COMNIISSIONERS' BRIEFS -Not available. ~ ~ •
AGENDA ITEM #5: PUBLIC CHARGE
AGENDA ITEM #6: CHAIR COMMENTS
AGENDA l[TEM #7: COMIVIITTEE/ADVLSORYBQARD REPORTS .
a. Board of Adjustment
No meeting..
b. Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
No report available.
c. Historic Preservation Commission
No report available. '
d. Ordinance Review Committee
No report available.
e. Shaping Orange County's Future
No report available.
49
AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (MAY 24,1999)
a. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
(1) Flexible Development Provisions
PURPOSE: To consider proposed text amendments to the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations provisions for flexible development. These amendments are proposed in conjunction
with companion amendments to the zoning ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Reauestw Amendments to Section fl (Definitions), Section 11-D-3 (Preliminary Plat
Approval), and Section IV-B-10 (Flexible Development) propose changes that will
• delete undesirable aspects of the conservation approach;
• enhance preservation of rural character in flexible development subdivisions; and
~ provide incentives for using the estate lot approach.
The Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee. initiated proposed changes to address .issues
regarding the conservation approach. Staff.proposes additional changes to preserve buffers along
subdivision boundaries.. and. to make the estate lot approach: a more viable option .for development.
Location: The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying
outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra territorial jurisdictions, if
any.
Existing and Proaosed Conditions
Existing: Flexible development subdivisions developed using the conservation option have not
demonstrated creativity in design to preserve open space as intended by the flexibie development
provisions and do not reserve/protect any natural areas that would .not be protected. by other
existing provisions in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations.
Proposed: Staff has expanded the purview of the proposed amendments to .clarify other
flexible development provisions including estate lot provisions and to address inadequacies of the
conservation option that are common for other flexible development approaches. An attached
document giving existing ordinance language and proposed amendments contains staff annotation
for each proposed amendment.
Planning `staff recommends amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regutafions, Section
IV-B-10 Flexible Development that will:
1. .Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and combine the
desirable elements of that approach with the ,cluster .approach to create .the
conservation-cluster (cc) approach;
2. Clarify and define configuration and placement of open space (i.e. contiguous
stretches);
3. Add provision fora 100' (cc approach) or 150'. (estate approach) buffer along
adjacent public roads to enhance preservation of rural character;
4. Modify setbacks. and percentage of open space allowed for placement of septic
.systems;
5. Provide for Internal access for all lots in the estate approach;
50
6. ~ Reduce the number of estate lots allowed on a private road; and
7. Provide for Planning Board approval of the estate approach..
The proposed changes will necessitate amendments to Section 11, Definitions and Section III-D-
3, Preliminary Plat Approval.
Develoament Process. Schedule: and Action .
• Public Hearing May 24,1999: Major comments were that flexible development would not be
used if those options did not offer some incentive to the developer Draft .minutes are
attached.
• First Action: Planning Board to consider amendments:
Option 1. 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 is not
significant in nature.
Recommendations to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
August 17,1999.-
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable
.RECOMMENDATION:.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Board to recommend approval of the.. proposed
amendments to Section II, Definitions, Section III-D-3, Preliminary Plat Approval, and to Section IV
B-10, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
b. Zoning Ordinance Tezt Amendments ~~
(1) Definitions Regarding Flexible Development
PURPOSE:. To consider proposed text amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance. These changes to the zoning ordinance are proposed as companion
amendments with proposed amendments to subdivision regulations..,
BACKGROUND:
Request: Amendments propose changes to the zoning ordinance to define "flexible
development and "open space" in a manner that is consistent. with existing and proposed
provisions of the subdivision regulations. Proposed amendments to-the subdivision regulations
(initiated by the Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee in December, .1998, to address
issues regarding flexible development) necessitate the amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Location: The amendments, if adopted, will .apply to the entirety of Orange County lying
outside of the Rural Buffer and outside the municipalities and their extra-temtorial jurisdictions,- if
any.
Existin~a and Proposed Conditions
Existing: • "Flexible development" is defined according to the definition of flexible
development in the subdivision regulations. The definition includes four
approaches to pn:serving open space in flexible development subdivisions:
51
Proposed:
an "estate" lot approach; a "conservation" approach; a "cluster" approach;
and a "village" or modified cluster approach.
• "Open space" in the zoning ordinance is defined with respect to calculating
land use intensity ratios for zoning applications and does not include a
definition that compliments required "open space° in a flexible .development
subdivision. -
• Proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations will necessitate changes
to the definition of "flexible development" to eliminate the "conservation" and
"cluster" approaches for preserving open space and to include ..the
"conservation-cluster" approach. -
• Proposed amendment will add a definition of "Open. Space - (flexible
development)."
Develoament Process. Schedule, and Action
• .Public Hearing May 24, ,1999: Draft minutes of the public hearing an: attached.
• First Action: Planning Board to consider Amendments _
Option: 1. 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 is not- significant in
nature.
Recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than
August 17, 1999.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommendation: Planning Board- to recommend approval of the proposed
amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
Benedict stated that these, items were presented at public hearing a few months ago. He discussed the
different options of development (estate, conservation, cluster and village). He noted that the
amendments should help to clarify the placement of open space. He stated that an increased buffer along
the roads is also suggested to help the rural character of the areas. He noted that the amendments will
also help clarify a lot of regulations and definitions for consistency.
Strayhorn expressed concern with allowing water and sewer into the setbacks.
Allison asked about the septic system being in the open space. Benedict responded that the system will
not be in the stream buffer but in the setback. Woods asked if this would endanger the neighbor's well.
Strayhorn stated that a well could not be put in within 100 feet of the septic system.
Barrows asked about underground utilities. Lincoln responded that there is nothing in the regulations that
require underground utilities. Benedict stated that the Board can make a recommendation to that effect.
Strayhorn noted that it is extremely expensive to maintain power lines with trees there.
52
Lincoln then explained the proposed and existing definition of open space in the Orange County Zoning
Ordinance.
Allison questioned the requirement on page 125 which states: "Estate lot subdivisions of fifteen (15) or
fewer lots may contain private road(s) provided the private road(s) can be justified as provided for in
Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Private road(s) may be justified in
estate lot subdivisions of more than ten (10) lots provided all lots are four (4) acres or larger." Benedict
stated that this section is to be deleted from the recommendation.
Lincoln noted that much of the proposed amendments is just wording changes for clarity and does not
change existing ordinance provisions. Benedict noted that on page 115 of the agenda packet, number 6,
which states: "Reduce the number of estate lots allowed on a private road; and" should be deleted from
staff recommendation. Lincoln continued that the abstract lists how the amendments affect the ordinance
provisions and. that the Board does not have to vote on each chattge.
MOTION: Katz moved to approve the proposed amendments to Section II, Definitions, Section III-
D-3, Preliminary Plat Approval, .and to Section IV-B-10, Flexible Development, of the ,
Orange County Subdivision Regulations per the Planning Staffs recommendation with
the exception of #6 as noted above. Seconded by Woods..
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Katz moved to approve the proposed amendments to Article 22, Defmitions, of the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance and that the approval process should require approval
by the Planning Board. Seconded by Aliison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
AGENDA ITEM #12: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Monthly Reports
AGENDA ITEM'#13: ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Woods moved to adjourn. Seconded by Katz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
53
AN ORDINAINACE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SECTION II AND SECTION IV-B-10
TO CLARIFY AND ENHANCE THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
TO MEET OBJECTIVES SPECIFIED tN SECTION IV-B-10, SUBSECTION A PURPOSE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
Section II Definitions is amended by changing the definition of flexible development to
read as follows.
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 conventional development
approaches.. At .least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots three (3)
acres and greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are
established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area
is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback
areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10,
Section D.1; or
(b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(c) 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
(d) Some combination of the above.
Section IV-B-10, Subsection C Open Space Standards is rewritten to read as follows.
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
54
Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
• Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local
govemment, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
• Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions
and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and as
irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
• Ownership by individual property owners, of estate lots only, where specific
development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of
restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to
such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
55
Section IV-B-10, Subsection D Development Standards is rewritten to read as follows.
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
D.1 Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
• Each estate lot shall have a minimum lot size of at least three (3) acres with an
average lot size of three and one-half (3.5) acres for all lots.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area). shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family-detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but- not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, .lawns, and driveways.
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall. not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. The open space area
shall be contiguous to open space designated on the adjacent lot(s) and shall not
include required front yard and side yard setbacks unless the front or side yard
contains significant primary or secondary conservation areas.
• Aseptic system and/or well site can only be located within the secondary
conservation area provided the .land designated for the. septic system and/or well
site is not more than one-quarter of the secondary conservation area. A repair
area may be located outside of a building lot area provided it does not occupy
more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any .part of a Primary
Conservation Area. No septic system,. repair area and/or well site can be located
in the primary conservation area of a lot. No septic system and/or well site can
be located in the primary conservation area.
56
Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards:
Buildin Envelo e S acin Standards for Estate Lots
Minimums acin between buildin envelo es on adjacent lots 100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision .150 feet
bounda or off-site ublic street ri ht-of-wa
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 50 feet
or rivate street ri ht-of-wa
Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 30 feet
line
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands or 100 feet
water bodies lakes, onds, streams, etc.
Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation
of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient
access for emergency service vehicles; .and satisfy .all building envelope spacing
standards, the minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20
feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and 'T" turnarounds.
• Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions
and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against
further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions.
• Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access to all
lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state maintained
roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to lots in the
subdivision.
• A 150 foot Type F buffer meeting the requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be
provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads adjacent to the
subdivision boundaries. In areas of dense mature forest, existing vegetation may
be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If additional planting is required, new
.plant materials that satisfy the buffer. requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be
installed and maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-8-f.
57
~•2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A conservation-cluster subdivision. is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the transfer
of density within the. subdivision does not increase the average density in any overlay
zoning district. In aconservation-cluster subdivision designed with density transfer, lots
smaller than the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district are allowed provided
such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or
Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal .the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more .compactly
to create larger conservation units that may be enjoyed by all residents of the
subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public.. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to provide residents with direct views and access.. Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The design. must meet Section F Evaluation
Criteria which sets forth conservation area design characteristics.
Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to-
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links.
• a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached
dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage
buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. A septic system
and/or well site may be located in an open space area provided it does not
occupy more than one quarter of the conservation area nor any part of a Primary
Conservation Area.
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
58
4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth
below.
0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) of
the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any overlay
district requirements; however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than
40,000 square feet within a watershed protection overlay district where lots
are served by individual septic systems.
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced to 100 feet in the AR and R1
Districts. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% in all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum front, .rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10)-feet.
0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for lots
fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary
or off-site public street right-of--way shall be 100 feet and may be counted as
open space.
• Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
59
In accordance with combining subsections D.2 and D.3, subsections D.4, D.5 and D.6
are renumbered as follows:
D.3 Village Option
D.4 Street Standards
D.5 Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND
SECONDED BY THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS
ADOPTED.
AYES:
NAYS:
61
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
TO DEFINE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT ANO OPEN SPACE
`IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE SUBDIVISION
AND
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR LAND USE INTENSITY
CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS is amended by changing the definitions of flexible
development and open space to read as follows:
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 conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots three (3)
acres and greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are
established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area
is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback
areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirement .except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10,
Section D.1; or
(b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(c) 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
(d) Some combination of the above
62
Open Space - (flexible development) "Primary Conservation Areas" and "Secondary
Conservation Areas", as defined in Section IV-B-10, C.2 of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations, which are preserved through conservation easements or other
restrictions in a flexible development subdivision.
Open Space - (land use intensity) 1) Open space is the total horizontal .area of
uncovered open space plus half the total horizontal area of covered open space subject
to limitations set forth below. 2) Uncovered open space is total gross residential land
area not covered by buildings, plus open exterior balconies and roof areas improved as
recreation space. 3) Covered open space is usable open space closed to the sky, but
having two clear unobstructed open or partially open sides. Partially open sides is to be
construed as fifty percent or more. Examples of covered space are covered balconies,
covered portions of improved roof areas, or space under buildings supported on
columns or posts or cantilevered. The square footage countable as covered open space
shall not exceed the square footage of the open space sides.
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1999, UPON MOTION BY AND
SECONDED BY ,THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED.
AYES:
NAYS:
1@/11/1999 23:41 9196443@@2
~r9/10/99 10:$0 MARTIN MARIETTA ~ 964430f~2
Martin Marietta .A,ggeaga~tes
EO- ~x30~t3
i~ale~it~ NMI1 C910~fe 27622-OOt 3
~lephoru: 916.781.4560
QR. CTY. PLANNING
ScRt Via Fa~~ Trans~srinn trig ~16~4,3062
Mr. Sohn Lin1c, Jr.
orange County Managcr
Past Office Bvx 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
llear Mr. Link,
September 10, 1999
PAGE @2
N0.032 D02
Oa bchalf of Americe~n Stare Ccunpany and its c;o-applicants, Orange Water and Sewer
Autb~ority and Mr. and Mrs. Philip O. Durham, I am writing to requcst postponing the Octobcr,
1999 Public Hearing on Preposed Amendments to the Orange CountylChapel HilUCarrboro Taint
Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map (JPA-t-99 American
Stanc Company} and. the Land Usc Element and Map of the Orangc County Comprehensive Plan
(CP-2-99 .Amcrlcan Stone Company).
OWA.SA representatives have indicated their need for mare time to finalize informatiaa that will
be presemod to support our joint applicatio~a.
Thank yob very much.
Sinccrely,
R_ Paxton Badhalro, Jr.
cc: Mr. Craig Benedict, Orange County Plaiming Director
Mr. Ed Ktrwin, OWASA Executive I?irectnt
Mr. and Mrs. Philip O. Durham
Ms. Kate Haggerson
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS
To DEFINE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE
IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION IV-B-10 OF THE SUBDIVISION
AND
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DEFININTION OF OPEN SPACE USED FOR LAND USE INTENSITY
CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS AND OPEN SPACE APPLICABLE TO
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISIONS.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS is amended by changing the definitions of flexible
development and open space to read as follows:
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 conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are
established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area
is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback
areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10,
Section D.1; or
(b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(c) 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
(d} Some combination of the above
AN ORDINAINACE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
SECTION II AND SECTION IV-B-10
TO CLARIFY AND ENHANCE THE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS
TO MEET OBJECTIVES SPECIFIED IN SECTION IV-B-1 O, SUBSECTION A PURPOSE
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS:
Section II Definitions is amended by changing the definition of flexible development to
read as follows.
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 conventional development
approaches. At least one-third (33%) of the land within a Flexible
Development subdivision must be set aside as open space which may be
preserved through:
(a) An "estate lot" approach where all land is subdivided into lots four (4)
acres or greater in size, building lot area including setbacks are
established on 50% of each lot, and the land area outside such area
is preserved as open space provided that front and side yard setback
areas shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirement except as specified by provisions of Article IV-B-10,
Section D.1; or
(b) A "conservation-cluster" approach where lot sizes are reduced and
the land saved through such reductions is preserved as open space
on separate lots owned and maintained through a homeowners
association, anon-profit land conservancy or unit of state of local
government; or
(c) 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
(d) Some combination of the above.
Section IV-B-10, Subsection C Open Space Standards is rewritten to read as follows.
Section C OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
C.3 Ownership of Open Space
Open space within a Flexible Development may be owned and/or administered by any
of the following methods, either individually or in combination. All open space shall be
permanently restricted from further subdivision.
Fee simple dedication to Orange County, another unit of local government, the
State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Dedication of conservation easements to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina or a private non-profit land conservancy.
Such easements may apply to a single property owned by a homeowners
association and/or to all or portions of individual lots owned by one or more
property owners.
• Ownership by a homeowners association where specific development restrictions
and maintenance requirements are included as part of its bylaws and as
irrevocable articles of restrictive covenants.
Ownership by individual property owners, of estate lots only, where specific
development restrictions and maintenance requirements are included as part of
restrictive covenants and/or permanent conservation easements applicable to
such lots.
Where conservation easements have been dedicated prior to application for approval of
a Flexible Development proposal, the land subject to the easement may be counted
toward satisfying the thirty-three percent (33%) open space requirement provided it is a
portion of and in the same ownership as the land to be subdivided.
Section IV-B-10, Subsection D Development Standards is rewritten to read as follows.
Section D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Flexible Development subdivision plats shall be prepared in accordance with one or
more of the following development options.
D.1 Estate Lot Option
For lots created as part of an estate lot development, the following standards apply:
• Each estate lot shall have a lot size of at least four (4) acres.
• For each estate lot, a building envelope (buildable area) shall be defined of
sufficient size to accommodate asingle-family detached dwelling and customary
accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages,
patios and decks, lawns and driveways.
• The building envelope of an estate lot may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
total lot area and shall not include designated Primary and/or Secondary
Conservation Areas.
• Only the area outside of the building envelope of an estate lot may be counted
toward meeting the minimum open space requirement. To the highest degree
possible, the open space area shall be contiguous to open space designated on
the adjacent lot(s) and shall not include required .front yard and side yard
setbacks unless the front or side yard contains significant primary or secondary
conservation areas.
A septic system and/or well site may be located outside of a building envelope
provided it does not occupy more than half of the conservation area nor any part
of a Primary Conservation Area.
Each building envelope on an estate lot shall adhere to the following spacing standards:
Building Envelope Spacing Standards for Estate Lots
Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots 100 feet
Minimum spacing between building envelope and subdivision 150 feet
boundary or off-site public street right-of-way
Minimum spacing between building envelope and on-site public 50
feet
or private street right-of--way _
Minimum spacing between building envelope and any other lot 30 feet
line
Minimum spacing between building envelope and wetlands, or 100 feet
water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, etc.)
Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of estate lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building; contribute to the preservation
of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas; provide convenient
access for emergency service vehicles; and satisfy all building envelope spacing
standards, the minimum required lot frontage may be reduced to not less than 20
feet for flag lots, and lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
Estate lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions
and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas located outside building envelopes shall be restricted against
further development through conservation easements and/or deed restrictions.
• Estate lot subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal access to all
lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state maintained
.roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to lots in the
subdivision.
• A 150 foot Type F buffer meeting the requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be
provided along the frontage of all existing state maintained roads adjacent to the
subdivision boundaries. In areas of dense mature forest, existing vegetation may
be used to fulfill the buffer requirements. If additional planting is required, new
plant materials that satisfy the buffer requirements of Article IV-B-8-e shall be
installed and maintained in accordance with provisions of Article IV-B-8-f.
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option
A conservation-cluster subdivision is one in which building lots are grouped together
through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract provided the transfer
of density within the subdivision does not increase the average density in any overlay
zoning district. In aconservation-cluster subdivision designed with density transfer, lots
smaller than the minimum lot size permitted in the zoning district are allowed provided
such lots and subdivisions are developed in accordance with the following standards:
• Land saved through lot size reductions shall consist of designated Primary and/or
Secondary Conservation Areas.
• The total amount of land set aside as Primary and Secondary Conservation
Areas shall equal the sum of all reductions in minimum lot area and shall
comprise at least thirty-three percent (33%) of the total land area in the
subdivision.
• Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas shall be placed in undivided
preserves which adjoin housing areas that have been designed more compactly
to create larger conservation units that may be enjoyed by all residents of the
subdivision and, if possible, enjoyed visually by the general public. Such
undivided open space shall be accessible to the largest number of lots within the
development. To achieve this, the majority of houselots should abut undivided
open space to provide residents with direct views and access. Safe and
convenient pedestrian access to the open space from all adjoining houselots
shall be provided, except in the case of farmland or other resource areas
vulnerable to human disturbance. The design must meet Section F Evaluation
Criteria which sets forth conservation area design characteristics.
• Where undivided open space is designated as separate non-contiguous parcels,
no parcel shall consist of less than three (3) acres in area, nor have alength-to-
width ratio in excess of 4:1, except such areas that are specifically designed for
neighborhood commons or greens; playfields; buffers adjacent to wetlands,
watercourses, and rural roads; wildlife corridors; or trail links.
• Each lot must contain a buildable area of sufficient size to accommodate a
single-family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not
limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and
driveways. A septic system and/or well site may be located in an open space
area provided it does not occupy more than one quarter of the conservation area
nor any part of a Primary Conservation Area.
• Provided the arrangement, design, and shape of cluster lots is such that lots
provide satisfactory and desirable sites for building, and contribute to the
preservation of designated Primary and/or Secondary Conservation Areas,
minimum lot area, lot width, and setback requirements as specified in Article
D.2 Conservation-Cluster Option (cont.)
4.1.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance may be reduced as set forth
below.
0 Minimum lot area requirements may be reduced by sixty-five percent (65%) of
the minimum lot size permitted by the zoning district including any overlay
district requirements; however, minimum lot area may not be smaller than
40,000 square feet within a watershed protection overlay district where lots
are served by individual septic systems.
0 Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced-to 100 feet in the AR and R1
Districts. Minimum lot width requirements may be reduced by 30% in all other
zoning districts.
0 Minimum front, rear, and side setback requirements may be reduced by
twenty-five percent (25%) but shall be no less than ten (10) feet.
0 Minimum lot frontage requirements may be reduced to twenty (20) feet for lots
fronting on cul-de-sacs and "T" turnarounds.
0 Minimum spacing between building envelopes and the subdivision boundary
or off-site public street right-of--way shall be 100 feet and may be counted as
open space.
• Conservation-cluster subdivision road(s) shall be designed to provide internal
access to all lots in the subdivision. Private driveways shall access existing state
maintained roads only via subdivision roads providing internal access to lots in
the subdivision.
Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed
restrictions and/or permanent conservation easements. Primary and Secondary
Conservation Areas shall be dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local
government, the State of North Carolina, a private non-profit land conservancy or
a homeowners association.
In accordance with combining subsections D.2 and D.3, subsections D.4, D.5 and D.6
are renumbered as follows:
D.3 Village Option
D.4 Street Standards
D.5 Water Supply and .Sewage Disposal Facilities
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD
ON OCTOBER 13, 1999, UPON MOTION BY Commissioner Jacobs AND SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ha 1 k i of i s THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED.
AYES: UNANIMOUS
NAYS:
~ ~ q
Beverly Blyth Clerk t the Board of Commissioners Date
Acquisition Evaluation Template
Red .Hill Farm
Eno Township, between US 70 and I-85
This parcel of 264 acres is located between US 70 and Interstate 85,
west of University Station Road and adjacent to Seven Springs.
subdivision. Ithas been owned by Sally B. Feather as trustee of The
Rhine Foundation in Durham (affiliated with Duke University), and. is
being sold to Bill Hendrickson, manager of Neighborhood Farms, Ms.
Feather (Mr. Hendrickson's wife and heir of the Rhine family), and Ron
Kumin of Dominion Development of Durham. The soon-to-be owners
have received offers from two development corporations for the
property, and also have expressed general .plans fora 10-acre lot
development of their own for the property. Mr. Hendrickson
approached ERC Director David Stancil at a Kiwanis Club meeting to
ask about the County's interest in purchasing all or part of the land.
Comprehensive.Plan? The property is categorized Rural Residential, Lower Eno
Watershed.There are Resource Protection Areas identified
along the northern and western portions of the property.
Zoning?: R-1, Lower Eno Watershed, and part in Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC). The entire property is zoned
R-1, which allows one dwelling per 40,000 square feet
(0.92 acres). The southern half of the property .(nearest I-
85) falls within the Major Transportation Corridor overlay
district. The MTC would require a site plan be submitted for
any development other than single-family or duplex, and a
100-foot buffer from the edge of the right-of-way. The
Lower Eno watershed is a WS-IV run-of-river watershed
and has no additional requirements except for maximum
im envious surfaces of 70% and stream buffers.
Natural Areas Inventory None present. The western half of the property contains an
and Resource Checkiist identified area of prime forest, at the lower of three tiers of
.rated forest in the new TLC re ort.
.Existing vegetation and . The western 2/3 of the property is wooded, with mixed
site analysis hardwood and pine. The property from the 4-acre pond
east to University Station Road and south to I-85 is
generally afirst-second growth wooded area -
predominantly pine with interspersed hardwoods. The only.
cleared portions of the property are along an old driveway
to a homesite in the west-central part of the site, and
around the pond. Some logging in a prior decade appears
to have occurred along the north-central portion of the
property. There is significant slope to the western h-'
the property as a wooded ridge climbs 215 fee* "
west.
Land Constraints soils, l There is some documented floodplain along the tributary of
floodplain, etc)': -~, - Stony Creek that flows along the northeast fringe of the
.property. The study area does not extend west along the
tributary, and additional floodplain areas could exist. Enon-
- B, Enon-C and Georgeville-B are the predominant soils on
the eastern portion of the site, with an area of Herndon-C
north of the pond and Tatum-D soils on the western 1/3 of
the property. The Georgeville class soils are the most
conducive to development of structures. The Enon soils
would re uire a lar er land area for se tics stems.
Access, . = The property has access from US 70, adjacent to Woods
Mobile Home Park, and at the end of Wrenn Road, a public
street off of University Station Road. Access via Wrenn
'~
1` Road would likely require improvements to the existing
~ roadway, but there is existing 60 feet of right-of-way.
Access via US 70 would need to be coordinated with that
for an activi on the western ortion of the site.
Surrounding Land'Uses Seven Springs subdivision to the west, the vacant Dubose
tract across US 70 to the north, several house and
- manufactured home lots along University Station Road and
Wrenn Road to the east, and I-85 to the south. The
property actually extends across I-85, but it is unlikely that
the area across the interstate could be used due to its
narrow nature.
Ownership and- Currently in the process of transfer from The Rhine
Assessed Value Foundation to Mr. Hendrickson, Ms. Feather and Mr.
Kumin. The most recent tax assessment on the property
was for $606,211. The property was at one time owned by
` the State of North Carolina for eventual inclusion into Eno
River State Park, but was transferred in a land swap in
1981 to CCB.
Likely Asking Price $7,500 to $8,000 per acre. The owners are willing to
consider splitting off the eastern portion of the property
and developing the remainder, and have indicated that
other offers from the two competing firms have been for
more money, but that they are willing to consider this price
- for the County in the interest of seeing the land stay in a
ark or natural state.
Previous` assessments' None.
or evaiuationsof
ro e
Possible-Uses and Park site, including both active and low-impact recreation
Stewardship/ opportunities. The eastern area of the site from the pond to
`Maintenance Needs University Station Road is relatively flat and might
accommodate up to four playing fields. The pond could
provide a water amenity, but there are questions about the
integrity of the impoundment (see below and County.
Engineer memo). The potential for hiking trails exists along
.the ridge in the central. portion of the site. The central and
western portion of the site include a steep ridge that climbs
to 715 feet in the western part of the site.
Preservation of open space within the site could also
enhance the visual I-85 corridor. There appears to be one
billboard alon I-85 on the ro e
Funding Given the parks nature of the property, the Park acquisition.
bonds would be one option. Pursuit of a grant from the
N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund might be an outside
source of funding. Other options might include payment-in-
lieu funds or ossibl the School Park Reserve.
Meets. County Goals Could provide for recreation purposes for central and
and Criteria? - eastern Orange County. Size and shape of site might lend
to active recreation near Interstate and University Station
Road, with low-impact recreation along central portions.
Would also preserve open space and (if central and
western portions of site purchased) an area containing
identified prime forest (the lower of the 3 highest rated
categories). The evaluation against criteria for parkland
ac uisition is attached as a se arate sheet.
Conclusions ,. Acquisition of the 90 eastern-most acres could
accommodate a site with two access points (US 70 and
Wrenn Road), up to 4 playing fields, a pond, and potential
hiking trails. According to the owners, the remainder of the
tract would likely be developed for large-lot residential
purposes.
Eno Township contains approximately 6,000 residents.
` ~ 'There are no community or district parks in this area,
,' -~ although the Eno River State Park provides a larger,
~` regional park context. The location of the site between two
major roadways and with few adjoining homes along the
potential playing fields might simplify area acceptability of
.lighted fields.
Since the most likely use of the property would be as a
park with active and low-impact recreation, parks bond
acquisition money would be one source of funding ($2.89
million remaining), along with payment-in-lieu funds.
Approximately $149,000 is available in the Chapel Hill
payment-in-lieu district (of which this is part).
The likely cost of acquisition for the entire site, using the
` asking price of $7,500-8,000/acre as a starting point,
would be $1.98 to $2.11 million. Purchase of the 90-acre
eastern area would equate to $675,000 to $720,000.
However, our preliminary research into area land sales
indicates that this site should command more on the order
of $6,000 to $7,000 per acre.
The County Engineer has determined that the pond
impoundment will need to be breached or repaired,
although there. is no immediate failure of the dam
apparent, or any adjacent structures or homes that would
be flooded.
_ ' In terms of timeframe and intent, the new owners have
.asked for an indication of the County's interest in pursuing
a possible acquisition by Friday, October 15. They add that
the County is "at the top of the list" if interested in
. acquisition of all or part of the property, and that they
prefer a County park or open space as long-term use of the
site. They have expressed understanding that it may take
time for the County to move on this, and are willing to wait
(but only for a few months) if the County conveys its
interest now in pursuing a possible purchase.
Parkland Acquisition Goals. Objectives and Criteria
...from Joint Master Recreation and Parks report
Goals
* Encourage schooUpark joint planning
* Preserve natural resources
* Promote multi jurisdictional recreation and preservation efforts
* Preserve watersheds and water quality
* Encourage historic and cultural preservation
* Ident~ and emphasize targeted needs
* Establish public/private partnerships
* Encourage the dedication of easements
* Implement land-banking opportunities
* Acquire/purchaseparldand through development process
* Develop linear parks concepts and plans
Using these goals, more-specific objectives were identiFied:
Objectives
* Keep active recreation facilities away from land that is environmentally sensitive, such as
wetlands;
* Develop a program for land dedication/recreation payment that is more effective and.
comprehensive;
* Protect identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction with the creation of
recreation facilities;
* Develop linear parks in the Rural Buffer, and explore opportunities along other identified
stream corridors;
* "Retrofit"existing developed properties for recreation;
* Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the Upper Eno River
preservation efforts;
* Develop land-use planning mechanism for securing neighborhood parks
Criteria for Evaluating Possible Land Acquisition
F` ~'` F`?~"~ Parklands Acquisition Criteria
N/A The existence of matching funds from a requesting jurisdiction
Possible NC PARTF Potential for grants and other funding opportunities
N/A Completion of existing projects with an adopted facility plan
None Contains a site identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and
Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, N.C.
Active areas could be adjacent to Compatibility of planned park use with adjacent land uses
major transportation corridors
and buffered from other areas.
Active recreation closer to Appropriate intensity of use for the azea
corridor and low-impact to west
and north adjacent to current and
future residential azeas
No parks of this type in the Location
vicinity. Closest active
recreation facility at New Hope
Elementazy or in Hillsborough.
No wildlife corridor present. Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors, greenways and lineaz
Potential hiking trails could be parks
linked along tributary to Stony
Creek and eventually Eno River
State Pazk.
No Land is adjacent to new schools
Areas identified in southeast Land for active recreation is suitable and appropriate for
portion of site appear to have planned uses
suitable areas, outside of
environmentally sensitive lands.
Potentially could be part of long- Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and New Hope Corridor
term linkage between New Hope preservation efforts
corridor and Eno River State
Pazk, as evaluated by student
class in 1991.
Good access via US 70 and Access (transportation) is safe and easily-accomplished
Wrenn Road. Wrenn Road
(closest to possible playing
fields) would require
improvements.
Could meet Master Recreation Meeting multiple goals (of the above) gets higher weighting
and Parks, open space and visual
resource (rural character) goals.
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Stancil, AICP, Director, Environment & Resource Conservation Department
Bob Jones, Director, Recreation & Parks Department
FROM: Paul Thames, PE, County Enginee
DATE: 9/30/99
SUBJECT: Evaluation of dam on "Red Hill Farm" property
As per your request, I have visited the property I believe to be called "Red Hill Farm" for the purpose of
evaluating the condition of the dam at the small pond (+/- 2 acres) located on the property.
As a second phase of my evaluation (the site visit being the first phase) of the condition of the
pond/dam, I have reviewed USGS topographical information for the area surrounding the pond. The
USGS topographical data indicates to me that the drainage area supplying the pond is only about twice
the size of the pond surface itself. This is not sufficient to support a pond (which needs a drainage area
of approxf mately 5 or more acres for every acre of pond surface) in terms of maintaining it in a viable
condition with water quality that would be categorized as neither stagnant or eutrophic. Although we
have had sufficient rainfall over the last several weeks to potentially mask any normally poor water
quality conditions, my working assumptions are that: a) this pond is primarily spring fed; and b) the
water quality is generally acceptable.
The condition of the dam is another matter. Trees and large bushes growing out of an earthen dam, as is
the case at this dam, are generally considered to be unacceptable. The roots grow through the dam.
toward the water. When the tree or bush eventually dies, the root decomposes and leaving apipe-like
passage or opening through the dam. Water flows through the passage, enlarging it by erosion; the dam
fails. One can try to remove the trees and repair the dam, .but the efFicacy of this process is questionable
at best. It is generally better and safer to breach and abandon or rebuild the dam.
Given the small area draining to the pond created by the dam, it is unlikely that the dam will be
unusually stressed (structurally and hydraulically) by large quantities of surface water flow. The pond
does not contain a sufficient quantity of water, nor is the dam .sufficiently high for the dam to fall under
the regulations and guidelines of the dam safety act. The pond and dam probably do not represent a
serious threat to property or life in the event of dam failure - at this time. Property development
immediately adjacent to and downstream of the dam could change this assessment.
If the County were to purchase this property, even given the current low level nature of the threat
represented by a potential dam failure, I would recommend that the dam be breached or repaired. If I
may provide additional information, please advise.
Orange County
Environment and Resource Conservation Department
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 732-5181 or 967-9251, x2590
Faz: (919) 644-3002
Email: clstancilG~co.vranpe.nc.us
Memorandum
T0: John Link
County Manager
From: David Stancil
ERC Director.
Date: September 21, 1999
Re: Land Acquisition Inquiries (updated 9/2Z/9.5~
Over the past several weeks we have received a number of inquiries from
citizens regarding the County's interest in land acquisition. We are investigating
these inquiries, and will report back to the Board in the near future. Following is
a brief synopsis of the inquiries. New information added on 9/21 is shown
Bud Mayes "Mayes Hill", Cheeks TwQ)
23SR`
1 ~;,1~'°~ Mr. Mayes. has asked about the County's interest in purchase of three tracts
totaling 235 acres. Two of the tracts adjoin County-owned lands on Seven-Mile
Creek, and the land is within the critical area of Seven-Mile Creek watershed.
One piece contains a portion of an identified natural area from the 1989
Inventory. Mr. Mayes and I visited the sites on Friday, September. 10 and
conducted a fo/%w-up visit on September 20 for photographs,
Timeframe for Sale: Intermediate (goal is end of year)
Potential Purpose: Watershed protection, low-impact recreation, portion of the
Seven-Mile Creek Bottomlands natural area
Cost Estimate: Unknown. "Ballpark" for all three pieces could be on the order
of $1 million. The owner is willing to sell parcels individually.
Potential Funding Sources: County: ERC (CIP) Fund, Parks land acquisition
bond, School/Park Reserve. Other: Clean Water Management Trust Fund,
Parks/Recreation Trust Fund, TLC (pt).
F: \USERS\DSTANCIL\LAN D-ACQ\LAND-UPD. DOC
Bill Hendrickson, "Red Hill Farm", Eno Tw,p
This single property .consists of 264 acres between US 70 and I-85, between
University Station Road and the Seven Springs neighborhood. It is owned by the
Rhyne Foundation, and some Board members may have had previous contact on
this property. The properly contains a 4-acre lake and bluff of 715 feet that
2~ '~~ ' 1~ (drops off to the east. Mr. Hendrickson and Ron Kumin are purchasing the
~ ~ 7_ 2 .I M property, with tentative plans fora 10-acre lot development (this would be
outside of subdivision review). Before proceeding, they have inquired as to the
County's interest. I have spoken with Mr. Hendrickson and agent Ron Kumin. On
Friday, September 10, Recreation and Parks Director Bob Jones and I walked the
site with the. owners. We p/an a second visit on September 23 with the
County Engineer to exp/ore the /ake impoundment,
Timeframe for Sale:. Short-term (want to close by December 31). The
owners have added that a third party is now interested in the property,
and have expressed a desire. for an informs/ response from the County
as to our interest//ack of interest by the end of September;
Potential Purpose: Active and low-impact recreation, open space, viewshed
along ridge.
Cost Estimate: Unknown at this. time. The owner is willing to split the properly
and sell pieces that are of interest to the County.
Potential Funding Sources: County: Parks land acquisition bond, School/Park
Reserve. Other: Parks/Recreation Trust Fund.
Chatwood Lands Property
~SAc~ = Carolyn Connor of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), in discussing
,~ ~v0-90~k historic preservation matters with her neighbors at Chatwood, has passed along
this inquiry. The owners, Bruce and Susan Lueck, may be interested in a
conservation easement or purchase of the lands adjoining Chatwood, and have
expressed to Ms. Connor an interest in meeting. This land consists of 206 acres
adjacent to the historic Chatwood house, which is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. This is also an area identified by the HPC as a possible future
historic district. No further .activity has occurred to date,. pending
exploratory discussion with Ms. Connor.
Timeframe for Sale: Unknown
Potential Purpose: Historic/cultural preservation, watershed protection,
possibly low-impact recreation.
Cost Estimate: Unknown.
Potential Funding Sources: County: Parks land bond, School/Park Reserve,
ERC CIP fund. Other: Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Parks/Recreation
Trust Fund, State Historic Preservation Funds.
F: \USERS\DSTANCIL\LAND-ACQ\LAN D-UPD. DOC
Guess Road Area /Joint Venture with Durham
As you may know, Triangle Land Conservancy and Durham officials have
expressed an interest in exploring alternatives for the potential C&D landfill site
(Gavin estate property) and an adjacent piece owned by the Triangle Community
Foundation that straddles the county line. The adjacent TCF piece is 390 acres
(245 acres in Durham, 145. in Orange), and is being marketed by Whit Morrow
for the Foundation. Mr. Morrow (a Chapel Hill resident who is also on the Orange
County Agricultural Advisory Board). has indicated that the Foundation is
interested in exploring options. The Foundation. property abuts Little River and
13S ~~ appears to be a priority for open space and watershed protection for Durham,
~fi~_ and the Little River corridor is also a TLC priority for preservation.
~~i5 k Commission Jacobs and I joined representatives from Durham and TLC for a look
at the properties last week. TLC and Durham officials may be interested in
discussing a collaborative, consortium venture on these properties. There also
appears to be a citizens group that has made aback-up offer on the Gavin
(potential C&D) property. I will keep you apprised of any future contacts or
.proposals on these properties.
More recent/y, Durham County has forma//y announced its intent to
pursue purchase of the 245 acres of the Triang/e Community
Foundation.. property in Durham County, Durham has proposed that
Orange County purchase the 178-acre Gavin property, p/us the
remaining 145 acres of the Triang/e Community Foundation piece for a
joint park and open space preservation.
Timeframe for Sale: Immediate for Gavin piece (option expires 9/30/99). A
backup offer appears to exist for at /east a portion of the Gavin
properly. Intermediate for Triangle Community. Foundation piece (end of
year/early 2000)
Potential Purpose: Watershed protection, active and low-impact recreation,
open space.
Cost Estimate: Current option .for Gavin piece (landfill) is $497,000. Cost for
Triangle Community Foundation parcel is unknown, but would likely. be higher
per acre due to higher development. potential and configuration..
Potential Funding Sources: County: Parks land acquisition bond, School/Park
Reserve. Other: Durham County, private landowners group with TLC, joint
grant from Clean Water Management Trust Fund, joint or individual grant.
from Parks and.Recreation Trust Fund.
Town of Carrboro Joint Community Park
Correspondence received from the Town of Carrboro on September 8
indicates a desire to joint/y acquire /and for a joint community park to
F:\USERS\DSTANCIL\LAND-ACQ\LAND-UPD.DOC
be located north of the Town limits, A 200-acre .site is suggested for
combined schoo//park /and-banking, The Town proposes that in this
vein, a joint County-Town community project be joined with the
u comin Coun Lands Lea p p pa k
P „ 9 tY g cy program, No site for the ro osed r
has been identified, and is proposed to be determined through. 'joint
analysis and availability,
~~ , Timeframe for Sale: N/A, No site has been identified.
3 Potential Purpose: Parks and recreation (active. and /ow-impact),
!~2 ~ ~~ ~ '~ potentia/ for open space, natural area protection and riparian buffers
~ n C~ (depending on site),
Cost Estimate: Unknown, No site identified, Costs in area north of
` Carrboro wou/d like/y be substantia//y .higher than in other potentia/
projects listed above,
Potential Funding Sources: County; Parks /and acquisition bond,
Schoo//Park Reserve, Other; Town of Carrboro, joint grant from Clean
Water Management Trust Fund, joint grant from State Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund,
Other Notes of Interest
...We have. had an exploratory discussion with a longtime landowner in Bingham
Township about potential donation of a 125-acre conservation easement to the
County. I will keep you apprised. if there is further interest by the properly
owner.
...As a final note, the. Pickard. Mountain purchase has been finalized with Carrboro
landowner Tim Toben, who now holds title to the 300 acres of this land and most
of the identified natural area. We have offered to assist Mr. Toben in any
preservation efforts.
Copies: Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
F: \USERS\DSTANCIL\LAN D-ACQ\LAN D-U PD. DOC
~~ : I ~'
7ER3 R0. W I
' /, / r
1 ~./
:~ o
~ ~ /r ~ ~....--~...
~ ~ N ~ .lam 1~•••/...-~,_._ti
PlUDC LN. ~ ~ M11RElp
~ b _,
. .sue ~° ~•~-.\~
D ~ ~, F~ G,~S ~N. °~ I'
Nflq
!N RD
RD.
~~3
~.,~'.~ ~
g % ~~
DR. Q
~~ ~-
N
J
7Hw a SAD 6LE DR.
1 ,
rRT ,~j~... ^
C~ CENTER
1
q LL RD.
1
i
i ^
f
IJ ^
^
i
^
16~ HO'N T. ^
85
a+nNDEw
oR.
10 u ~ _ ~^
~:
~~ eROCky ~
F
RD. ~>~ ~l 1716
1
1
,~~
CAMP 9 }10PE 1 Ci ~ ',; f;,,~,.,: =,:~ ,. .
CIR. 86 ~~ ~ DR. II ~ ~~j~ .. .'_3~1:f, ~ w'
,~
Qom... > T ~JN'~ I j~, 3 ~ ~/ ~ , J fir;; a3~ ' ~ fs
I O
1 DR ~ }~; ,,its, ~
\ 1 ~ fS 33~v1;J'
) .~. ~'i .SINAI ~ 2;
,r, •~,,,y 1, ~~H~~'N ,!(•~,F''"l; §•,ie ~ /~ Y
11 r'O d • Z ~ ~-,:•µ~F'..,n~~3'~ ,"'"Irr Y ~ y.., 1717
f ( 'VV ''
i 1718 ,S, C/?e }! .,l d',,i '3' r ~ ~~ s i'f , ~ ~,s' ~i i I~~
._ ~ _ B~dCICVN000I !{'Y ,.i ;r,'' 1 .r f'''%; f :: i'~,' ).' :~, ~ ;..,•;
1 , #d''!y"s ~±J~'%~:. .~~ '~.'.Sf),f~"j~if1 3 f'i3'',%:!:~~~''.'i'~~1824
1 VI •~ J~;; ~'+~i'''f sl it J ::~j rti.tA ,,:. ?f ~'f:SJ <f + '~~•jij
1 & dp >'''il~%' ~ , ''~)? r jz ~ ~i'i i y. i3 y 1 f l' f'.f v; WILKINS ^
t_ µ.EXAMILIER u) )f Y1 Y1 ,'F .!r t l a~~sra a R
F ~ STONES ra '~tf i ~ ~~ f~~. ~~ ~'~ i) ~;~ ~~y 1.,~)~ "~s. )-'
rr ) ff;'15 2 19 ev i ; '~ 'fib i ti ~ ; J ~v 7S4
= 1 ,~ .1,~;,.)~; . yy o ~,, /;,,, !' P,yd.) Cs~ RfMb~PHRD.
riy'~~~il l~;'! 2220 N l9 ;'sy'% .,:.I„'•~!fL~.. ,
g Off' '~t4' "'~i%'~. ' ~,, ~ WHITFIELp '~"~
Gl.'I J,,,~'~ ,3 1~~ I' „ ~ RD. ~ '
wstenln DR
is~~wlr~ ~~`= s23a 2 ~ N ~ PINETREE ~ .
NITF I ElD RD. LDL ~ 183!S 1794 Y C] ^
\,1.30 V1 1896 \,ty QAK HILL RD. cc~ '
H
Q HILL ~_
0(1 .: ...~.. l RD. ~
"~
~,jor Roads
parcels.
County
~i .i Tow Texps
Text C'itY
~~--- „}~-- ry Wj<hin
°i teat pr°Pe ublic
~~ ared for the inveae d Plats, and °~ are enlioned
UOn
Thrs rt~p co ntai and s el~P ~ rtiaP a e h b bey nnsulted foaveh~ ~ ies assume
mapP eomPa
prangs Cou Users sources s The county and its
mad ~ ormauon twined on this map•
records a this maP• ation cOn
Public P lion stained °n the inform
Inform t responsibility for
no legs
orange county oIS
1;16
~ ~f~`'y
~~ 5-~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~s ~~ wv2~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- 2
• "Open space" in the zoning ordinance is defined with respect to calculating land use
intensity ratios for zoning applications and does not include a definition that compliments required
"open space" in a flexible development subdivision.
Proposed: Proposed amendments: • correct inadequacies of the conservation option to
provide subdivisions with intended features of flexible development; • clarify other flexible
development provisions including estate lot provisions; and address inadequacies of the
conservation option that are common for other flexible development approaches. An attached
document giving existing ordinance language and proposed amendments contains staff annotation
for each proposed amendment.
In summa osed amendments to Orange County u s Section II
pe ' ions, Section IV-B-10 Flexible Development and to Orange County Zoning Or " ce,
rticle 22 Definitions:
• ~c Delete undesirable elements of the conservation approach and combine the desirabl
elements of that approach with the cluster approach to create the conservation-cluster
(cc) approach;
• ~ Clarify that any transfer of density within a cluster development may not increase
density allowed by the zoning ordinance within protected watersheds and their critical
areas
• C~. Clarify and define configuration and placement of open space (i.e. contiguous
stretches);
• Add provision fora 100'( cc approach) or 150'( estate approach) buffer along adjacent
public roads to enhance preservation of rural character;
• Modify setbacks and percentage of open space allowed for placement of septic systems
(25% allowed for repair area);
• ~•
Provide for Internal access for all lots in the conservation-cluster and estate approachs;
nd
• Add a definition to the Article II of the zoning ordinance for "Open space (flexible
development)".
4;;
Develo Process Schedule and Action
• Public Hearing men s were that flexible development would not be
used if those options did not offer some incentive to the developer Draft minutes are attached.
• Public Hearing August 23, 1999: Additional amendments addressing comments from the
May 24, 1999, Public Hearing were brought back for public comment.
• First Action: Planning Board Recommendation:
Planning Board reviewed the amendments July 13, 1999, including the proposed amendments
presented at the August 23, 1999, Public Hearing. Minutes are attached.
• Final Action: Board of Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not Applicable.
~e~
~~ 5
,Ot to n/d i - ~-~P2~ ~r
a~ ~
g:\txtamend\flexdev\ccabs.doc\8-18-99Uc1 C9.L~ ~ ~
/fig-vt~- aL, ~s r-e~~9 s .
for mr; "road
ruig, two high-ranking
-Commerce Secretary
' le and Deputy
'>rtation Secretary David
were among the first to
for Cycle North
a, the recreational bike
n Murphy to Manteo.
Commerce and
~rtation are among the
sponsors.
is following through
;plans to ride one leg
aur; Carlisle is cancel-
ng aheavy workload
FIurricane Floyd.
plans to join the tour
;day in Raleigh and
5-mile leg to Wilson. To
tp, he road his bike 17
unday.
t was my entire training
n, right there," King
'hat's the farthest I've
Iden, so 55 miles looks a
lunting." The good
~e said, is that after 17
2 was surprisingly chip-
lugh hungry as a horse."
sle was scheduled to
lay's leg from
rough to Raleigh. But
~rce spokeswoman
Weiner said her boss is
y helping flooded busi-
reopen. "He's just work-
lard on this business-
rysituation,"she said.
global governor
Jim Hunt has picked up
swards aver the years,
i as important-sounding
he'll get later this
"The 1999 Citizen of
r1d Award."
honor is being bestowed
it by the RTP-based
ational Visitors Council.
-old award
sizes a North Carolina
nt who has contributed
:aptly to the internation-
~n of the area.
recipients are Terry
d, the former governor
S. senator; Dr. LeRoy
:, president emeritus of
5.Olympic Committee;
Watanabe, past
ent of Mitsubishu
inductor America Inc.;
Janette Hyde, former
nbassador to Barbados
e Eastern Caribbean.
~urricnne humor
~'s a joke that made its
hound the Hunt admin-
~n in recent weeks:
-here's the most danger-
ace in North Carolina to
ng a hurricane?
p}a,~.,,. Tyr-,L....,...7 r~..,.,.-~
~ _ _ ~ -
Two residents work on their lawn in suburban Thorn Ridge Road in Forsyth County. Looming
over them is a silo, a reminder of the land's former use as a dairy farm.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Preserving farmland
State funding to keep
open spaces unlikely
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
KERNERSYILLE -Just one North Carolina county has
its own farm preservation program, and prospects
are slim that the state will devote any more money
to the effort next year with elections on the horizon.
State legislators are unlikely to approve new taxes
for a dedicated source of money for farm preser-
vationjust months before voters go to the polls.
Even Before Hurricane Floyd's floods ravaged
Eastern North Carolina recently, the prospect of
repaying $440 million to taxpayers who won a law-
suit over the state intangibles tax had forecasters
predicting an uncomfortably tight budget next year.
Now, with billions of dollars of flood damage tocon-
tendwith, even farm preservation advocates are wor-
riedaboutthe prospects of getting more state money.
"You can forget farmland preservation now We're
going to preserve the east," said Rep. Frank
Mitchell, a poultry farmer from Iredell County who
has supported preservation programs.
But the issue isn't likely to go away as commuters,
landowners and politicians grow increasingly fed
up with the hassles and costs of suburban sprawl.
Farm preservation gives the state a way to save
open spaces and gives farmers -faced with
increasing property values and property taxes as
development surrounds them - an option other
than selling their land to developers.
The General Assembly put up $250,000 last year
to buy the development rights to six farms and an
additional $500,000 this year. The state House, but
not the Senate, passed a bill that would create a
state farmland-preservation trust fund and let coun-
ties impose a $10 fee on each subdivision plat to
help pay for farm preservation.
One of the six farms the legislature paid to buy
belongs to Rober Blackburn of Forsyth County, the
only county with its own farm preservation program.
Blackburn can point to landmarks such as the nine
pear trees planted by his grandfather that continue
to bear fruit. He also points out landmarks near the
houses springing up on former neighbors' farms.
"I pulled tobacco in that field," he said, pointing
to a new development of $125,000 houses. "It's com-
ingfrom every direction."
Blackburn, a barber and retired mail carrier; sold
the development rights on his 59-acre farm north of
Kernersville this year to Forsyth County's farm-
land-preservation program.
He received $106,000 in federal, state and local
money for the rights. In return, his land can never
be turned into housing developments like those that
increasingly surround his and other farms through-
out the Piedmont.
That's just fine for Blackburn, whose grandfather
bought the property 112 years ago.
"I could've held off and developed it and gotten
more money out of it. But money's not everything,"
he said.
Skeptics warn that reducing the amount of land
available for development will only increase land
prices and ultimately bid up the cost of housing on
the remaining land.
J. Michael Carpenter, a lobbyist for the N.C. Home
Builders Association, said the builders' group does-
n't oppose the voluntary sale of conservation ease-
ments at fair-market value. But the practice will
increase housing costs, he said.
~:~~ Trial be ins
g
LAUREL HILL CHARLOTTE
Body of teen is found
3 bouncers charged THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHARLOTTE-Amanwho rejected
near railroad tracks in man's death apleaagreementthreemonthsago
prepared to stand trial in the abduc-
A 14-year-old boy found dead next Three bouncers have been lion and sexual assault case of a 12-
to some Scotland County railroad charged with murder, three months year-old girl.
*r~,~,r~ ^.-,.r~ri., ~: ~~? afro,- ~or,P ?f+pr ~ ma_n. ~tie.l ~lur±r_~ an alterca- Jur~~ selection was to begin
204 a ~r~s
1"f~a Ca,s
2 ~Pt'UnS - putchccsc ~-1~
Q~b (~ ~, ~'~ ~ ~~S C~~~
~ '~ ~~ I ocafiU~
~ eet• ~- c~~~
o r w• I I set Pc~r~h~vn.
-- ~"~4~ has ~,Q ~ ~C~ Ct CR°S d n ~4S~r'r1- most" P Gr t- ~ (0 as
P P~`l
PpSS`~ b I e ~a~l~ s`+'h~.
- 2 a~~ a-F~s cam(-~r~l~ v~,n ~-~~I~ but ~~~ Ownels c nca~c-r~¢~
P ~a~ wo~U ~n~ w tt'h co~,nfi .
a~-is
- V~Icnf Gn i n dl ica~fi'cn o-F i n fic°t'~s r- r 9~ fi ~ f ~ `~ I ( b~ Pa fi'c~~- for
t
~~W (~~S Ui~t i le work Qu-1- defi~ ~ I s .
P~; mcry ~,~~ ~v knew
-- hus ~ oncQ a~ 3 -4 ~crr~ ~~n -~ . En9.n c°Pr(~cor»-~ 4~(0~
-- NU (la'fvfa ( ct~ f ~ u.'~ Same m ~-~~e p(i('~c ~~ a n tub! .
S-F~eP < i d ~ ~ ~ m; Adct l e ~ ~S ~'e ~ '~o Wt'sf~ Soo ' n cam/" ~~.
- m ~~( o'r ~ C.~'~ w0c~x d-Pi~
H~3 c~ ~cc~.~S vs 7a ct Ur(~nn col . Lu~r w~l~ nc~ ~M{O~overnc~j-:
5
(~~ j ~o I ~ ~ j s~ loc4fi~cf, ~~ cci'rv~ Su ~ ~~{ e ?
vs 70
- Q',r~~~~ ~cc~aSS -~c~rn ~~t'~Sf- Pnv~~c~~t~ C^o~~ - End ~t~s I ~s~l~.
- Ass~°s~ ~~v~ ~:. lN4s ~~4n~ec~ -~~ E~sP.
~s~r-o 750a-gads//~c. U~ti(sel ~ P~eC~, G~,~ R'S~ri~, ~,nc~-c~~s~6~i,-7!~
b4~e~ on cr~q ~crnc~ s~lr-s 6-F ~o-t Sd Ac.
- Cc~u~cJ! ~o ~ ~(~~p(nJ 71z"CyS oiCn~G o~o~~ncQ/ h~~i~J ~'(a,f S IN ~/~'c,.,c,~
I 14~ tC t1 _
~~m~ - ~~s ~~nc.Q~ P1.~~ Qfl~iFy ~4ni-~
~cl ~a-~
- ~GS'I~C~ crcc.~ ---~-~~
~ (rr1-~s ~ G~soo~l~ ~ .~ ~ .~- m~~ I ~ ~ suers k
~~
2l~
2~d o0
3~ d c~ o d
t 3 0 o d ~~
~ T'j 1 Eo~O v~
d
~~
a
5~3,d vo