Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~.~~ May Becker: I second the motion. Alan Campbell: Can 1 ask Pfau to restate it again. Judith I~egnor: In Attachment ~ I move that we strike the words Rural Activity Node and substitute Rural Communit+,~ Nodes, that's the larger and not larger and smaller areas and the reason far that is I don't think the an~the~ground plans far those smaller neighborhoods have been lane sufiicientto extend this kind of thing in those. Samantha Cabe: So that mofian is to approve that with that change? Judith Wegner: Yes, that's correct ~IIoT10~, Judith v~egner moved that the Planning Baird approve the amendment buff strike the wards Rural Activity Node and substitute Rural Community Hades in Attachment ~. Seconded by May Becker. ~oT~: Unanimous Craig Benedict: Staff is nit suggesting any others changes based on what we heard from the public hearing. I will explain what other things we heard at the public hearing That are addressed in item 3, we did an Attachment 3 there were questions about watersheds, this is what we heard from Carrboro and Chapel Hill. There was question about watersheds and uses .and there were questions about waste water treatment systems. 1'll just give you a global statement, we have nit changed any designation for watersheds in Orange County as a product of this Unified Development Ordinance. vUhat is critical is still critical, what's protected is still protected, what is unprotected is still unprotected. As you know from our stream buffer discussion, Orange County designates more critical areas than even the state designates by far. It's nit that we're meeting any minimum requirements an watersheds so in issuing response part of this that we'll be sending to the public and to the local governments will explain that it was not our intent to change watersheds, it was not our mission or intent to change the great watershed rules that we have presently. Judith vllegner: Craig, could I say I appreciate that paint but it's what we just did in so far as we limited, I think people's concern was with the master plan stuff not mobile Names, nit Ply situations which we'll get to later, but what we just did with economic development districts and larger Rural Community Hades those are in any of these watersheds are they? So in a sense by having narrowed that, I think it can be taking care of part of this.., you were referencing something along the lines of was the concern that regulations had changed ar did boundaries changes? Craig Benedict: It just seemed someone had wanted us to expand prohibited uses into other watersheds, such as Upper Erio Protected and Cane Creek Protected so we just wanted to state that we haven't changed any watershed shapes by virtue of this and as I mentioned earlier we have actually prohibited 3~ uses from Conditional Districts so we have actually tightened up mare that anything. when we send these responses back to local governments and the citizens I think some of the citizens saw it at the public hearing on Monday all that red and yellow which out of ~ ~ 1 uses, 8~ of them are gave in the majority of these areas. They probably didn't understand that and I think that will be part of the explanation. Our response is that the watersheds haven't changed and we have a high degree of exclusions within that area. Brian Crawford: ghat was the issue about the old text in the waste water treatment? Michael Harvey: vlje have in the current Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Section 6.2~, a prohibition an groundwater absorption systems over 3,Og0 gallon capacity within the AR and RB zoning districts without the issuance of a SUP, Essentially if it's 3,gg~ gallons a day treatment system, you have to have an SUP before you can do it. We don't have a definition of groundwater absorption system in the Ordinance and our big problem was we had to argue with applicants who may have a 4 ar 5 thousand gallon a day system that they argued, and we didn't have anything to back it up, that we are not a groundwater absorption system, you can't touch us, So in working with Environmental Health we developed a definition far wastewater treatment facilities, changed the name from groundwater absorption to wastewater treatment because it actually is a broader designation and would subject more septic systems fa having to get a Special Use Permit if they happen fa be aver 3,gg0 gallons a day. Uvhat we've done in the UDO is provide a defnition more consistent with state statute, mare consistent with suggestions from Environmental Health, and basically require more systems that could go over 3,00o gallons to have to get a Special Use Permit from the County Commissioners if they are going to locate in the Rural Buffer ar the AR zoning districts, Shannon Berry: I would like to add that the text said either a Special Use Permit ar Planned Development and since we will na longer have Planned Development we wilt only change Planned Development to Conditional Use. 120 1~