AGENDA #4f

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:       Report on Lots Created Prior to Current Development Ordinance Requirements

DATE:             July 5, 2000

This report responds to Council questions from February 28 asking how the Development Ordinance/Town Code could be revised to impose greater regulatory control over subdivision lots recorded prior to modern development ordinance requirements.

Adoption of the attached resolution would direct that upcoming revisions to the Development Ordinance incorporate consideration about development of existing lots which lack frontage on a publicly maintained road.

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2000, the Council received a petition from Village West residents concerned about development occurring nearby on Jay Street/Nunn Street Extension.  The Council referred this petition to the Manager, and also asked for a report regarding how situations like this could be better regulated.  We note that another agenda item tonight responds to a similar petition, brought to the Council on June 26.

We also note that on May 8, 2000, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the Council began consideration of ways to implement the Plan, including revision to the Development Ordinance.

DISCUSSION

We describe the defining characteristics of this situation as follows:  Legally created and recorded residential building lots, in areas where public infrastructure is not immediately available without extension (public streets, public water and sewer lines).  Owners of lawfully established, existing lots are entitled to a reasonable use of that property, which generally means construction of a single-family or two-family dwelling.  Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance does not require Council or Planning Board approval for construction of a single-family or two-family dwelling on an individual lot.  Tree protection provisions to not apply to the construction of a single-family or two-family dwelling.  And buffer provisions do not apply.   Building permits can be issued for a single-family or two-family dwelling on an individual lot upon demonstration that water and sewer can be made available (or that Orange County approves a well and septic tank), and upon demonstration that some access is available to the lot (possibly from a private driveway across a different property).  In this regulatory context, the Town is not able to require construction of roads or utility lines, or require landscape protection.

The Council has asked us to report on how many other situations like this exist in Town.  We estimate that the number of lots in circumstances like those described above are relatively few in number;  perhaps two or three dozen lots.  Our technique to arrive at this estimate was to use the Town’s Geographic Information System to display all lots that currently exist, where building value on the lot equals zero.  We then visually corrected the map to eliminate lots with schools, University facilities, and other governmental facilities where there is no tax value that appears in the system.  Next we eliminated parks, greenway segments, and dedicated open space, and last eliminated those lots that exist in standard subdivisions or on public streets, but which are currently vacant.

What is left is a relatively small number of lots, which can be described as being in situations similar to the Jay Street situation.  We observe that in most cases where this situation has occurred, there is a reason that the existing lots have not been developed previously.  Most of these parcels are difficult to develop, due to topography, remote location, or limited access.  We believe that for decades these lots had limited value while there was other, more buildable land in relatively plentiful supply.  As the supply of undeveloped land in Chapel Hill has dwindled, we believe that these parcels previously considered uneconomic to develop began to increase in value.  Our conclusion is that this problem is not extensive in nature, but one that warrants additional attention. 

We believe that there are two options for the Council’s consideration at this point:  Option 1 would be to do nothing, given the relatively limited scope of the problem.  Option 2 would be to direct the Town Manager to consider possibilities for additional regulation of construction for single-family and two-family dwellings.  There would be trade-offs to be considered:  For example, placing a new requirement on the development of single-family dwellings would likely instantly create hundreds of nonconforming properties, for existing dwellings that would not meet the new requirements.

RECOMMENDATION

Manager’s Recommendation:  Given the recent adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the initiation of the process to rewrite the Development Ordinance, we recommend that the concern regarding development of previously recorded lots that do not meet current regulations be incorporated into the revisions to the Development Ordinance.  We suggest that this be one of the issues studied by the consultant that will be retained to work on the ordinance.  (Note:  A separate item on tonight’s Council Agenda recommends selection of a consultant to begin this work.)

Adoption of the attached resolution would direct that this concern be incorporated in the revisions to the Ordinance.

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE conCERN ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF PREVIOUSLY RECORDED LOTS THAT DO NOT MEET CURRENT REGULATIONS be CONSIDERED DURING revisions to the Development Ordinance (2000-07-05/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has expressed concern about previously recorded lots that do not meet current standards in the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has initiated a process to revise the Development Ordinance as a recommended implementation step from the Town’s newly-adopted Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby directs that the concerns regarding development of about previously recorded lots that do not meet current standards be incorporated into work on revisions to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.

This the 5th day of July, 2000.