Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090223 APPROVED 4/21/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 23, 2009 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Joel Forrest Knight, II, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:49 PM. She called attention to the public charge. She turned the meeting over to Brian Crawford, Planning Board Chair. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Zoning Ordinance and Atlas Amendment: To receive public comment on creation of a new Zoning Overlay District entitled Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) incorporating the County's existing Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance within the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as well as amending the official Zoning Atlas map to delineate the SFHA on properties within the County encumbered by flood zones as delineated on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced this item. He said that it took about 1,700 certified mailings and about 6,000 postcard mailings to residents living within an adjacent area. Michael Harvey and Glen Bowles summarized parts of the PowerPoint presentation also. AGENDA ITEM: Cl QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING Review of a proposal to incorporate the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance into the existing Zoning Ordinance and onto the Official Zoning Atlas Why are we doing this? The County has been informed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State Office of Emergency Management that in order to continue participating within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) we had to revise the process utilized to review and process flood regulations and map amendments to be consistent with current Statutory requirements for zoning ordinance and atlas amendments. What is being proposed: Existing regulations, currently within the stand alone Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, are being placed within the Zoning Ordinance. How are we doing this? Staff proposes to create a new Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zoning Overlay District incorporating existing flood regulations within the Zoning Ordinance and incorporating Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data onto the Zoning Atlas. What is being proposed (continued): •Processing/approval of map amendments to existing FIRM data that have already been reviewed and approved by State and Federal officials, and •Revise existing subdivision regulations to reference the new location of flood regulations/definitions. Implications of proposed change: • No change to property owners • The proposed relocation of flood regulations will not have an impact on a property owner's ability to make use of their property outside of the floodplain. Existing regulations will still be in effect for any portion of a parcel of property located within an identified floodplain. • The only positive impact is related to the review and processing of Letters of Map Amendment (LOMA) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Parcels Notified of proposal (map) History: *Orange County began participating within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1981 •The County adopted a standalone Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) along with Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) *Approximately twenty four hundred (2400) properties within the County's planning jurisdiction are subject to compliance with flood regulations Why are we doing this now? •In anticipation of the revised 2007 FIRM amendments, the State Attorney General's office issued an opinion in 2005 indicating that amendments to existing flood regulations and/or flood maps ought to be treated and processed as zoning amendments •In the fall of 2006, the County Attorney's office concurred with this opinion •In the Fall of 2008 State and Federal officials conducted a Community Assistance Visit (CAV) with staff to review/audit the floodplain management program where we were told to being this process Why we are doing this (continued): Staff and the County Attorney had hoped to wait to incorporate flood regulations into the zoning ordinance when work began on developing the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Given the comments received from State officials during the community visit, we can not longer wait for development of the UDO to begin. Road Map for Amendments •42-31. Statutory Authority •42-32. Findings of Fact •42-33. Statement of Purpose •42-34. Objectives •42-35. Definitions •42-37. Lands to which this Ordinance applies •42-38. Basis for establishing the SFHA •42-39. Compliance •Article One (1)General Provisions— new Section 1.7 Statutory Authority (Section 42-31 of FDPO) •Article Four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule— new section establishing Purpose and Intent of the Special Flood Hazard Overlay District (includes Sections 42-32 through 42-33 and Sections 42-37 through 42-39 of FDPO) •Definitions will be moved to Article 22 Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance •42-40. Abrogation •42-41. Interpretation •42-42. Penalties for violation •42-66. Designation of Floodplain Administrator •42-67. Establishment of floodplain development permit •42-68. Floodplain development permit& certification requirements •42-69. Duties and responsibilities •Article Twenty-four (24) Legal Status Provisions and Effective Date is being amended to include Sections 42-40 through 42-42 of FDPO. •Article Twenty-one (21) Administration is being amended to include administrative references outlined within Sections 42-66, 42-67, and 42-69 of the FDPO •Article Fourteen (14) Site Plan Approval Procedures will include floodplain permitting requirements •42-70. Corrective Measures •42-71. Variance Procedures •42-91. General Standards •42-92. Specific Standards •42-93. Specific Standards —Approximate A Zones •42-94. Subdivisions et al. •42-95. Standards for areas of shallow flooding •42-96. Effect on outstanding floodplain development permits •Article Twenty-three (23) Enforcement will include section 42-70 of the FDPO •Article Two (2) Board of County Commissioners and its Administrative Mechanisms is being amended to include the Variance Procedures outlined within Section 42-71 of the FDPO •Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements is being amended to include the specific requirements for the proposed overlay district (includes Sections 42-91 through 42-96 of the FDPO) •42-97. Effect on rights and liabilities under existing FDPO •42-98. Effective date •Sections 42-97 through 42-98 of the FDPO are being placed within Article Twenty-four (24) Legal Status Provisions and Effective Date of the Zoning Ordinance Zoning Atlas — Incorporation of Flood Map Data (map) Additional work being proposed - FIRM Map Amendments •Letters of Map Amendment (LOMA) —5 A localized amendment only to the FIRM, •Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) —4 An amendment to the FIS and FIRM, and •Summary of Map Action (SOMA) -- 1. SOMA LOMAs & LOMRs (maps) Frequently Asked Questions: •Why did I receive a certified letter and/or postcard informing me of the PUBLIC HEARING? •Will this change and/or impose new flood regulations that may be applicable to my property? •How long have the floodplain regulations been in effect? •Who defines floodplain boundaries and how are they designated? •What if I want to challenge the location my property within a floodplain? Staff recommendation: 1. Receive the proposed amendments, 2. Conduct the public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed amendments, 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation with a recommendation be submitted back to the BOCC in time for the agenda scheduled for April 21, 2009 BOCC meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 21, 2009 to receive the Planning Board recommendation(s) and any submitted written comments. Rachel Phelps Hawkins arrived at 8:01 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs said that the notices were very difficult to understand. He asked for clarification on whether it would change anything about the additional notified properties beyond the affected property. Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the adoption of this ordinance. He said that qualified farms are exempt from zoning regulations under State statute. He noted on the proposed Part 1.5 that the farm exemption is supposedly not in effect with respect to this particular section of the zoning ordinance. He asked about the legal basis for exempting in Orange County certain parts of zoning from the bona fide farm exemption. Michael Harvey said that the Planning Department staff had the same concerns and the section was written based on the model of the Wake County Unified Development Ordinance after review with the County Attorney's Office. Commissioner Gordon said that the notice should have been clearer so that people would not have been forced to come out to the public hearing to get clarification. PUBLIC COMMENT: Lynette Hartsell spoke on behalf of the Friends of Lake Orange. She said that she asked for a copy of the letter from the Attorney General's Office that prompted this change. The letter is dated September 14, 2005, and is addressed to the National Flood Insurance Program. It was actually a memorandum. She said that the letter that she received addressed issues of FEMA, flood maps, and whether the maps can be incorporated. The issue addressed in the memorandum was whether or not future maps could be accepted without this kind of public notice. She said that she is confused that this is being moved under zoning. There is nothing in the letter that she read that you cannot have a standalone flood prevention ordinance. She said that the people in Lake Orange get nervous about these things. She said that the people in Lake Orange are concerned that their rights will be taken away from them. She said that there is a lot of distrust that the government will not act in the citizens' best interest. She said that there must be meaningful dialog and not just public hearings. She asked the County Commissioners to think outside the box and initiate a task force charged to identify problems and find solutions for Lake Orange and reach a binding agreement. Brent Clayton said that he bought 6.5 acres in 2000 and it was not in the floodplain. His property got put in a floodplain in 2007. He originally purchased his property behind the house that is there now. The floodplain took almost three acres of his property, and the property is now useless. He asked how this was helping him. Steve Richardson was with the Friends of Lake Orange. He said that there are vast gaps in the proposal and there are some State constitutionality questions. He urged the County Commissioners to decline to act on this unnecessary proposal. If the County Commissioners vote on this, he asked that they amend it specifically to honor and grandfather the special, perpetual, contractual rights with the County under the terms by which Lake Orange was gifted to the County 40 years ago, so that nothing within the technical zoning change can be construed as going against those rights in any way. Secondly, the property owners of Lake Orange have endured decades of bad experience with the County and are mistrustful. Several County Commissioners and staff have been welcoming, forthcoming, and have worked in good faith. He thanked those people. He said that these people were the exception. He said that the assurance that this change would have no effect on properties is not strictly true. He read a resolution that was proposed by the Friends of Lake Orange, as follows: "In the interest of reestablishing mutual trust and good will, eliminating future avoidable misunderstandings that could further divert all involved from their other interests, responsibilities, and duties, as well as potential future involvement of remote third parties whose interests may coincide with none of the Task Force members' there shall be established a Lake Orange Task Force. The Lake Orange Task Force shall be a group of no more than seven members, with designated alternates, comprised of representatives from the office of the Orange County Manager and the office of the Orange County Attorney, representatives of Friends of Lake Orange, and any other property owners claiming rights or interest in Lake Orange and the issues set forth below, and material stakeholders directly involved in Lake Orange and its management. The charter of the Lake Orange Task Force will be to resolve issues concerning water rights, including but not limited to: recreational rights, the Voluntary Capacity Users Group Agreement and the maintenance and administration of the usage of Lake Orange. The goal of the Task Force will be: to reach a binding agreement on these issues, define a future path for dealing with Lake Orange and establish methods for resolving future questions, based on a common understanding that considers and respects the rights, responsibilities and needs of all parties involved. When that consensus is reached and those methods are established, the charter of the Task Force will be fulfilled and the Task Force will end. The first order of business of the Lake Orange Task Force will be to obtain from each Task Force member a statement of its interests and perceived needs from which a concise and specific set of high-level tasks will be defined by the Task Force in support of its charter. Thereafter the Task Force will establish working groups and timelines for completion of each task." He submitted the resolution to the Clerk. Bruce Lucas lives on NC 86 North in Hillsborough. He said that he has water coming on both sides of the road into his branch and it floods his property. He asked for help in getting a bridge, which would stop some of the flooding. He submitted pictures as proof of the flooding. Carolyn Fuller lives in Efland and she has some property in the floodplain. She asked how this was affecting the property and if there was anything they needed to do. Brian Crawford asked that someone from the staff address this question after the meeting. Greg Plachta said that he is a concerned citizen and he agrees with the Friends of Lake Orange. Ed Johnson said that he lives beside a creek and he wants to raise some concerns about data gathering. He made reference to a letter from the Planning Department and said that he lives close enough to the creek that the Planning Department sent out a surveyor and wrote this letter with recommendations and photographs of the property with yellow lines giving sea level elevations. He said that this photograph with the elevations is full of errors. He wonders if other people have been plagued by these errors. Because of these errors, he has no faith in the recommendations made concerning his property. Ken Terlep read a prepared statement: My name is Ken Terlep and I am a member of the "Friends of Lake Orange". My property borders Lake Orange and is within the proposed Special Flood Hazard Overlay District that is included in the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. I have two primary comments about the proposed Amendment: 1. Although it has been stated that there is no additional restriction to property owners with property that is in the new Special Flood Hazard Overlay District, the specific wording to be placed in the Amendment has not been provided. I think we all must have the chance to review the actual words in the Amendment before a final Public Hearing is held. When will the specific wording be available so a comprehensive review can be made? 2. I have seen a map of the flood elevation contour for my property superimposed on a map of my property boundaries and the 615' elevation contour which is the same elevation as the spillway for Lake Orange. Some inconsistencies can be seen by examining the various contours shown on or near my property. I question the accuracy of the data when displayed together and to be used for compliance assessment according to the Zoning Ordinance. I have been cautioned on many occasions by Orange County Staff that the GIS data available has limited accuracy and that, as stated on the GIS website: "Orange County and its vendors assume no legal responsibility for the information". How can it be used for assessment of compliance to the proposed Special Flood Hazard Overlay? What accuracy is ascribed to the Flood Maps relative to the County's data for property boundary lines? I also support the proposals made by Lynette Hartsell and Steve Richardson who have previously talked tonight— requesting the Commission to recognize the unique status of Lake Orange and to establish a Task Force to address issues pertinent to property owners and others with interest in the access to and the use of Lake Orange. Ken Terlep Cedar Grove February 23rd, 2009 Craig Benedict said that the exact words of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance as it is being incorporated into the zoning ordinance is available through the internet and in the postcards that were sent out. John Hartwell said that his house sits close to the Eno River on a steep bank. He has a Certification of Elevation. He said that the maps are being amended and the public should see all of the information. Judith Kramer owns a home on New Hope Creek, which has flooded twice in the last 12 years. She commended the County for considering taking this action to ensure that the residents of Orange County have access to the National Flood Insurance Program. She said that there is a benefit of having FEMA's protection in a flood situation. She has some concerns about the methods of notification of important changes in the flood maps when property is affected. She said that she was shocked to find out from her mortgage company that she was no longer in a floodplain, because she never received notification by the County or FEMA. This was related to the change in a map in 2007. She knew that she was at risk of flooding because her home was flooded during a hurricane. She suggested taking history into account. Robert Brown lives near a creek. He said that the flooding that he has seen has been due to water restrictions or the size of the bridge, which has backed the water up. Wallace Williams said that he and his wife live 80 feet above the floodplain. He asked if the Planning Board would give him a hard time if he tried to build something on his property. Commissioner Jacobs asked Geof Gledhill if the Planning staff goes onto property without permission for elevation assessments and Geof Gledhill said no, but they only respond to permit requests. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the public hearing until April 21, 2009 to receive the Planning Board recommendations and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to Article 2, Sections 2.2.14.3 through 2.2.14.9, of the Zoning Ordinance clarifying the procedures and requirements for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Special Projects Planner Shannon Berry made this presentation. PowerPoint presentation for item C-2 Zoning Ordinance Amendments —Article 2 Clarification of procedures and notification requirements for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendments to Article 2 address Comprehensive Plan (text& map) amendments only Comprehensive Plan —Text Amendments —Land Use Plan (Map) Amendments Zoning Ordinance —Text Amendments —Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments N.C. General Statutes North Carolina law does not provide guidelines or procedures for the adoption or amendment of comprehensive plans Orange County Zoning Ordinance Article 2- Sections 2.2.12 through 2.2.14.3 address the Comprehensive Plan specifically O 2.2.12 Comprehensive Plan, Intent O 2.2.13 Comprehensive Plan Adoption O 2.2.14 Amendment of Adopted Comprehensive Plan O 2.2.14.1 Initiation of Amendments O 2.2.14.2 Classification of Amendments O 2.2.14.3 Consideration of Amendments 2.2.14.3 Consideration of Amendments "Except as noted herein, the submission and consideration of applications for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall be governed by the procedures contained in Article 20 of this Ordinance." Article 20. Amendments Article 20 deals specifically with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and provides detailed procedures and requirements for processing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance •The only references to the Comprehensive Plan are in regard to the Zoning Ordinance's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Amendments to Article 2 - Intent •Establish clear and concise procedures and notification requirements for applications for amendments to the adopted Comprehensive Plan —Submittal requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments —Notification requirements, including newspaper advertisements, mailed notices, and posting of the affected property —Processes, including, but not limited to; timing of notifications and public hearings; Planning Board, BOCC, and staff actions; and applicant options •Logical placement of specific procedures and requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments within the Zoning Ordinance —Article 2 addresses the Comprehensive Plan, while Article 20 deals with Zoning Ordinance amendments only —Easier to follow and understand procedures and requirements; simplify Key Points •Procedures and requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendments clearly articulated in Article 2 — references to Article 20 removed •For County initiated amendments to the Land Use Plan (Map), a rezoning for the same property may be considered at the same public hearing Recommendation •Receive the proposed amendments to Article 2 •Conduct the public hearing to solicit and consider public input •Forward the item to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request a recommendation be submitted back to the BOCC in time for the April 21, 2009 meeting •Adjourn the public hearing until April 21, 2009 to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any written comments submitted Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the current cost for an application fee and Craig Benedict said that there is a base rate plus an acreage fee. The fee is $2,500 for a land use plan amendment. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about an advisory board making a text amendment. Craig Benedict said that this would be approved by the County Commissioners. The fee would come into effect if it was not a County initiative. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.2.14.6 and the submission of oral evidence to the Planning Board. He said that this makes the Planning Board meetings a second public hearing, and he does not think that this is wise. Craig Benedict said that this public would stay open until it is closed in April. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is concerned that the requirements of this prohibit reapplication for a one-year period after denial. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 11, 2.2.14.3 and the last paragraph and said that this would give County-initiated amendments a different status. She said that the County amendments should be treated the same as others. She noted several places where there were differences. Commissioner Jacobs said that at the beginning with the Board of County Commissioners' responsibilities should be to provide direction to the Planning Board. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Annual Report on page 6 and said that the County Commissioners have supposedly been getting annual reports about subdivision activity in Orange County. He does not recall seeing these recently. He challenged staff to have a master list of annual reports that have been promised. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 10, 2.2.14.2, Creation of New Activity Nodes. He asked about the size of the current activity nodes. Craig Benedict said that an activity node now is 200-300 acres. Ten acres would be very minor in comparison. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Gordon that the County should not be treated differently than members of the public as far as making application. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the notice in the newspaper and said that the dense text does not communicate very well to the public. He suggested discussing this and coming up with a better way to communicate with the public on these issues. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is pleased that there can be oral evidence at Planning Board meetings. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to 2.4.2 on page 20 and said that he would like to add a legal department and Environment and Resource Conservation to the Development Advisory Committee. Jay Bryan said that there needs to be consideration of another approach regarding the Comprehensive Plan. He would hate to see minimal changes coming in piece meal without notifying the people (i.e., boards and organizations) that have been involved in it. He suggested thinking of a way for a certain volume of amendments to be grouped together and that the notification process goes out to all of the boards and groups involved. Judith Wegner made reference to page 10 and the purposes for possible amendments and said that there would probably be other reasons for amendments. She made reference to 2.2.14.6 and 2.2.14.7 and said that she agrees with having the oral evidence presented. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to forward the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for review and comment with a request that a recommendation be submitted back to the BOCC in time for the April 21, 2009 BOCC meeting and adjourn the public hearing until April 21, 2009 to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoning Atlas Amendment — 214 Phelps Road. To receive public comment on the proposed following actions: a. Rezone a portion of the property from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), specifically the area of the property currently utilized to support a commercial landscape operation, and b. Rezone the existing EC-5 zoned portion of the subject property to AR. Michael Harvey made this presentation. AGENDA ITEM: C3 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING Review of a Zoning Atlas Petition for a parcel of property at 214 Phelps Road (TMBL 2.46..40H / PIN 9866-58-5983). Property Vicinity Map: APPLICATION SPECIFICS: •Applicant: Planning Staff/Charles and Mary Beth Helgevold •Address: 214 Phelps Road •TMBL/ PIN: 2.46..40H /9866-58-5983 •Size of Parcel: 4 %2 acres •Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Agricultural Residential, Little River Protected Watershed, •Township: CEDAR GROVE •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Agricultural Residential Rezoning request: Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5 Surrounding Land Uses: •NORTH: Single-family residential and undeveloped parcels of property zoned AR. •SOUTH/EAST/WEST: Single-family residential zoned AR. There are also several existing EC-5 and El zoned properties in the area. Zoning Officer Analysis: 1. The application is deemed to be complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance, 2. Staff alleges a mapping error, in accordance with Section 20.3.2 (c) of the Ordinance, as the primary justification for the review of the application, 3. Staff believes that by re-configuring the existing EC-5 zoning lot on the property that the mapping error can be corrected and the existing non-residential operation made conforming with the Ordinance, 4. The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendations: 1. Receive the Zoning Atlas amendment petition, 2. Conduct the public hearing to hear and consider public comment on the request to: a. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Agricultural Residential (AR), and b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 19, 2009 BOCC meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. PUBLIC COMMENT: Charles Helgevold said that he moved to this property in 1990, started the business, and found out that Cedar Grove was going to be zoned. He was available to answer questions. Kim Callemyn said that she has been doing survey work for the Helgevold's, and she is happy for the cooperation of the County. She was available to answer questions. Sue Browning lives across the road from the applicant. She said that she was not aware that there was ever a rezoning for an EC section of 46,000 square feet. She said that the existing business is at the front, which is zoned AR. She said that this is a business in the middle of a residential section, and she never understood how this happened. Michael Harvey said that the landscaping operation began prior to the adoption of the comprehensive zoning of the Cedar Grove Township. In effect, the property was "unzoned." The County created the EC-5 zoning designation in townships where initial zoning was taking place in an effort to ensure that legal operations would not be made non-conforming during initial zoning. Regarding why the business cannot be moved, he said that the business is where it is and the EC-5 designation should have been located at the front portion of the property. If it were moved it would create additional problems and an access issue. The cleanest way to fix this problem is the recommendation. Richard Browning said that before the Helgevold's came to this property, there was not a business there. Michael Harvey explained the process again. Richard Browning said that there is a huge pile of mulch there most of the time. He does not see how the business was allowed to begin with because there has never been a business there. Kathryn Browning lives more than 500 feet away from the property and she can hear the noise from the business and the heavy loading equipment. She asked about future traffic flow as far as expansion of this with the rezoning. Michael Harvey said that the County has an existing noise ordinance enforced by the Sheriff's Department. Regarding expansion, once the area is rezoned, it will be limited to this portion of the property. There is a prohibition on expansion of existing EC-5. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 19, 200 BOCC meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive-thru facilities. Michael Harvey summarized this information. This issue was brought up during the review of a recent development project. Staff would like to seek direction from the Board about what it would like to do as there are opportunities for economic development, specifically with the Buckhorn Village project. There are two options: 1. Adopt regulations banning the development and/or use of such facilities throughout the County's planning jurisdiction, or 2. Adopt regulations designed to mitigate the impacts of such facilities through the imposition of buffering and site design standards. Commissioner Nelson asked about the exemption of stand-alone ATMs. Michael Harvey said that there are drive-up ATMs in a lot of the jurisdictions and these are very beneficial. Commissioner Nelson said that his interest in pursuing this is reducing greenhouse gases. He is fine with option 1. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County should not ban drive-throughs if it is trying to promote itself as business-friendly. Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Nelson's comments and argued that the County should try and attract certain kinds of businesses. She would like to change people's habits and still be business-friendly. Commissioner Jacobs said that he might agree with the stand-alone ATMs, but if there is a bank, there should not be a drive-through teller. He suggested that staff do research on other jurisdictions in the country that have been successful in banning drive-thrus and the other models that are out there. Michael Harvey said that the staff did some research and did not come up with anything conclusive. It was not exhaustive research. Commissioner Pellisier clarified that schools would be exempt from this ban. Commissioner Jacobs said that he had a conversation with Ms. Bobbitt-Cooke about this before the meeting and she pointed out that the Forsyth County Schools ask/require parents to turn off their cars while they are in the drop-off/pick-up lane. He would like to put something in writing to the school systems to try and work toward having people either not drive or at least turn off cars. Commissioner Gordon pointed out the issues with the aging population and people with small children in their cars. There are several aspects to think about, in addition to the environmental aspect. She would like to think about this more in terms of how to go about this. Michael Harvey made reference to attachment 2 and the facts about car idling. Commissioner Foushee supported Commissioner Yuhasz's and Commissioner Gordon's comments. She said that what some people see as a convenience, other people see as a necessity. Craig Benedict said that the only hybrid idea was a carwash type conveyor belt, where people would get in line at a drive-through and be shuttled through like a car wash. Staff will continue its research. Mark Marcoplos made reference to attachment 2 and said that cars should be turned off after 6-10 seconds and not 30 seconds. He said that it seems that car idling is the issue here, and there should be signs to tell people to turn off their cars while they are waiting. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said that she is struck by the fact that nobody has ever requested a drive-through ordinance. She cautioned the County Commissioners to step back and not put regulations in place when they are not even being asked for. She suggested not being progressive through regulation, but being innovative. She believes in a combination of policy and education. PUBLIC COMMENT Melvin Whitfield said that all of the creeks and branches on his property have already been graded, dug out, fenced, and sown with grass. He asked if there was any point in doing anything with this. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Hillsborough Economic Development District that was developed jointly 8-10 years ago banned drive-thrus and Hillsborough ignores this in approving developments. Commissioner Nelson said that Carrboro has had a prohibition for drive- thrus since 1994. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the agenda schedule of the June 2, 2009 BOCC meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until June 2, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs asked that there be a longer microphone stem for the public on March Td. Also, he thinks that there should be a North Carolina and an American flag in this room. D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 PM. Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board