Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-23-2010 APPROVED 9/21/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION August 23, 2010 7:00p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Monday, August 23, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, North Carolina N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Alice Gordon COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. She said that Commissioners Nelson, Pelissier, and Gordon are unable to attend this meeting. Judith Wegner said that a devoted member of the Planning Board, Mary Bobbitt Cooke, has passed away. She was a great inspiration to all. The Board observed a moment of silence. 1. First Draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Craig Benedict said that tonight is a work session with the Planning Board invited and this is not a public hearing item. The public hearing on this item will be in November. There will be three speakers— Craig Benedict, Roger Walden, and Perdita Holtz. Craig Benedict introduced Roger Walden, the consultant from Clarion Associates. He also thanked his staff— Perdita Holtz, Shannon Berry, Tom Altieri, and Michael Harvey. He said that this project was a challenge. Orange County Unified Development Ordinance Quick Presentation Overview - Project Scope - Tasks Completed Since May 2010 BOCC Update - UDO in Phases - First Draft UDO - Submitting Comments - Next Steps - Questions/Discussion Project Scope - Combine multiple County land use-related ordinances into one cohesive document (6 into 1) - Reorganize into a new format - Eliminate existing contradictions and inconsistencies - New/updated regulations o Signage o Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection o Parking and Loading o Stream Buffers o Lighting (not completed in this phase) - Develop Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning processes - Update graphics and tables - Recommendations for next phases Tasks Completed Since May 2010 BOCC Update - Advisory Board Courtesy Review o Rough Drafts of `new' regulations - Planning Board Review o Rough Drafts of `new' regulations plus conditional use, subdivisions, and general provisions o Two Public Information Sessions held in June o Scheduled Next Public Information Session (September 8) o Released First Draft UDO document on August 13 UDO in Phases - Staff authorized by BOCC to pursue specific items o Goal: create a UDO format using existing standards and language to the greatest extent possible - Implementation Bridge o Consultant preparing o Document comments o Recommend subsequent UDO amendments - Adoption of this "framework" phase permits County to prioritize and focus on amendments to sections in future phases What This Phase Doesn't Do - Does not change approval processes - Does not change standards, performance levels, or dimensions - Does not drastically streamline sections o content/intent is often changed by abridgement o philosophical changes could lead to lengthy debate CONSULTANT/STAFF WORK -- ISSUES RAISED FOR SUBESQUENT WORK - Identifying Comprehensive Plan policies that can be implemented through UDO - Annual review and prioritization - Procedural Changes: o Process incentives for targeted commercial, office, and light-industrial development o Public notification requirements o Further streamlining - Flexible Form-Based Zoning Districts - Use regulations: o Airport zoning o Adult entertainment uses BEST PRACTICES - Ideas from other communities facing similar issues - Review of potential applicability to Orange County - Examples: o Standards that promote sustainability o Adjustments to Conditional District standards o Additional or adjusted Overlay Districts o Procedural adjustments o Urban vs. rural clusters FRAMEWORK FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES - Adoption of new UDO as discussed tonight - "Implementation Bridge" memorandum - Subsequent direction from Board about which additional changes to pursue First Draft UDO — Overview - Uses existing language and standards o Zoning Ordinance o Subdivision Regulations o Environmental Impact Ordinance o Economic Development Design Manual o Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance o Stormwater Ordinance - Footnotes used throughout to document where language is from or other pertinent information - Proposed deletions in strike-through font - Proposed additions in red - "Notes" page - Comparative Table lists all existing ordinances and sections along with where they can be found in the UDO or whether suggested for deletion - PDF available on CD or on-line o Table of Contents hyperlinked in electronic versions Articles - Administration - Procedures - Base Zoning Districts - Overlay Zoning Districts - Uses - Development Standards - Subdivisions - Nonconformities - Enforcement - Definitions Appendices New Regulations - Conditional Districts - Signage - Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection - Parking and Loading - Stream Buffers - Outdoor Lighting (not completed in this phase) Conditional Districts Conditional Use - Replaces part of the existing Planned Development process - Rezoning to a CU district linked to an existing general purpose district - Specific limited uses on a site - Regular standards apply - Site specific development plan and concurrent Class A Special Use Permit Conditional Zoning - Many components come from existing Planned Development process - Rezoning to a specific CZ zoning district for a specific use(s) o Potential uses listed in Table of Permitted Uses - Site specific development plan or master plan (master plan for MPD-CZ only) Conditional Use - Any use listed on the Table of Permitted Uses o Except uses specifically excluded from consideration (Section 5.1.4) - Any variations to linked general zoning district standards must be approved by the BOCC. - Any conditions and/or site-specific standards imposed are limited to those that address: o the conformance of the development and use of the site to County ordinances and officially adopted comprehensive or other plan, and o the impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or use of the site. - The applicant must agree to all conditions. - Limitations within the Rural Buffer land use designation o only residential, institutional and professional services uses permitted - Neighborhood information meeting required prior to public hearing o intended to be more proactive versus reactive - Positives: o Know what use(s) are permitted on a site and generally what it will look like. o Can attach specific conditions to ensure the use and the site development will be compatible with neighbors • can mitigate any impacts which may reasonably be expected from the development (i.e. traffic, noise, light, etc.) o Permits development flexibility, while still limiting any impacts to surrounding properties or area. - Legislative (rezoning) and Quasi-judicial (Class A SUP) proceeding o approval/denial based on competent, substantial evidence presented at public hearing - Not for speculative purposes o Construction must begin within 12 months of approval o Potentially permitted on six month extension Conditional Zoning - Specific zoning district with a specific list of permitted uses - Three conditional zoning districts in this first phase of the UDO o MHP-CZ (Mobile Home Park district; replaces PD-MHP but does not require Class A SUP approval) o PID-CZ (Public Interest District; replaces existing PID general zoning district) o MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development; replaces many of the components of the existing PD-MU) - Like conditional use, will know what will be developed on site and generally what it will look like - Legislative decision - Limitations within the Rural Buffer land use designation o only residential, institutional and professional services uses permitted - Neighborhood information meeting required prior to public hearing o intended to be more proactive versus reactive - Potential future phase conditional zoning districts noted in Section 3.7 footnote o Agricultural Support Enterprises o Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) o Transit Oriented Development (TOD) o Airport Master Plan Development (MPD-CZ) - Primarily for mixed use developments o single use developments may be permitted o Many components come from the existing Planned Development regulations - Instead of a site specific development plan, a detailed Master Plan is submitted and approved with the rezoning petition - Details of the Master Plan are in Section 6.7. - Permits certain flexibilities to deal with changing market conditions (Section 6.7.2) - Each development area within the overall MPD-CZ must have staff approval of a site specific development plan prior to construction o consistent with the MPD-CZ Master Plan parameters approved by the BOCC - MPD-CZ rezoning approval can specify project review and construction time frames for approval for each development area - Ideal for business and industrial parks - Master infrastructure developer possible with later sales of individual lots Signage (Section 6.12) - A re-work of existing regulations - Rectify existing issues and conditions within the County - Many new signage definitions added to Article 10 - Incorporates some existing standards o (i.e. comprehensive sign standards for parks & recreation facilities) - Incorporates the sign regulations and standards from EDD Design Manual o More work to be done on this section with the business community as part of an economic development effort Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection (Section 6.8) - Explains what and how many should be planted o Native/ Drought Tolerant - Permits some flexibility in timing and placement of plant materials - Establishes maintenance requirements to ensure continued viability of plant materials - Includes screening requirements for on-site activities (outdoor storage, refuse containers, loading facilities, etc.) - Incorporates additional landscaping and buffering requirements from EDD Design Manual o More review in progress Parking, Loading, and Site Access (Section 6.9) - Will rename "Parking, Loading & Circulation" in next draft - Re-work of existing regulations - New regulations include: o Criteria for renovations and adaptive re-use projects' compliance with parking requirements o Specific design standards for on-site parking and loading areas o Allowance for shared parking and reduction in required on-site parking if uses have varying peak hours of use - Incorporates parking and loading standards from EDD Design Manual o Review in progress to determine overlaps and/or inconsistencies Stream Buffers (Section 6.13) - Additional uses added to the lists of uses permitted within Stream Buffers o Consistent with State regulations - New category of `uses permitted with mitigation' Stream Buffers (continued) Uses Proposed to be Added - Archaeological activities - Dam/reservoir maintenance activities - Maintenance of existing outfalls - Driveway crossings or single-family residential with limitations - Greenways and/or hiking trails - Historic preservation projects - Periodic maintenance of modified natural streams - Public water and sewer lines, with limitations - Stormwater management ponds, with limitations - Steam restoration; stream bank stabilization - Wetland restoration - Vegetation Management Stream Buffers (continued) Uses Proposed to be Added (with Mitigation) - Docks, pier, boat ramps, etc. - New drainage outfalls, with limitations - Driveway crossings for single-family (< 150 feet), with limitations - Driveways and/or roadways for single-family and subdivisions, parallel to water body - Greenways & hiking trails with improved paths, with limitations - Trail crossings with bridges or similar structures, with limitations - Public water and sewer lines, with limitations - Temporary roads - New stormwater ponds - Vegetation Management, with one-time fertilizer application Submitting Comments - Written comments are encouraged - 9:00 a.m. on Monday, September 20 is deadline for receipt of comments in order to be considered for inclusion in the public hearing draft - Request use of comment form available on CD and website - Planning staff will incorporate comments into public hearing draft Next Steps - Aug 23: BOCC work session - Sep 1: Planning Board Meeting (further review) - Sep 8: Public Outreach Meeting - Sep 20 (9:00 a.m.): Comment Deadline - Sep 20— 30: Planning staff reviews and incorporates comments (similar to Comprehensive Plan process) - Oct 1: Updated document to Consultant to insert graphics, format tables, and general polishing for Public Hearing Draft - Nov 1: "Proof" Public Hearing Draft due from Consultant for Planning staff review - Nov 4: Final staff edits due to Consultant - Nov 4: BOCC approval of legal ad (including information for a Public Information Meeting) - Nov 8: Public Hearing Draft UDO posted on-line - Nov 12: QPH agenda packets distributed - Nov 15— 19 (exact date TBD): One Public Information Meeting - Nov 22: Quarterly Public Hearing - Dec—Jan: Planning Board Recommendation - Jan - Feb: BOCC action Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the County Commissioners should go through specific questions now or submit them in written form. Chair Foushee said to make any comments now. Commissioner Jacobs suggested doing it section by section. Craig Benedict said that he would put together a document that will explain where there is consensus in the comments. Section 1 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Authority and read, "The purpose of establishing comprehensive development regulations for designated portions of Orange County," and said that these portions should be designated pretty quickly in this document. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 1.1.9 and said that b' talks about, "The more restricted provision governed is subject to approval by the County Attorney." He asked if this authority should be given solely to the County Attorney. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the next few paragraphs dealing with the Town of Chapel Hill development standards were not clear to him at all. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 1.2 and Purpose and Intent. He said that there is nowhere that explicitly says, "protect the natural environment." He thinks this should be included. He made reference to Section 1.1.8, Regulation of Farm Activities, and the exceptions and asked if the Neuse River Standards applied to agriculture. It was answered no. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 1.1.9 where it lists Chapel Hill and Carrboro and asked if there was an agreement with Hillsborough. Perdita Holtz said that this language will be included once the Land Use Plan is adopted with Hillsborough. This page is related to the Joint Planning Agreement. Commissioner Jacobs asked that this be added as a footnote. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 1.1.14 and the Transitional Provisions. He said that this should be liberalized a little so that it is not so restrictive when people are trying to build. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a chart that shows where someone is in the development process. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 1.1.17 and read, "all existing regulations not contained within this ordinance are hereby repealed." He said that he is not sure that this should be worded in this way. He understands the intent. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 1.4.1-b and changed the wording to "actively serving" instead of"physically serving." In Section 1.6.1-c, Commissioner Yuhasz said that the sentence about each Township within the County should be written better. In Section 1.6.2, Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is not sure that a one-year hiatus for a member is sufficient. He suggested extending this. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is true of all boards. It was answered that this is in the by-laws and Commissioner Yuhasz said that the by-laws should be referenced in this section. Commissioner Yuhasz said that on page 116 there is a list of duties of the Planning Board that are being eliminated. He asked why this was being done. Perdita Holtz said that some of the duties are elsewhere and some are being eliminated. Commissioner Jacobs asked for the staff rationale in writing about these duties. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 1.7.2 and the Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the word `agriculture' never appears that he can see. He suggested putting it under Land Use Element, Economic Development Element, or somewhere else appropriate. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the section below this and said that it is ok to say "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" as opposed to "Chairperson" and "Vice-Chairperson." Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 1.10.2-f and made a language change, "all new or substantially improved structures as required by this ordinance." In Section 1.4-m, Commissioner Yuhasz asked where it addresses the effect of a letter of map amendment on how the zoning ordinance deals with applications of the FEMA maps. He is concerned that there could be a letter of map amendment and still there are things in the ordinance in the floodplain section that require applying the strict boundary. Section 2 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 2.2.4-a, "Application forms detailing the specific requirements for each specific type," and said that, "detailing the requirements for each specific type," would suffice. Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a Table of Actions, but there is no mention of appeals. He thinks this should be in this section. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.2.1 and a notarized letter sent by the owners. He thinks that this should be limited to the owners as identified on the Orange County tax records and not put a burden on the staff or the County Attorney. In Section 2.2.4, Commissioner Yuhasz and read, "applications must be submitted in the form and quantity required by the official responsible for accepting the application." He thinks that this should be required by ordinance and not by the individual who is in charge of accepting the application. Commissioner Jacobs asked why there was flexibility on this and Perdita Holtz said that it was because there are now Erosion Control and Floodplain applications part of this, and all of those require a different number of applications. Commissioner Jacobs suggested erring on the side of asking for the most copies possible as opposed to what is necessarily a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not want the form of the application to be determinable at the whim of the person who accepts the application. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.2.5 and said that `a' and `b' say "pre-application meeting", but `c' says "pre-application conference." This will be changed. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to `c' in this section and said that, even though it says, "including but not limited to," as long as OWASA is being listed, it could also list Orange Alamance Water Systems. In Section 2.2.7-c, Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is not sure why, if the applicant withdraws after the notice but before the hearing itself, it should have to be treated as a denial. Perdita Holtz said that it is the existing process, but the reason for it is so that someone who has a lot of opposition coming cannot suddenly withdraw the application and then reapply in three months. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 2.2.8 and said that if someone withdraws, they should not have to wait a year. Frank Clifton said that this is a change from the existing process. He said that there needs to be a process. He understands the need to work with the development community, but this frustrates the intent of the public if the public hearings are delayed, etc. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is an advocate of the public having adequate time to weigh in, but he has noticed that staff will try and work with people right up until the public hearing. He said that if staff tells a developer that something has to be changed the day before the public hearing and the developer does not want it, he does not understand why the developer should be penalized for a year while it is reworked. Frank Clifton said that the issue is not the time but that there is continuity and a process in place. Commissioner Jacobs said that the withdrawal should be six months. Chair Foushee asked staff to take this under consideration and provide options. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the date of the denial and if it is the date that someone withdraws or the date of the public hearing. Perdita Holtz said that it is the date of the withdrawal. Commissioner Yuhasz said that this needs to be indicated. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 2.2.6-c and the second sentence, and said that it should say, "If the application is not acted upon within this timeframe." Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 2.3.3-c and said that it refers to 2.3.1- b, which is a flowchart. Perdita Holtz said that this should be 2.3.2-b. Commissioner Jacobs said that the heading for Section 2.3.2 should be General Requirements or General Standards. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.3.5 and the required public hearing and asked why this was not a quarterly public hearing. Perdita Holtz said that this is the existing language and it can be changed to the quarterly public hearing. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to notice requirements for public hearings and said that as part of the County notifying the public, the County website could be used. He said that this could be part of the notification process. Perdita Holtz said that the County could not use the website in lieu of published notifications. Craig Benedict said that a lot of the notification statutes are becoming archaic. He will be bringing some ideas forward about how to be more efficient in this area. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.3.8-b-1 and the fully- dimensioned map, which is not defined anywhere. He asked that this be defined somewhere. He suggested having some flexibility here, depending on the size of the amendment. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.4.3 on page 2-12 and items 4, 5, and 6 and said that it should say "location of the proposed driveway, the proposed septic system, etc." because those may not exist at the time the plot plan was drawn. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Zoning Compliance Permits and said that there is no reference to the solid waste process of requiring that deconstruction be considered versus demolition. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 2-13, Section 2.5.2, and site- specific development plans and said that in some other location it talks about plans being prepared by the appropriately licensed professional. He thinks that this needs to include architects also. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 2.5.3-h and Best Practices, Urban vs. Rural Clusters. He said that the Board has talked about differentiating traffic impacts based on rural character and suburban character. He does not remember seeing this captured anywhere. He wants to flag this. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to 2-15 and said that he was not clear about how some things fit into this because it seems like a laundry list, but there is no mention of the lighting plan, natural areas inventory, or anything related to solid waste. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he likes the idea that this document will be brought down to just a brochure, but he is not sure how that will happen. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the application for a special use permit required to be six months prior to the expiration. He said that this is half of what is generally a one-year process and a lot can happen in those last six months that would cause a delay. He suggested cutting this down to a minimum of three months prior. Perdita Holtz said that this was something that the Board discussed and Commissioner Gordon had a lot of concerns about time limits. That is where the language came from. She said that it could be changed to three months. Chair Foushee said that she is more comfortable with six months. Commissioner Jacobs asked to see the pros and cons of the timeframe. Craig Benedict said that the complexity was also an issue. Frank Clifton suggested extending the expiration deadline up to six months. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.8.3-a and the fully- dimensioned map again. He said that this has to be an appropriate scale. In Section 2.8.10 and 11, Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to sedimentation control and storm water that provide that the Erosion Control Officer makes recommendations to the State on his/her own. He said that it seems that those recommendations ought to come to the Board of County Commissioners before going to the State. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.10.3-b and the alleged hardships and practical difficulties and the inability to use the land in question for any reasonable use. He thinks that there is always some use. On page 2-49, number 3, Commissioner Yuhasz said that the listings of the reasons for bearings there are different from the reasons in 2.10.3. Michael Harvey said that it has to be different because of the requirements of FEMA. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 2-40, Section 2.9.21-c-1-a-3, and read, "the appropriate environmental document prepared in accordance with Section 6.16." He said that it is a huge document and it would be nice if it stated what Section 6.16 is or at least referred to the page. Frank Clifton said that a heading would be a better reference than the page number. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.12.1-b and Stop Work Order. He asked about the options for an applicant if the Planning Director issues a Stop Work Order the day after a Board of Adjustment meeting and the next scheduled meeting is not for 30 days. County Attorney John Roberts said that the applicant could appeal. Frank Clifton said that he has been involved in something similar where the applicant was allowed a special hearing of the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.13.2.2 and including control corners. He said that this was not needed because control corners are not always required. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.13.2-d and read, "any application for an exempt subdivision shall comply with all applicable provisions of this ordinance that are in effect at the time the final approval is sought." He said that if, in fact, it is an exempt subdivision, then none of the provisions of this ordinance with regard to platting apply. He thinks that this is not needed. Craig Benedict said that since this is a UDO it should say that it is exempt from the subdivision rules of the State, but other applicable sections may apply. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the subdivision regulations specifically deal with platting of lines and the enabling legislation specifically exempts exempt plats from the regulations. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 2-61 and said that in one paragraph it references seven days and in the next paragraph it references five business days. Craig Benedict said that it should be five business days. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 2-63-g and read, "if the Erosion Control plan is not required, a copy of the final plan must be signed by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer....." He said that in 30 years of preparing plats in Orange County, he has never seen an Erosion Control Officer sign a plat. He said that this is not needed. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 2-64 and the applicant recording the approved plat and associated documents. He said that there has been a problem identified with all of the associated documents not always being recorded. He said that staff is now going over to the Register of Deeds to make sure that everything is actually recorded. He thinks that this should be formalized somehow. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 2-66-c-2-a, and said that all references to an Orange County tax map being provided should be removed since Orange County does not provide tax maps anymore. On page 2-72, Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to a list of other agencies that are invited to make comments on proposals and that there is no deadline for those agencies to respond. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 2-74-7-g and said that he did not know what"methods of certification" meant in this case. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 2.17 and vacation of recorded plats. He asked if this was saying that if someone wanted to put a subdivision back together because the lots did not sell that they had to go through a major subdivision process. Frank Clifton said that there would have to be some methodology for this. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for a better explanation of why this was needed. Discussion ensued on this issue. Chair Foushee asked if the staff could look at revising this and bring back some revised language. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he liked the layout of the districts, but it would be helpful if the table included references to the sections that explained the different parts of the table. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to EC5 and said that there are cases where property that was commercial at the time of adoption was not identified as commercial. He thinks that the County would want to be able to zone those as EC5 if appropriate, and he does not think that this allows that. Commissioner Jacobs said that there are two different medium intensities and three different high-intensity residential designations. He said that it seems like there should be some language that could differentiate between three kinds of high-intensity residential and two kinds of medium-intensity residential. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is mention in one of the economic development districts — Hillsborough Limited Office with Residential — and said that Buckhorn Village had residential, but he is not sure that the way this is written that it would be allowed. Perdita Holtz said that it would be on the permitted use table. Craig Benedict said that right now they have left the structure and usage within the economic development districts as they are. Eventually, there will be permitted use tables within economic development districts and they could be modified as needed. Section 4 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 4-10 and the sliding scales for impervious surfaces. The sliding scale for University, Cane, and Little allow a smaller impervious surface on lots greater than five acres than on another table. Perdita Holtz said that staff discussed this and they do not know why this was done this way back in 1994. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested having just one table and being consistent with the 6% instead of the 5%. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 4-7 and asked about "no residual (sludge application)" and Perdita Holtz said that it is biosolids. She said that this was the language adopted in 1994 and it was probably different. Commissioner Jacobs suggested saying no "sludge (biosolid) application." Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 4.2.7-d to e, which is about conservation easements and that it, "needs to be certified by an attorney at law licensed to practice law in the State of North Carolina and approved to certify title to real property by a lending institution." He asked why this additional phrase had to be added about the lending institution. John Roberts said that there is something else required for an attorney to do title work. Judith Wegner agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz that an attorney is sufficient. The Board agreed to get the County Attorney to research this further. Section 5 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 5.4.3, Special Events. Just for consistency, he asked that either"site" or"plat" plan be used and not both. Commissioner Hemminger made reference to Section 5.4.1 and Exclusions. She asked why these were not listed alphabetically. Staff said that this could be done. Commissioner Hemminger made reference to number 24 and asked if research facilities were excluded and Perdita Holtz said yes. Shannon Berry clarified that these are excluded from conditional use zoning. Commissioner Hemminger said that she does not want to exclude research facilities. Chair Foushee suggested doing a footnote so that everyone will know that these permitted uses will be seen somewhere else. Craig Benedict said that over the next few weeks he will put together a booklet on conditional use zoning. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for an example of a "building for temporary use." Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to "home occupation" and asked if a home office was ok. Michael Harvey said that it could not include storage of supplies on site. Commissioner Yuhasz asked that it be made clear that offices in the home are allowed. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the regulations that are being changed for mobile homes on page 5-22. He said that in many mobile home parks, there is no right-of-way, but only the asphalt strip. He asked how the setback would be measured. The same thing occurs on page 5-24 when it refers to right-of-way. Also, on page 5-26, number 12-a, he read, "each applicant shall submit to the Orange County Planning Department rules and regulations governing the operation of the mobile home park." He is not sure what this has to do with the County's approving the mobile home park. Commissioner Jacobs said that this was more protective than anything else. He said that the idea is that there are no protections for people who live in mobile home parks, so they were trying to have established rules. Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is not enforceable. Commissioner Jacobs suggested looking at these older minutes when these rules were established. Craig Benedict said that if something cannot be enforced, there should be a footnote. Commissioner Jacobs said that abandoned mobile homes are a huge problem in Orange County. He said that there should be some requirement in a mobile home park when it is owned by one entity that the owner should have to dispose of it. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 5.6.5, riding stables and kennels, and said that it is an ongoing problem to have those two connected because they are different entities. It was answered that there will be a recommendation from the Board of Adjustment that these two uses be split. Commissioner Jacobs said that he was going to flag this about being a Class B Special Use Permit. Craig Benedict said that more work is needed on kennels. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 5.7.1 and made some spelling corrections, which were noted by staff. Commissioner Jacobs asked if golf courses count as open space in a subdivision and Michael Harvey said that he does not have an answer for that. Commissioner Jacobs said that it ought to be articulated how golf courses are designated. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 5.95 and asked why there is a strike-through there. It was answered that this was a formatting problem. Commissioner Jacobs said that he believes the County has very little authority to regulate liquid fuel and electric transmission lines. He said that this should come to the County Commissioners because these things could have a great impact on neighborhoods. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 5.10.3, the Annual Telecommunications Project meeting, and asked if there was any public participation in these. It was answered that the normal course of action is to notify staff of any changes with telecommunications towers, etc. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 5.12.2-c on page 5-122, Rehabilitation Plan for Extraction of Earth Product, and said that there is a no-fault well repair for American Stone. He asked why this would not be included. He would like to make it standard practice to have this fund. Commissioner Jacobs asked about Section 5.14.2 and a community center. He said that in previous discussions, it came up about listing the hours of operation, specifically with church recreation. The Board agreed to look into this further and perhaps require a listing of the hours of operation for those uses where it makes sense to do so. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 5-134 and differentiation and traffic impact study based on the sizes of the subdivisions. He said that the character of the area could fit in very nicely here. Chair Foushee asked the Board how it would like to complete this review, in the interest of time and since there are three County Commissioners absent. Frank Clifton said that staff could provide a summary of activity. The Board agreed to have another work session to finish this review. Editorial comments can be submitted separately. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 PM. Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board