HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-22-2010 APPROVED 1/20/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Dinner Meeting
November 22, 2010
5:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a dinner meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Link Government
Services Center in Hillsborough, NC
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier
COUNTY ATTORNEY 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)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, May Becker, Pete
Hallenbeck, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Tommy McNeill, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Judith
Wegner, and Larry Wright
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe
New Planning Board members (yet to be sworn in) were present: Andrea Rohrbacher
and Alan Campbell
Commissioner Foushee called the meeting to order at 5:45 PM. Introductions were
made.
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that each year the Planning Board looks at the
previous year and the upcoming year. He said that the County is into the formal process of the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and this is a very important framework for the future.
Tentative 2011-12 Planning / Planning Board Work Plan Discussion
1) Completion of Initial Unified Development Ordinance
• Public hearing on November 22, 2010
• Forward to the Planning Board for a recommendation (December and January)
• UDO is to be adopted by the BOCC February 15, 2011?
• UDO creates framework
o Regulations related to economic development, permitted uses, and process
standards to be refined as noted in item 3 below
Larry Wright said that he was on the Planning Board when it worked on the
Comprehensive Plan. He has concerns about conditional zoning and could not resolve the
question about spot zoning. He is also on the Board of Adjustment, and when there is a
submission before it, the submission must conform and be justified in terms of the
Comprehensive Plan. He asked why the UDO is not being looked at to see if it conforms with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He wants to know what the rush is because the UDO is a very
important document. He asked if the terms within the Comprehensive Plan are the terms that
should be used in the UDO also.
May Becker said that she agreed with Larry Wright. She feels like the Planning Board
has not spent sufficient time on this version of the UDO to figure out if this is really what is best.
In particular, she has concerns about several items, including stream buffers, protecting the
limited water supplies, and the tree protection ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon said that she also has concerns about this most recent version of
the UDO document. She made reference to her handouts for the public hearing in which she
summarized some sections of the UDO she believed were important, but said that she had not
even begun to go through this document. She is particularly concerned about conditional
zoning. She is also concerned that this is the only public hearing on this UDO. She said it is a
very large document, and it is not easy to understand. It is also more than a consolidation of
existing ordinances, and has new sections in it. For example, there is a new section on tree
protection. She said when the Chapel Hill Town Council considered its own tree protection
ordinance, it took extra time to consider just that one ordinance. She said there needs to be
more clarity in the document. She would like the Planning Board to have time to read it and go
through it more thoroughly.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he has pretty much the same background as
Commissioner Gordon in that he has been a Commissioner for awhile and he has been on the
Planning Board. He has a lot of respect for the Planning Board and the process. He said that
he also came tonight aware of the fact that last week the County got an odd, but respectable
request from the Town of Chapel Hill to please provide a copy of the UDO. He said that there
should be presentations at all four Towns. He said that staff needs to come up with a schedule
to inform the towns about this. He would like a recommendation from the Planning Board after
the public hearings. He thinks that there are some complicated issues and some departures
from what has been done before. He said that it is reasonable to give more time to make sure
that everyone understands the changes.
Judith Wegner said that there are a lot of areas to be decided. She said that the
Planning Board understands that the goal is to have a single document for county ordinances.
Brian Crawford said that there are a lot of development ordinance documents and there
are also a lot of things in the UDO that the Planning Board does not like. The goal is for the
developer to go to one document and figure out how to get things done in Orange County. The
goal is to have a unified document. He wants the Commissioners to understand that the
Planning Board is aware that there are things in the UDO that are not perfect.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Craig Benedict if he envisioned a way that the County
could adopt the UDO and flag sections that have to be refined.
Craig Benedict said that there is a bridge document that notes everything mentioned by
the County Commissioners, Planning Board, and the public. These things are flagged. In the
existing ordinance, it would be problematic to pull things out.
Larry Wright pointed out that there are a lot of cross references from chapter to chapter.
Steve Yuhasz said that this is just the first phase. He said that if the UDO is not put in
place fairly quickly, then the County will never get to the second phase. He said that it would be
a huge step backwards to delay.
May Becker said that for the parts that are new, the Planning Board has not had enough
time to go through it. The board needs more time to sit down and make an informed
recommendation.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she has never been on a Planning Board, so it is
hard for her to digest. She thinks that there is time to spend on making this a document that
works. She would like to hear what the public has to say.
Judith Wegner thanked the staff for all of the work. She said that 80% of it is very
positive. She would like to firm the substantial parts that are acceptable and then zero in on the
parts that need more time.
Frank Clifton said that he has never been anywhere that has the perfect document. If
the staff goes to the towns, there should be a timeline. He cautioned the Board not to leave it
an open-ended process. He said that nobody is banging on the door because of the economy.
If the economy does turn around in the near future, then there should be something in place.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County should err on the side of caution because
there is a lot in here that is new. The Planning Board and the County Commissioners need to
have the time to get through the document. She agreed that there needs to be a timeline. She
respects the Planning Board and wants it to get through this document.
Craig Benedict said that the County did receive a letter from Mayor Kleinschmidt asking
for additional information. Staff has been working on trying to explain the differences and
nuances of conditional zoning districts. He said that there have been outreach meetings, but
they have been sparsely attended. He said that the conversation can continue with the
Planning Board and the timeframe does not have to be December 1St to have comments come
back. In order to proceed with the next phase, it is hard to make revisions when it has not been
adopted yet.
Commissioner Jacobs said that, in the interest of moving the conversation forward, he
suggested that the staff and Planning Board come back with a proposed timeline to make
presentations to the Towns on the UDO, and also that the Planning Board consider this
document and come back to the County Commissioners with a recommended timeline for
review and adoption this fiscal year. There should also be a deadline for getting the Planning
Board recommendation on the timeline to the Board of County Commissioners before the Board
adjourns this calendar year on December 14th. The Board agreed.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would not like to see consideration of the UDO to get
mixed up with the budget considerations. He urged that the timeline has this coming back
before serious budget considerations.
Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board will hear the public comments and then will
deliberate and come up with a compromise.
2) Land Use Plan Text and Map and UDO Text and Zoning Atlas Amendments
• Several Small Area Plans (SAP) with economic development focus
o See maps and charts
• These amendments are to be completed through two public hearings:
o February 2011?
o Land Use Plan text amendments (a prerequisite for the following
amendments)
o May 2011?
o Land Use Plan map amendments
o UDO text amendments
o Zoning map amendments
Craig Benedict said that there is a land use document with text amendments and then a
UDO with text in the document. There are also small area plans and the rural economic
development district. He said that they are anxious to put this together.
3) Economic Development/ Planning Board Workgroup (Spring/Summer 2011? )
• Expediting Approval
• Targeted Industries
• Permitted Uses
• Specialized zoning district by SAP subarea
• Standards
The meeting was adjourned at 6:36 p.m.
Valerie Foushee, Chair
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk to the Board
APPROVED 1/20/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 22, 2010
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the
DSS Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson and Bernadette Pelissier
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board
Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members May
Becker, Pete Hallenbeck, Earl McKee, Larry Wright, Mark Marcoplos, Judith Wegner, Rachel
Phelps Hawkins, Andrea Rohrbacher and Alan Campbell
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe and Tommy McNeill
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and asked everyone to observe
the public charge. She turned the meeting over to Planning Director Craig Benedict and
Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - To receive public comments on the proposed
Unified Development Ordinance.
Craig Benedict said that in August 2009 the Planning staff met with the Board of County
Commissioners to see how much time it would take to put together a Unified Development
Ordinance. Tonight's presentation is the first formal public hearing for this process.
ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
Quarterly Public Hearing
November 22, 2010
Quick Presentation Overview:
- Project scope
- UDO in Phases
- Public Participation During this Process
- Comments Received on First Draft
- Proposed UDO
- Implementation Bridge
- Additional Information and Recommendation
- Public Comments
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
- Update specific 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 to replace existing Planning
Development districts
- Update graphics and tables
- Recommendations for next phases
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 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
Public Participation During This Process
- Public Meetings to receive public input held on:
o October 19, 2009
o October 22, 2009
o November 2, 2009— (Joint Advisory Boards)
o June 14, 2010
o June 16, 2010
o September 8, 2010
o November 17, 2010
First Draft and BOCC/Planning Board Review
- First Draft was released on August 9, 2010.
- Public comments were accepted until September 20, 2010.
- Two BOCC work sessions to review/comment on First Draft
- Two Planning Board meetings to review/comment on first Draft
- Joint Planning Area (JPA) partners were notified in August, pursuant to JPA Agreement
First Draft Comments
- Comments are documented in Attachment 2
- Notations of how the comment was treated by staff
o Many were incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft (denoted by `1')
- Comments denoted by `2' could be incorporated but direction from the BOCC is
necessary
o Comment potentially exceeds scope of this phase
Proposed UDO
- 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
- First Draft proposed deletions in strike-through font
- First Draft proposed additions in red
- Public Hearing Draft proposed deletions in green strikethrough
- Public Hearing Draft proposed additions in green
- Proposed text changes to existing text where the text was inadvertently omitted from the
First Draft in orange
- "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 online
o Table of Contents hyperlinked in electronic versions
- Questions and Answers document was developed —Attachment 1
Articles
1. Administration
2. Procedures
3. Base Zoning Districts
4. Overlay Zoning Districts
5. Uses
6. Development Standards
7. Subdivisions
8. Nonconformities
9. Enforcement
10. Definitions
Appendices
Regulation Amendments
- Conditional districts
o Replace existing Planning Development Districts
- Signage
o More clearly articulate requirements
o Addition of numerous definitions to more clearly define and illustrate signs
- Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection
o Rewritten and reorganized to be more user-friendly
o Better graphics to illustrate concepts
o Clearer language to articulate requirements
o Ability to receive credit for existing vegetation preserved within buffer areas
o Permits flexibility in timing and placement of plant materials
- Parking and Loading
o More clearly articulate requirements
o Better graphics to illustrate concepts
o Allowances for reduced parking for shared parking areas
o Criteria for flexible parking requirements for renovations and adaptive reuse
projects
- Stream Buffers
o Additions to the uses permitted within designated stream buffers
• Examples: driveways, hiking trails, public water, and sewer lines
o New category of "uses permitted with mitigation"
• Examples: docks, piers, boat ramps, trail crossing with bridges, new
stormwater ponds
o Consistent with State regulations
- Outdoor Lighting
o (not completed in this phase)
Conditional Zoning Districts and Conditional Use
- These districts replace the existing Planned Development (PD) districts
- The difference between these proposed districts and PD is that Conditional Districts
allow the County and the applicant to mutually agree to conditions that address off-site
impacts of development
o PD mutually agreed upon conditions can address only on-site impacts
- The Applicability and Review/Approval process for Conditional Use is the same as the
existing PD districts.
o Much of the language in Section 3.7 (Conditional Districts) and the district charts
comes from the existing Planned Development article.
- The Approval Process for Conditional Zoning Districts (CZD) differs from the existing
process for PD in that a Class A Special Use Permit is not required for CZDs.
o A concurrent Class A Special Use Permit is required for Conditional Use
Conditional Use
- Any use listed on the Table of Permitted Uses
o Except uses specifically excluded from consideration (Section 5.1.4)
o Any variations to linked general zoning district standards much be approved by
the BOCC.
o Any conditions and/or site-specific standards imposed are limited to those that
address:
• The conformance of the development and use of the site to County
ordinances and officially adopted comprehensive or other plan, and
• The impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development or
use of the site.
o The applicant must agree to all conditions.
Conditional Zoning Districts
- Specific zoning district with a specific list of permitted uses
- Three conditional zoning districts in this first phase of the UDO
o MHP-CA
• (Mobile Home Park district; replaces PD-MHP but does not require Class
A SUP approval)
o PID-CZ
• (Public Interest district; replaces existing PD general zoning district)
o MPD-CZ
• (Master Plan Development; replaces many of the components of the
existing PD-MU)
- 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
Economic Development Districts — Name Changes and Zoning District Name Changes
- Attachment 5 contains the proposed name changes and zoning district name changes
Proposed Name Current Name
Buckhorn Economic Development District I-85/Buckhorn Road District
Hillsborough Economic Development District 1-40/Old NC 86 District (but the Appendix
to the EDD Design Manual refers
to it as "Hillsborough Area)
Eno Economic Development District 1-85/U. S. Highway 70 District
Modifications to be Incorporated into UDO
- Several graphics are noted to be subject to change/modification — Consultant is working
on changes
- Section 4.4.4 (B) — language will be changed to be consistent with the language used in
the UDO
- Definitions— Offices and Personal Services, Class 1, 2, and 3.
o Staff had reviewed the traffic volume information and recommends the volumes
stated in the draft UDO
IMPLEMENTATION BRIDGE
(A Consultant Product)
- What will it include?
- Why is it important?
- When will County receive?
What will it include?
- Summary of issues, comments, suggestions, concerns raised tonight and previously
- Summary of key themes in 2030 Comprehensive Plan
- Description of how key themes are addressed in UDO
- List of issues, suggestions, not yet addressed
- Recommended strategies for addressing
- List of potential future UDO amendments
What is it important?
- Purposeful incremental steps
- Get the UDO framework in place
- Continue implementation of Comprehensive Plan
- Help set context and priorities for future amendments
- Potential blueprint for next steps
When will County receive?
- To coincide with BOCC receipt of Planning Board recommendation on draft UDO
- Target: February 15, 2011 BOCC meeting
- Present Implementation Bridge to Planning Board at its March meeting
Additional Information
- Received letter from Town of Chapel Hill late Friday (11/19) regarding the UDO
o Petition submitted by a Town of Chapel Hill Council member at the Town's
November 15, 2010 meeting.
- Letter requests information from the County's Planning Department
- Planning staff is working with Town staff on this issue as the normal JPA Agreement
Process has been followed
Recommendation for BOCC
- Receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance
- Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed Unified Development Ordinance.
- Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 15, 2011 BOCC
regular meeting
- Request that our JPA partners provide any written comments by January 24, 2011
- Adjourn the public hearing until February 15, 2011 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any written public comments submitted to the
Planning Board at or prior to its December 1 meeting.
Brian Crawford asked if the Planning Board or the Board of County Commissioners had any
questions about the presentation.
Commissioner Gordon pointed out the emails from the public and read them into the record.
These emails will be included in the record of this hearing. Basically, the emails are asking for more
time to learn more about the implementation of the UDO and to delay the UDO decision until the
public has had more time to review it.
Commissioner Gordon said that the staff said that Conditional Use Districts do conform to the
Planned Development process and she gave the citation 3.7.3 (b)(2). She said that what this actually
says is, "shall conform to the applicable development regulations for the corresponding general use
district." She wants to know if this means the same thing as what is stated for Planned
Developments in Section 7.2.5 of the current ordinance, which says, "within the Planned
Development District, only those uses authorized by Article 4, as permitted in the zoning district with
which the PD corresponds shall be permitted and all other requirements of the corresponding district
shall be met." She said that"all other requirements"sounds like standards, not uses. She wants to
know if there are differences in what uses are allowed.
Perdita Holtz said that`regulations" can include "uses" because the permitted use tables
technically are regulations. She said that she could add the word to Section 3.7.3 to make it clear
that it does mean "uses" as well.
Commissioner Gordon said that this clarification about uses should also be included in the
section that is right before the permitted use table. That section on conditional uses states that any
use on the Table of Permitted Uses is allowed except uses specifically excluded from consideration.
Commissioner Jacobs said that since staff has referred to what was discussed at the dinner
meeting as far as the schedule and since some people may be here to ask for more time, he
suggested that one of the Chairs outline what was suggested about more time for people to review
and comment on the document.
Chair Foushee said that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board had a
dinner meeting earlier and the Planning Board had concerns about having more time to review this
document. There was agreement that the timeline proposed be modified to give the Planning Board,
the Towns, and the public more time to review this information or to receive a presentation from the
planning staff without taking an excessive amount of time in getting back to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Brian Crawford said that at the next Planning Board meeting, they will review the comments
raised tonight and will propose a new timeline in which to address further comments and to give the
public more time to express their concerns, etc. This proposed timeline would be back to the Board
of County Commissioners by its last meeting on December 14th
Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners do not want to rush this process, but
they do want to do it as soon as possible so that it does not conflict with the budget negotiations.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kathleen Ferguson works with Quintiles in contracting and she is also Chair of the
Orange County Economic Development Commission (EDC). She said that earlier this year, the
EDC made a recommendation that Orange County complete all phases of the UDO within a
timeframe that establishes confidence with investors and business owners. This is in the
context of commercial development. Phase II has an end result of Orange County being
comparable with the outside areas. She said that$1.9 billion of investment occurred in this
region at the height of the great recession. In 2009, Orange County received nothing. Part of it
is that Orange County needs to have a competitive permitting process that is streamlined and
reduces cost and time that is 90 days or less, preferably 60 days or less. She also represents
the 48% of Orange County residents who commute outside the County to work. She said that
there are no opportunities within the County in the private sector for jobs. She would hate to
see Orange County send a message that citizens must leave the County for work. She said
that having a UDO that is user-friendly for business investors will help achieve economic
development. She urged the Planning Board and the County Commissioners to look at what
would encourage this type of commercial development. She said that in Site Selection
Magazine, North Carolina is nine times out of ten the top placement in the country for business.
Ben Lloyd agreed with Kathleen Ferguson. He said that what is in the current rules is
what bothers him, which are over-stringent regulations that have prevented any economic
growth in Orange County. This has resulted in a property tax that is unbearable. Only 13-14%
of the revenue comes from commercial or industrial development. There are lifetime residents
leaving Orange County because they cannot afford to live here. There are three economic
development districts that have been here for 19 years. He said that Orange County has
created an anti-business image. He suggested that the boards scrutinize the document
carefully, make any necessary changes, and then pass it.
Desiree Goldman was speaking for two organizations. She spoke on behalf of Aaron
Nelson with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. She said that the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Chamber of Commerce urges the County to move forward on the UDO as soon as
possible. They see it as very important to economic development. As the Legislative Affairs
Director for the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors, she urged the County
Commissioners to pass the UDO as soon as possible and to immediately initiate Phase II. She
sees this as a way to creatively find ways to build in incentives for economic development. The
process needs to be streamlined for economic development (reducing fees, etc.). Also the
process needs to be clear and predictable.
Dolly Hunter said that she has been an Orange County resident for the past 30 years
and she has participated in the following: planning, Farmland Preservation Board, Rural
Character Study, Cane Creek Reservoir Study, Economic Development Infrastructure
Committee, and the design of the EDDs. For many years, she has done voluntary farmland
preservation work for farmers. Recently, she was on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Coalition following the Comprehensive Plan 2030 creation. Concerning this UDO, she knows of
which she speaks and she said that it is good that the UDO combines the existing land use
regulations and asks that the new revisions are flagged for more review. Secondly, the County
needs to initiate Phase II. The existing land use regulations need to be redesigned to be fair,
clear, and predictable. Concerning Phase II and the Comprehensive Plan, no part of small area
plans should supersede what should be designed for the benefit of the entire County. She said
that the Orange County UDO website states that, "Future UDO phases are expected to consist
of additional changes to regulations and that the consultant will produce a list of potential phase
work." She asked that the County Commissioners initiate a Phase II, but that it will strive to
simplify the development regulations in order to encourage the creation of economic
development with greater coherency in land policy.
Pat Karom spoke for Darrell Chandler.
Darrell Chandler
9925 NC Hwy 57
Rougemont, NC 27572
"I have been working on trying to have some type of commercial zoning for almost 7
years. The County put together a small area task force that I was a part of. We went over
many issues and I thought we had come to a conclusion that the area around Orange County
Speedway, Go-Kart track, Concrete Company, and the Quarry should be allowed to have some
type of commercial use. It's gone on for weeks, months, and years and there has not been one
thing done as far as getting something finalized. The County has spent a lot of taxpayer's
money looking into this area and it is time to sign some conditional use into law. The parcel of
land I own is 37 acres. My land is at the intersection of Mile Branch Rd. and NC Hwy. 57.
Approximately 4 acres is adjacent to the concrete company with loud trucks coming and going
all day. On the other side of the concrete company is the quarry with trucks coming and going
all day. Directly across the street is the Go-Kart track and all the noise it makes. Just to the
south of the property is Orange County Speedway. These 4 acres are not suitable for any type
of residential use. I built a 4,000 square foot home on the site across the road from the
concrete plant and I live there full-time, so I'm not going to do anything that's going to hurt the
value. I want to put some mini-storage units on the 4 acre site beside the concrete company.
I'm asking that the elected officials (Commissioners) sign into law the conditional use and the
ordinance so residents like myself and others with property in the middle of the commercial area
are allowed to do some type of commercial use. I remind the Commissioners that this is
conditional use, not an outright commercial zone. So we will have to get permission before we
do anything. As it stands now, we can't do anything, so please make this issue a priority, it's
been long enough.
Sincerely, Darrell W. Chandler"
Allan Rosen said that he has been a County resident for 18 years and he has served on
the Economic Development Commission. He said that there is no doubt that existing
regulations have impeded commercial development, but they have also increased the cost of
land, which has had an adverse affect on the cost of housing. He said that if the UDO is done
well, it can improve both commercial development outcomes and hopefully residential
development outcomes. He said that the Comprehensive Plan has never truly been
implemented. He thinks that the County will be served well when it is implemented fully. He
said that it is also critical that it be done as thoroughly as possible. He considers Phase II as
more important. He said that the UDO is the one policy instrument that is substantially or wholly
in control of the Board of County Commissioners. The County Commissioners can make its
mark here and send a signal to the business community that Orange County is serious about
welcoming business.
Ben Haven from the Village Project read a prepared statement.
"Since 2005, the Village Project has actively participated in Orange County's efforts to
create the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and we've continued to pay attention to related issues on
the Commissioners' agenda. One of our foremost desires is that the Plan will clearly delineate
where growth, redevelopment, and reinvestment can occur, especially those projects necessary
to build and maintain a resilient, high-functioning business sector. The rules and regulations
governing the development process in Orange County have as much influence on our built
environment as any other factor controlled by County government. Hence, it is essential that
the County's development regulations promote the development outcomes that are in the
County's best interest, including economic development.
The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) currently under consideration presents the
County Commissioners with an opportunity to create a tool which can foster the economic
development activity desired by the Commissioners and County citizens alike. Additionally, the
UDO will be the central instrument for shaping the direction of all development for many years to
come. As such, the Commissioners can use the UDO to not only achieve these outcomes, but
also to affirm the County's desire for more vibrant economic activity. Perhaps most importantly,
the UDO is one of the few policy tools regarding land use planning —and therefore economic
development—that is nearly 100% at the discretion of the Commissioners.
The Village Project agrees with the County Economic Development Commission which
advised the Commissioners to "complete all phases of the Unified Development Ordinance
effort within a timeframe that establishes confidence with developers, investors, and business
owners and also results in a reduction in the time needed for a project to go from application to
permit issuance and into construction."
The Village Project especially recommends that the Commissioners task the planning
department, in Phase II, to modify the existing rules and regulations such that the regulatory
environment— at a minimum — compares favorably to neighboring jurisdictions. In other words,
we support having a "level playing field" in which development approval timelines and developer
costs in Orange County are no longer significantly more expensive and/or time-consuming than
those found elsewhere in the Research Triangle and eastern Triad regions."
Mark O'Neal said that he has been a resident of Orange County most of his life and he
thanked the staff and Planning Board for completing this task. He said that the County needs to
set a tone for Phase II implementation. The property owners need to have a predictable, more
streamlined process, which constantly supports economic development. He said that when
Durham County passed its UDO a few years back they had to stop and review their land use
policies. He said that the business community has the same problem. Whenever they consider
Orange County, they first have to look at the timelines, investment, and the risk. Orange County
needs available property.
Jeremy Browner is an attorney in Chapel Hill and he said that he disagreed with the
emails that have been submitted by the public in that the County needs to stay on its current
timeline and should not be pushed back because it is of absolute importance. A delay of six
months would be very detrimental to the County in terms of trying to develop businesses. He
said that the UDO is very complex, but he believes that it should not be extended.
Carolyn Crissman lives in Cheeks Township. She said that she works for a small
business and she is a 30-year resident of the County. She said that they all share one goal to
increase the County's prosperity to maintain the quality of life. To meet this goal, the County
must be transformed into something more resilient. The current regulations discourage
innovation. The UDO will be more clear, fair, and progressive and could be the foundation of
making Orange County resilient instead of brittle.
Written comments (emails, etc.)
From: Betsy Smith <betsys @nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:27:57 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance: please slow down!
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us, gordon.alice @gmail.com,
mikenelsonnc @aol.com, Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us, phemminger @bellsouth.net,
syuhasz@co.orange.nc.us
Dear Board members - I just recently learned of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance
at a recent CH Town Council meeting and I am very concerned. This proposed effort to simplify
the development process for the sake of improving economic development on first glance
appears to favor developers over the concerns of residents and the ordinance itself appears to
be fast-tracked with little opportunity for public input or even any attempt to make the proposed
changes clear to those who would be most affected by it. Thus I would urge you to postpone
the vote on the UDO, extend the timeline to something that is more reasonable given the scope
of the changes (and the size of the document!), and make a sincere effort to engage the public
in discussions of how development should proceed within Orange County and if we should use
this new proposed process.
We all know that development simply for the sake of economic reasons is unsustainable and
often leads to unintended consequences with associated unplanned for costs.
thank you,
Betsy Smith
1412 US Hwy 15/501
Orange County
To the Orange County Commissioners,
With regard to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to be reviewed at tonight's Board of
County Commissioners quarterly meeting, Preserve Rural Orange requests that you extend the
UDO decision-making process to ensure that citizens understand the proposed changes and
have opportunities to respond after the meeting and before changes are adopted. In particular,
we are concerned with new language on conditional zoning which appears to allow for
increased development without the protection of the special use permit application process used
previously for planned developments.
The UDO is a very large document, requiring considerable time for non-experts to navigate. We
ask you to seek feedback from the public following the quarterly meeting, in order to give
citizens a chance to respond to specific issues raised by BOCC and Planning Board members
and to understand fully the potential impacts of proposed changes.
Thank you,
-Laura Streitfeld
Laura Streitfeld
Chair, Board of Directors, Preserve Rural Orange
Email info @preserveruralorange.org
Phone (919) 801-7294
Preserve Rural Orange
P.O. Box 1314
Carrboro, NC 27510
From: gkneeb @aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:04:19 -0500
Subject: UDO proposal needs further consideration and input
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us, gordon.alice @gmail.com,
mikenelsonnc @aol.com, phemminger @bellsouth.net, syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us,
vfoushee@co.orange.nc.us
Cc: pennyrich.ch @gmail.com, randee.haven-odonnell @da.org
November 21,2010
Dear Members of the County Board Of Commissioners:
During the November 15, 2010 meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council, I noted Penny
Rich's request for further information regarding the Unified Development Ordinance which is
being discussed during your November 22 meeting.
As the organizer for a group of citizens who are concerned about the proposed Obey
Creek project in Southern Chapel Hill, I am curious as to the impact this new process will have
on the rural buffer and extraterritorial districts in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
A search on the Chapel Hill News and Carrboro Citizen websites show only one
reference to this major endeavor—an
announcement of a public hearing in August. The article announced
that the UDO would provide " a more user-friendly, understandable document by incorporating
all land use development regulations into a central document andeliminate inconsistencies
among ordinances."
For most, this seems like a housekeeping item, not a major change in policy and would not have
solicited public interest.
The article makes no mention of changes in the zoning process through the introduction
of "conditional zoning districts" and
"conditional uses". There is no mention of the Board's intention to
eliminate the Special Use Permit which provides protection for the residents of Orange County .
Given that the 800 page, updated document was only posted on the website in mid-
November and that there has been very little notice or explanation given to the public through
the newspapers, it seems that the County Commissioners should revise the current time line
and offer the appropriate public hearings and opportunities for public input based on a more
accurate description of the process that is unfolding.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Brown
104 Beechridge Court
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
From: Julie McClintock [mailto:mcclintock.julie @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Valerie Foushee
Subject: Land Use Ordinance
Dear Valerie
I understand that you will be discussing the Unified Development Ordinance tonight, November
22.
With this document, the County is contemplating large changes in the zoning process and a
scheduled vote in early December.
I am involved in a group that encourages managed growth in Chapel Hill and we would be
interested in providing comment to you after we have a chance to fully analyze the document.
I request that you reconsider your schedule and provide more opportunities for public input.
This input could take the form of several presentations in January with opportunities for
questions and answer sessions in various parts of the County, as well as a public hearing at a
time when people are not involved in celebrating a major holiday.
One particular concern is the new conditional use zoning which can allow large development
projects to pop us in areas that would be expensive to serve with urban services such as water
and sewer. This type of zoning would be similar to a "floating zone" which could change
precipitously well-established land use policies in disregard of the careful planning that the
County has pursued for many years.
Please alter your review schedule and allow maximum opportunities for public input.
Thank you for considering this important issue.
--Julie
Julie McClintock
614 Beech Tree Ct
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919-967-3661
mcclintock.julie @ gmail.com
From: Lorraine McBride [mailto:lbmcbride @aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; gordon.alice @gmail.com; Mike Nelson (External); Pam
Hemminger (External); Steve Yuhasz; Valerie Foushee
Subject: Request to slow down UDO proposal
The UDO proposal process is moving too quickly. Please slow it down! The onerously long
document includes some significant changes in the County zoning process that merit more
opportunities for citizen education and input. Of particular concern to me are changes to the
Rural Buffer Zone and extraterritorial districts since I live in an unincorporated part of the county.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Lorraine Belden McBride
1418 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
From: Linda Finch <fotofrieze @nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:40:47 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
To: Barry Jacobs <bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us>, Bernadette Pelissier
<bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us>, Alice Gordon <gordon.alice @gmail.com>, Mike Nelson
<mikenelsonnc @aol.com>, Pam Hemminger<phemminger @bellsouth.net>, Steve Yuhasz
<syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us>, Valerie Foushee <Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us>
Cc: Haw River Assembly <info @hawriver.org>, info @preserveruralorange.org
Dear Members of the County Board of Commissioners:
Only this evening have I become aware of some of the content of the proposed Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO), that you will be discussing during your meeting tomorrow,
November 22, 2010. As a member of Preserve Rural Orange, Citizens for Responsible Growth
and the Haw River Assembly, I am extremely concerned that this document is not just
"organizing" land use development regulations but could be fundamentally changing the way
development is conducted in this County.
I don't believe the general public nor architects like myself, have been made aware that this
document introduces "conditional zoning districts" and "conditional uses." There is no public
understanding that the Planning Board intends to eliminate the Special Use Permit which
provides the residents of Orange County special protections. There has been no discussion as
to the impact this new process will have on the rural buffer and extraterritorial districts in Chapel
Hill and Carrboro.
Given that the 800 page, updated document was only posted on the website in mid-November
and that there has been very little notice or explanation given to the public through the
newspapers, it seems that the County Commissioners should revise the current time line and
offer the appropriate public hearings and opportunities for public input based on a more
accurate description of the process that is unfolding.
Sincerely,
Linda Finch, Architect
1438 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
From: Kurt Riitters <kriitters @nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 06:29:18 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance
To: Barry Jacobs <bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us>, Bernadette Pelissier
<bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us>, gordon.alice @gmail.com, Mike Nelson
<mikenelsonnc @aol.com>, Pam Hemminger<phemminger @bellsouth.net>, Steve Yuhasz
<syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us>, Valerie Foushee <Vfoushee @co.orange.nc.us>
Dear Board Members,
As a resident of Orange County I request that you (a) postpone the vote on the UDO, (b)
extend the timeline for this process, and (c) make a sincere effort to educate the public about
the purpose and consequences of the 800-page document which was released only 11 days
ago.
Thank you,
Kurt Riitters
1412 US Highway 15-501 South
Chapel Hill
From: John or Yvonne Schmidt <schmidj @nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:24:57 -0500
Subject: Unified Development Ordinance
To: bjacobs @co.orange.nc.us, bpelissier @co.orange.nc.us, gordon.alice @gmail.com,
mikenelsonnc @aol.com, phemminger @bellsouth.net, syuhasz @co.orange.nc.us,
Vfoushee@co.orange.nc.us
Dear Commissioners,
I urge you to postpone the vote scheduled for the Unified Development Ordinance, and to slow
things down. This is a long and very complex ordinance and more time needs to be available to
provide for information to and input from the public. I don't think it can be properly addressed
without advance notice and public hearings. I don't think most of the citizens in Orange County
know about it or understand it.
Sincerely,
John E. Schmidt
1417 Gray Bluff Trail
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Commissioner Gordon said that since the boards have agreed to propose a new
timeline, she thinks that there is a way to get a balance between the understanding of the
process and still move expeditiously. She said that all of the emails are addressed to all of the
County Commissioners. She submitted two documents (blue sheet and lavender sheet) that
she had prepared and commended them to the Planning Board for review. These include a
UDO overview document and a document that includes key articles and sections, with
comments.
First Document:
CONSIDERATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
A. CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
Conditional Districts (floating zoning districts) can have a significant effect on development in
Orange County. Therefore it is important that citizens are not only aware that this new type of
zoning district is being proposed, but that they also have time to understand the implications of
the two new conditional districts.
1. Conditional Use District (CUD). Except for certain exclusions, it appears that for a
Conditional Use District, any use permitted in the Table of Permitted Uses can potentially go
almost anywhere in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. Whether that is true or not needs to
clarified, and the ambiguity eliminated. If it is true, here is a list of some of the uses that could
be permitted almost anywhere:
Banks &financial institutions; kennels; laundry & dry cleaning services; massage (business);
night clubs, bars, pubs; offices & personal services; restaurants; retail; storage or warehousing;
assembly & packaging operations; animal hospitals, veterinarians; health services (under
10,000 square feet); rehabilitative care facility; rooming house; motor vehicle sales & rental;
motor vehicle services stations; parking as a principal use (surface or structure); assembly
facility (i.e. place for people to meet?); research lands and installations; special events.
2. Conditional Zoning Districts (CZDs). It appears that these floating zoning districts can be
placed in any of the general zoning districts, as long as the regulations associated with each
specific district are followed. Also, in contrast to the current zoning ordinance (for Planned
Developments), no Special Use Permit (SUP) is required for CZDs. Thus the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) has more discretion over whether to approve a rezoning request for a
CZD than it would in approving a SUP which requires making a quasi-judicial decision that must
be based on competent, substantial evidence presented at a public hearing.
B. UDO CHANGES
There have been many changes between the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) discussed
earlier this fall and the final document brought to the November 22 Quarterly Public Hearing. In
addition, this document was not available to the public until less than two weeks before the
hearing. Furthermore, the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro Board of Aldermen need a
chance to review the UDO to ascertain how it applies to the areas covered by the Joint Planning
Agreement.
C. ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REVIEW
Because of the proposed addition of floating zoning districts (Conditional Districts) which is a
significant change to Orange County's current zoning ordinance, and the number of changes
that were incorporated into the extremely large UDO document brought to this public hearing,
the Commissioners should allow more time for the public, the towns, the Planning Board, and
the BOCC itself to assess how the changes will impact all of us.
AMG 11/22/2010
Second document:
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE - KEY ARTICLES AND SECTIONS
The Planning Board should review all articles in the UDO, and then vote on whether or not they
recommend approval.
I. KEY ARTICLES
The following articles should be reviewed with special care.
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and related definitions in Article 10.
II. KEY SECTIONS
In addition, there are some key sections to be reviewed. They include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following sections.
A. CONDITIONAL DISTRICTS
Here are the sections (that I have identified so far) that cover Conditional Districts. There are
also definitions in Article 10.
Conditional Districts, Sec 2.9, pp. 2-38 through 2-46
Conditional Districts, Sec. 3.7, pp. 3-62 through 3-72
Conditional Uses, Sec. 5.1.4, pp. 5-3 through 5-5
Table of Permitted Uses, Sec. 5.2, beginning on p. 5-6
Additional Standards for MPD-CZD, Sec. 6.7. pp. 6-54 through 6-63
B. RURAL BUFFER AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
Here are the sections (that I have identified so far) that are related to the Rural Buffer and Joint
Planning Agreement. Also related are the sections listed above for Conditional Districts.
Applications for Amendment- Joint Planning Area - Sec. 2.8.4 - pp.
2-35 and 2-36
Residential Districts, Rural Buffer, pp. 3-2 and 3-3
Conditional Uses, Sec. 5.1.4, pp. 5-3 through 5-5
Table of Permitted Uses, Sec. 5.2, beginning on p. 5-6
Additional Standards for MPD-CZD, Sec. 6.7. pp. 6-54 through 6-63
Cluster Developments, Application Criteria for the Rural Buffer Zoning
District, Sec. 7.12, pp. 7-48 and 7-49
C. OTHER COMMENTS
Here are other sections that need review. Note that there is some overlap with sections
described above.
Review all sections shown in green type. Also, all sections that are new, and not simply related
to consolidation of the county's ordinances, should be reviewed.
Review all sections and definitions related to Site Plan, Site Specific Development Plan, and
Plot Plan. (For example, look at Sec. 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, pp. 2-10 through 2-12). Also note that
there is no definition of "Plot Plan" in Article 10.
Review the changes related to Special Use Permits. For example, look at Sec. 2.7, starting on
p. 2-24.
Review the requirements for public hearings. For example, Sec. 2.8.6, p. 3-36 deletes the dates
for the quarterly public hearings (February, May, August, November). These dates were
specified so the public would be able to keep track of when these important hearings were to be
held.
Clarify where "institutional uses" and "professional services" can be found in the Table of
Permitted Uses. It appears that there are no categories (e.g. "commercial uses") corresponding
to these uses.
Review the significance of the requirements and changes related to "wastewater treatment
facility." For example, see page 3-3, bullet 6. Also note that in this bullet "Conditional Use
(CU) District" is not in red type, even though these words are new.
Review the significance of the requirements related to "minimum usable area for lots that utilize
ground absorption wastewater systems." For example, see page 3-7, bullet 5.
There are surely other sections that need further review, but these are the ones I have identified
so far.
AMG 11/22/2010
Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board has heard that there is still some work to
do. He said that he would take time with the staff before the next Planning Board meeting to
structure these comments in a productive way for the next meeting. He has heard that there
needs to be a balance between Phase I and Phase II.
Craig Benedict said that the recommendation is to keep the public hearing open. He
suggested keeping it open until December 14th (last County Commissioners' meeting) and the
recommendation will be brought back with the new date for decision.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance, accept public, BOCC, and Planning
Board comments, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that by the BOCC
meeting on December 14, 2010 the Planning Board will recommend a revised timeline for the
adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance to give more time for review and comment, and
that the timeline will not exceed this fiscal year.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to adjourn the public hearing at 8:26 PM.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board