Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-28-2011 APPROVED 4/5/2011 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 28, 2011 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, February 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members Pete Hallenbeck, Larry Wright, Mark Marcoplos, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Andrea Rohrbacher, Alan Campbell, and Tommy McNeill. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: May Becker and Samantha Cabe Chair Pelissier reviewed the information at their places that consisted of three PowerPoint presentations, draft resolutions from Carrboro and Chapel Hill, comments from Orange County Voice, a document related to the second public hearing item, a document related to the Master Telecommunications Plan, a pink sheet with an excerpt from minutes related to the public hearing on the Telecommunications Plan, and a series of emails related to the Telecommunications Plan. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS Chair Pelissier turned the meeting over to Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford to chair the first two items. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford made introductory comments. Commissioner Gordon arrived 7:03 PM. Commissioner Gordon read a handout regarding the procedure for conducting this Quarterly Public Hearing. This handout contained a recommendation for how the actions of the public hearing should be considered. She said that the staff recommendation for action should be changed to follow the County Commissioners' policy for public hearings and planning items. For item C-1, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the wording for the action to be considered by the County Commissioners should be changed as shown: 1. Receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance materials contained in this agenda abstract. 2. Conduct the continued public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments on the subject of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board (along with any BOCC directives) with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 5, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 5, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. For item C-3, Master Telecommunications Plan Map, the wording for the action to be considered by the County Commissioners should be changed as shown: 1. Receive the proposal for the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) map contained in this agenda abstract. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public comments on the subject of the proposed MTP map. 3. 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 April 19, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 19, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board recommendations and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Gordon moved the language as stated above, which was seconded by Commissioner Hemminger. Brian Crawford said that this is a matter for the Board of County Commissioners to discuss after public comments. Commissioner Gordon said that it is important that the public know that this is the established process. Commissioner Jacobs said that he spoke with one of the staff before the meeting and he asked staff to explain the difference in the staff's proposal regarding referral of the UDO and what Commissioner Gordon has proposed. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that on item C-1, what Commissioner Gordon proposed is consistent with the staff recommendation with one difference. The difference is when the Planning Board looked at the November 2010 draft and all of the comments made since then, the motion made in February was to accept the November draft and all of the comments made thereafter as approved by the Planning Board, and to have that as a baseline of the approval. The Planning Board wants to focus on any new information coming in from the public and any directives from the County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon said that her motion includes more scope and it means that all public comments can be accepted without anything being precluded. Craig Benedict said that on December 14th, the County Commissioners approved a new process for the UDO adoption. This process approved outlined how information would be forthcoming up to the continued public hearing. This approved document by the County Commissioners said that all local governments should have all comments back by February 2na On February 2nd, when the Planning Board deliberated, it thought that it had the full breadth of knowledge. He said that this is consistent with the County Commissioners' outline of information. Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board has thoroughly vetted the comments and made recommendations. He said that they would like to take in new comments tonight and deliberate on those rather than revisiting the previous comments. Commissioner Gordon said that the comments do not have to be revisited, but she does not want to truncate the process. Larry Wright said that the minutes of the Planning Board show that there were a few members that were uncomfortable with the fact that some County Commissioners said that the UDO does not have to be 100% perfect. Some of the motions from that meeting were conditional, so the votes included those conditions. Chair Pelissier said that she has no problems with changing the wording of the motion and she does not want to discuss the semantics. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he objected having this item brought to the Board of County Commissioners at the last minute because he has not had a chance to study these proposed motions. He said that he will vote against it because of the way it was presented. Commissioner McKee said that he had concerns too about doing this at the last minute. Chair Pelissier said that she would be fine with the original staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Yuhasz and Chair Pelissier) C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Unified Development Ordinance— Continued November 22, 2010 public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed Unified Development Ordinance. Craig Benedict and Planner Perdita Holtz made a PowerPoint presentation. ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Continued Public Hearing February 28, 2011 Quick Presentation Overview Highlights Project Scope Public Participation During this Process First Draft Public Hearing Draft Proposed Modifications to November 2010 Draft Conditional Districts "Implementation Bridge" Highlights November 22, 2010 public hearing continued to tonight to allow for more public review time County's UDO applies to Orange County's Planning jurisdiction County's Comprehensive Plan Guides Zoning Legislative Decisions Rezonings are still pursuant to Section 1.1.7 conformance with Adopted Plans Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreement still applies Process, Uses, Land Use Map Rural Buffer guidelines are the same No Change to Watersheds Economic Development Framework What This Phase Doesn't Do Does not change approval processes, or What use can be asked for in what area Does not change standards, performance levels, or dimensions Does not drastically streamline sections Condensing content often changes intent Comprehensive Plan will inform future rewrites Minor word changes could lead to lengthy debate Project Scope Guided and Limited by August 2009 BOCC Work Sessions Combine multiple County land use-related ordinances into one cohesive document (6 into 1) Zoning ordinance Subdivision regulations Environmental Impact Ordinance Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance Storm water Ordinance Economic Development Design Manual Reorganize into a new format/framework Goal: create a UDO format using Existing standards and Existing language to the greatest extent possible Eliminate existing contradictions and inconsistencies Update graphics and tables Update specific regulations (Minor Amendments) Signage Landscaping, buffers, and tree protection Parking and loading Stream buffers Develop a Conditional Use District and Conditional Zoning Districts to replace existing Planned Development districts Recommendations for next phases Public Participation During This Process Public Meetings to receive public input held on October 19, 2009 October 22, 2009 November 2, 2009 (Joint Advisory Boards) June 14, 2010 June 16, 2010 September 8, 2010 November 17, 2010 November 22, 2010 QPH January 27, 2011 Letters to local governments Only Carrboro requested a presentation Followed by staff UDO material and discussion with Town staffs for explanation and distribution to elected officials as necessary. Informal meetings: February 16, 2011 with Neighbors for Responsible Growth February 21, 2011 with Orange County Voice As needed with individuals No written Local Government comments received as requested by BOCC by February 2, 2011 Received Town of Carrboro Resolution on February 24 First Draft 10 months of staff and Planning Board work prior to First Draft 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 Public Hearing Draft Released on November 6, 2010 JPA partners were notified of availability Incorporated many of the comments made on the First Draft (in color-coded text) Public hearing held November 22, 2010 Public hearing continued to February 28, 2011 to allow for additional public review time Additional Planning Board Review Two Meetings in January Conditional districts Stream buffers Additional Discussion February 2 Culminated in vote (7-1) to recommend approval of the adoption of the entire UDO with the revisions presented at the meeting Staff-recommended revisions after February 2 Planning Board Draft UDO's added to Libraries Conditional Districts Replace Planned Development (PD) Districts Much of the language in Section 3.7 and 6.7 (conditional districts) comes from existing PD language— has strong aspect of Comprehensive Plan Conditional Use District Conditional Zoning Districts Comprehensive Plan and JPA Agreement still apply Conditional districts do not override these plans Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) is a significant factor in directing growth (adopted in 2001) Conditional Use District Directly replaces PD Linked to a general use district & SUP required Example: a rezoning application would be to NC-2 —CU and would choose uses from the NC-2 column in Permitted Use Table Subdivision of certain size thresholds Currently require a PD Switches to a CU Maps— Craig Benedict described the maps. He said that commercial and industrial uses are not allowed in the purple areas on the map. Conditional Zoning Districts Specific Districts with specific set of uses from which to choose Three in this phase of UDO None are entirely new, MHP, PID, MPD Special Use Permit not required Conditions will be attached to the rezoning action instead of SUP approval action Conditional Zoning Districts MPD includes a Master Plan setting all parameters of developments Land use compatibility Traffic, pedestrian plan Utility/stormwater plan Environmental plan Building program Uniform/unified control Programmed series of development Common use &financing maintenance Craig Benedict explained conditional uses and conditional zoning. Conditional use is when an owner knows exactly what they want and it is a decision of the County Commissioners to review this specific conditional use request. Conditional use is very specific. Conditional districts are composed of two categories: conditional use and conditional zoning districts. Conditional zoning districts have multiple, limited uses and a master plan is developed. The master plan is attached to the rezoning. Tables— Craig Benedict pointed out the uses that were excluded in conditional use districts. There are 31 separate exclusions. Roger Walden, consultant for this project, continued with the PowerPoint presentation. Implementation Bridge 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 Why 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: April 5, 2011 BOCC meeting Included in May 4, 2011 Planning Board packet Consultant to Present Status Report to Planninq Board on March 2, 2011 Recommendation Perdita Holtz pointed out the substitute recommendation that the BOCC adopted at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Gordon asked the County Attorney if he had a chance to review the entire ordinance and John Roberts said only part of it. Commissioner Gordon asked if he would read it before the adoption and John Roberts said yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were several citizens speaking from Orange County Voice (OCV). The comments are shown below: Bonnie Hauser thanked the County Commissioners for continuing this public hearing. Unified Development Ordinance Public Hearing: Feb 2gtn Speaker Comments Speaker 1: Introduction (Bonnie Hauser, OCV) Thank you for raising your concerns at the public hearing on November 22nd and for accepting public comment tonight. Several of us have worked together to prepare meaningful statements for you, the planning board and the planning department to consider. We support the county's goal to simplify our zoning ordinances and develop our economic development districts. We believe that the UDO and meaningful conditional zoning could help. Upon review of the ordinance, we realized that the most of planned development has been consolidated into a single conditional district that can "float" anywhere in the county. The district— MPD-CZ -- appears to be a good fit for the EDDs but can inadvertently encourage random sprawl and incompatible development in our rural communities. As currently defined, conditional districts open the door for industrial, intense commercial and other incompatible uses in the rural areas. We appreciate that this board is not likely to approve incompatible development— but a slight shift in board composition could change everything. Please consider how the shift in composition of the Chatham County Commissioners is affecting Chatham's development. Tonight, we will speak on a variety of issues including: Reinstating features in the ordinance that better align conditional uses to underlying land use, zoning and amenities. We are especially concerned that much of the guiding language for planned development was lost when the categories were consolidated into a single conditional zone MPD-CZ. Reinstating special use permits, at least until Small Area Plans and better defined conditional districts can be put into place Deferring changes to ordinances for wastewater treatment systems until phase 2 where they can be fully discussed Better define conditional districts so that rural areas are not subject to conditions that fit the EDDs. Priorities for Phase 2 —that are important to the rural community We will also talk about process transparency and how conditional districts are working in the towns. A common thread is for the Comprehensive Plan —which many of you have worked on - to guide future land use planning, conditional uses, and zoning. Please appreciate that we did not plan to get involved in Phase 1 at all because we believed that it was a consolidation of existing ordinances and that changes would be deferred to Phase 2. I personally attended a public information session last summer. The 2 or 3 hour session focused on organization, table of contents, formats and colors. Conditional zones were mentioned at the tail end of a long night with no discussion about how they were being applied. Please know that we are not anti-development- we are anti sprawl. We believe that the UDO and well defined conditional districts will make it easier to attract the development we want. If you agree with our comments, we are committed to work with the county and the planning board to correct the Phase 1 UDO and move quickly onto Phase 2. Speaker 2: Enhance Conditional Zoning Districts to support the rural community (Marilee McTigue) After attending the January 27th public information session and generally feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of the UDO, I decided to read all 824 pages of the document plus Article 7 of the current ordinance plus all Planning Board minutes related to this topic and meet with Craig Benedict to review my questions. I find the overall approach to the UDO to be sound and believe that the implementation of Conditional Districts is a significant improvement in the ordinance. I particularly appreciate the ability to limit uses and specify conditions. I also believe that it will help us take an important step forward in our efforts to improve economic development in the Economic Development Districts, commercial zones and highway corridors. However, I do have a concern about how the Conditional Zoning Districts relate specifically to the rural community. • I determined that the language that identified specific requirements for appropriate planned development, from Article 7 of the existing ordinance, has been eliminated in the UDO. This language explained how things like industrial or commercial development should be placed near transportation corridors and public utility services. It is this language that clarified how the Economic Development Districts differ in character and purpose from the rural areas. Unfortunately, those distinctions have now been lost with the elimination of these important elements. • I also determined that most categories of planned development have been combined into a single Conditional District called Master Plan Development or MPD-CZ. Five different Planned Development districts including Industrial, commercial, residential, mixed use, and office/institutional have been combined into this single district. It allows virtually any use, including light, medium and heavy industrial. In what I believe to be an administrative oversight, many pages of specific requirements for these five planned development types were not incorporated into the UDO in any way. In fact, close to 15 pages of specific requirements were left out and this deletion was not visible as a change. In contrast, Planned Development for Mobile Home Parks was given its own conditional district (MHP-CZ) and 10 pages of specific standards were included. The consolidation of multiple districts into MPD- CZ has created a single "one size fits all" solution that doesn't adequately serve the rural community. • And finally, the requirement for a special use permit has been removed, before the needs of the rural community have been reflected in the definition of the Conditional Zoning Districts. Of course, each rezoning decision will depend on the preferences of the sitting board — and we appreciate that this board is generally committed to implementing the comprehensive plan and protecting rural character- But as we've learned by watching the Chatham County Commissioners, every election cycle can bring major shifts in composition and our zoning ordinances are meant to smooth out these political changes. MPD-CZ offers maximum flexibility for the EDDs which we strongly support, but it can be misapplied in the rural areas where anyone can seek a rezoning on a parcel as small as 5 acres for a use that's incompatible with the surrounding area. We don't have water, sewer, telecommunications or other infrastructures necessary to support many of these uses. So, MPD-CZ, as currently defined, does not reflect the realities of the rural community. To fix the situation, we ask that that you consider the following changes to the Conditional Zoning Districts: Most importantly, we ask that you restrict MPD-CZ to the Economic Development Districts, commercial zones and highway corridors just like Chapel Hill has done. This will give us all the benefits desired to move our economic development program forward in a timely manner. Secondly, we ask that you create a new conditional zoning district for the rural areas where we'd recommend the following specifications: Reinstate guiding language around planned development districts including mixed use, residential, commercial, office, and of course industrial Reinstate special use permits - at least until we can get better zoning in place. Increase the minimum tract size to100 acres Eliminate incompatible uses -such as intense industrial and commercial —which isn't realistic in a rural area without infrastructure. We believe that well defined conditional districts provide many benefits for our community. But trying to force the rural community, with our very different character and purpose, into a single floating district tailored to the EDDs doesn't serve us well. Once this ordinance is approved by the Board.....it becomes law.....and we'd appreciate your consideration in making it a meaningful law for the rural community. Speaker 3: Wastewater Treatment Systems (Michael Hughes) There have been changes to the definition of wastewater treatment systems—which we were told includes new commercial septic systems in the rural areas—something that we believe will help rural businesses like Fiesta Grill. The language is pretty broad and includes "systems that discharge effluent to surface waters and other systems that may be permitted by the county health department or the state". That covers a lot more than commercial septic systems in the rural areas—and with conditional districts that can float anywhere in the county, these systems further enable applications that may be incompatible. We believe that this type of change could be a good idea but it belongs in Phase 2 so that it can be properly researched and discussed in the context of Small Area Plans and Conditional zoning for Agricultural Support Enterprises. Delaying this change should have no impact on the EDDs which have water and sewer. Please reinstate the old definitions of wastewater treatment systems until they can be more fully discussed in Phase 2. Speaker 4: Chapel Hill Experience with Conditional Districts (Julie McClintock, Neighbors for Responsible Growth) Neighbors for Responsible Growth February 28, 2011 Orange County Commissioners: Neighbors for Responsible Growth appreciates the County staff making themselves available for a presentation on the proposed Unified Development Ordinance a few weeks ago. It was a useful session and enabled us to understand the proposal better. This UDO proposal is complicated and challenging to understand and the staff did their best to answer our questions. The staff reassured us that this new proposal merely repackages the existing ordinance with new terminology. However in studying the proposal further, we find there are many areas where the replacement of general use districts with conditional districts would bring about a new process and potentially different results from the current ordinance. Conditional Use can be a valuable tool because case specific conditions can be set by the elected board. However, it is not a tool to be placed everywhere, such as in the rural buffer or watershed critical areas, or in many areas where zoning changes are not appropriate. It would be most desirable in areas where large scale economic development is determined to be desirable by the community. In addition, the conditional use zoning proposed here to apply to the entire County outside the municipalities, would undercut the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map which serve as a structure for the collective aspirations of the County. The County Commission would be compelled to exercise far more discretion on the appropriateness of uses and the application of overlay zones, such as the Critical Watershed Overlay Districts in any given area. We believe the public would be frustrated in this unpredictable environment and find the process much less transparent. I will share an experience relevant to your deliberations. In November of 2008 the Chapel Hill Council, considered a Land Use Management Ordinance Text amendment that would create additions to a special residential conditional district zoning in order to have a new tool to increase densities and economic development in certain areas in Town. This Conditional Use District zoning was to have applied within 5 zones, including the Downtown. The applicant would request this zone, and the Council would decide if an applicant's request met certain goals, such as affordable housing, transportation, protection of the natural environment, protection of neighborhoods and the promotion of economic vitality. In addition, a special use permit was required to accompany the application. Chapel Hill citizens expressed considerable concern about the areas chosen for these conditional use districts and the possibility that a conditional use district could be approved near them. Further, citizens said that the Chapel Hill community had not yet decided within a comprehensive planning process where such 175% density increases belonged, or if the infrastructure needed to support such densities was available in the selected zones. The Council agreed with citizen concerns. On November 24, 2008, the Council voted to amend the Conditional Use District to permit added flexibility and densities, but voted to apply it only to the Downtown District. Mayor Foy made the point that was the one area where the community agreed densities belonged. The videotape is available here: http://chapelhill.qranicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=7&clip id=376 We believe three lessons can be learned from Chapel Hill's experience: Communities need to agree on where density belongs before new zones and districts are approved. Residential and Commercial uses don't have to be combined in one zone. Citizens and developers want predictability in how their community grows. Thank you for your consideration of these points. --Julie Julie McClintock for Neighbors for Responsible Growth Speaker 5: Carrboro Experience with Conditional Districts (Amy Jeroloman) I'm Amy Jeroloman, I live in Orange County off old 86 in Carrboro's North Study Area (NSA). As you may know, in 1990's Carrboro introduced conditional floating zones within the NSA plan but these zones never landed. Carrboro's floating zoning was "Village Mixed Use" —which is narrower than the conditional districts that the county is considering. "Village Mixed Use" allows residential and neighborhood commercial such as a local community grocer (not a chain) or day care or other business that serves the community. No destination retail, no industrial, no intense commercial. Despite this definition, landowners and developers were reluctant to apply for a floating zone since the requirements were vague and difficult to comply with. As a result, developers continued to build residential and avoid the risk of building commercial or mixed use. In 2007, Carrboro established a Citizens Advisory Board to review the implementation of the area plan NSAPIRC (Northern Study Area Implementation Review Committee) of which I was a member. To give the board time to do their work, Carrboro placed a moratorium on applications for new development. The Committee was a combination of town residents and NSA homeowners. It was charged with reviewing modifications to land use ordinance and zoning map in order to help achieve the NSA plan's goals and objectives. One of the outcomes of the Committee's work was to do away with the floating zones and specifically identify where a village with commercial component would be acceptable. This redefined acreage thresholds and other aspects of VMU (Village Mixed Use). One of the committee recommendations was to have public workshops in order to incorporate more NSA residents within the review process. To date Carrboro has conducted three workshops on this subject. Two were in 2007 and the most recent this past Saturday. Carrboro is moving from conditional use to more traditional planning that uses neighborhood input as the basis for long term land use planning and rezoning if/as appropriate. It's a win/win scenario; neighbors can discuss their priorities and concerns up front— before there's any discussion of development. It reduces risk for developers who understand zoning. It's similar to Orange County's Small Area Planning process. Hopefully Carrboro's experience offers insight can help Orange County. Speaker 6: Carrboro Experience (Kathy Kaufman) I'm Kathy Kaufman and I live in the Northern Transition Area, which is part of Carrboro's planning jurisdiction. As you know Carrboro has conditional districts everywhere and, as a result, every residential community now feels vulnerable to incompatible development. My community, at Old 86 and Lucy Lane is adjacent to the NE corner of Eubanks and Old 86— which Carrboro wants to rezone. When we were invited to an all day "neighborhood meeting" - last Saturday, we feared that we would be under pressure to respond to a development proposal for the parcel - including a rezoning using a conditional district. We learned instead that the meeting was intended to explore options to rezone the area— and has invited the neighbors and the developer to participate. We appreciate Carrboro making an effort to hear from neighbors prior to any specific development proposals being offered. Time will tell if these advanced planning steps will lead to development processes that are less contentious, but this is at least a step in the right direction. Speaker 7: Priorities For Phase 2 (Frank Tozzolina) We support economic development in the EDDs and zoning in the rural areas that supports rural character and the comprehensive plan. As you know, the rural community is regularly threatened by unwanted municipal development and sprawl. As the county pursues the EDDs, please assure us that the planning dept and the planning board will work with the rural community on these high priority, zoning issues: Conditional districts that align with the comprehensive plan and that enhance rural character including: Agricultural Support Enterprises — to help make our farm economy vibrant and sustainable. Airport zoning that tightens county control over the risk of continued attempts to site an airport in Orange County after Horace Williams closes Small Area Plans for Bingham, Cedar Grove and other rural areas building on the work that's been done in Efland and Orange County Speedway Foundation changes that we've already brought to your attention including: Excluding government or municipal uses from residential zoning. Increasing notification distances for rural areas. 500 feet and adjacent properties are insufficient Establishing lighting, noise and traffic impacts that fit the rural areas Eliminating landfills, which are not permitted by resolution, from our zoning. Speaker 8: Summary (Tish Galu) Thank you for listening to our organized comments on the UDO. Again —we appreciate the work that has gone into the UDO and hope that the Board, the Planning Board and the county staff appreciate the work that the citizens have done to understand the UDO and its implications for our communities. We appreciate that there's a strong push to approve the UDO quickly— but in its current form, it leaves the rural community vulnerable to random sprawl and incompatible development. We hope that you will pursue some of the options that have been offered to correct the shortcomings in the ordinance, and better align it to the comprehensive plan. Above all, please ask the planning board and the planning department to find a way to change the ordinance so that conditional zones designed for the EDDs cannot "float" into the rural areas. If it makes sense, design a new conditional zone for the rural areas and define conditions that are compatible with rural character and underlying land use. In addition, please assure us that as the county moves forward to complete Phase 1 and begin for Phase 2, citizens will be actively involved in a transparent process. We don't want to interfere with the work in the EDDs (which benefits us all). We simply want to create a vision for our own communities. That way we can be confident that the rural communities will not suffer the unintended consequences of one-size-fits all zoning that's designed for dense economic development districts. Residents are prepared to start working on Small Area Plans and conditional districts that impact the farms and rural communities. We are also prepared to work on base zoning features that clarify how zoning for rural areas differ from densely developed areas near towns and along transportation corridors. We are prepared to work with the county and the Planning Board so that all these changes can be implemented quickly so as to honor your April 5th approval date. Thank you. Allan Rosen said that he has lived in Orange County since 1992. He is a current member of the dormant Economic Development Commission. He said that he is glad to hear support for economic development. He said that Phase 1 is about gauging organizational issues and then moving on to more substantial conversation. He is in favor of further discussion as soon as possible on the substance of this. He said that the approval process and the uses have not been changed and that is really critical. He asked the citizens to stay involved and continue to put economic development to the forefront. He said that not all changes in the rural area are adverse. He encouraged everyone to remain as open-minded as possible. Kim Foushee read a prepared statement: "I'm Kim Foushee, Director of Operations for Orange County Speedway located at 9740 NC Highway 57, Rougemont, NC which is located in the Little River Township, in an Ag/Residential designation. The Speedway, once zoning began, was not grandfathered in as most counties would have but designated a Legal Non-Conforming Status which up to now we still currently hold. Like Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and other misfits that are different— someone did not understand, not like it or just decided to do nothing in hopes it would disappear. Since 2006, the Speedway has worked with its non-conformity, but we need more leeway in order to operate a successful business. The Speedway was active in the 2006 Speedway Highway 57 Small Plan. We do not see the result present in this UDO. The Speedway was active in the 2006 Speedway Highway 57 Corridor plan. It appears the UDO does not incorporate the establishment of a commercial designation for the businesses located in our small area as Planning Staff indicated would happen. This facility has a long and wonderful history since the early sixties. Many of the neighbors moved in after the track was built. This past Saturday night prior to the NASCAR truck race, OCS was mentioned twice in relation to Dale Jarrett getting his first NASCAR win and with Jimmy Johnson's first ASA win. The area has some modest homes, Go-Kart track, a rock quarry, farms, a lot of horse owners, and a more than generous supply of deer and turkeys along with the Speedway. The Speedway is located on 118 acres, mostly wood land that host racing events for fans of local racing. In the recent past, OCS drivers have included not only the Good Ole Boy Motorheads and the automotive related business man, but also a pharmacist, law enforcement officer, a County Economic Development Director, a data processing manager, and the list of business professionals goes on and on. Since reopening in 2006, over 196,000 fans have made the trek to the Speedway and along the way stopped, shopped and stayed in Orange County. That number would have been higher, but given the economy over the last two years our fan based has suffered. To be a good neighbor, the Speedway has also partnered with the Orange Relay for Life when they ceased to use the high school. The facility is provided at no cost to the event. The Speedway is a willing participant in the community. We assist with funding activities of local groups. We have hosted the Occoneechee Boy Scout Council and other Non-Profits on several occasions. Only in recent weeks and by mere chance, did we hear of the Unified Development Ordinance discussions has reached this point. I attribute this to the lack of a Representative from our Township on the Planning Board. I spent Sunday afternoon reading the entire document. Since the conclusion of the Speedway Highway 57 Small Area Plan meetings, I have been in contact with Planning Staff over the past several years to determine what would come of the results. Our business had no idea the UDO was to this point. Our concern is how this ordinance will affect our ability to not only continue with our current activities, but utilize the property for other recreational activities. The Speedway has inquired other the past several years about the possibility to build a horse show facility to operate when non-racing activities are held, host the occasional music and other recreational events. I have been the Director of Operations of five years. Until last month, I was the only full-time employee. With the economy as it is, I have taken a 2/3 pay cut yet I have decided to continue my association to see that all the hard work and dedication the owners, staff, myself and fans have put into the Speedway is not in vain. We understand everyone is not a race fan. Actually, I am not. But I understand the feelings Orange County Speedway stirs in folks from Maine to Daytona. I recognized the potential this facility has. The Speedway is a regionally recognized leader in grass roots racing. The owner, staff and I do not see this facility as a Legal Non- conforming place, but a recreational area for lovers of motorsports that can adapt and utilize the property for horseman and others alike. Orange County, other local businesses and the region benefit when the Speedway operates. Our racing season is typically March to November. This year, the Speedway will only run 11 events. The Speedway must be allowed to expand opportunities for the property use other than racing. Our concerns from the Ordinance include: Lack of a representative from our township during this process. Lack of promised commercial area for current businesses located in area reviewed during the 2006 Speedway Highway 57 Small Area Planning Meetings. Current Sign Removal within a year if not meeting compliance. Wording of regarding - use ceasing for 180 days within a two-year period shall conform to the regulations. I have a degree in Animal Science, was employed by NCSU Extension Horse Husbandry for 15 years and have been an Equine trainer and owner for over 40 years and I disagree with the horse activities being lumped in with kennel standards. The breeding, training and raising equine has long been an accepted agricultural farming practice and should not be excluded from that category. The monetary expense to conform to the UDO as written is too prohibitive for many businesses which would be require in the very near future to make pretty/feel good adjustments to structures, landscaping, etc. The standards the UDO are excessive and too expensive for any business. Moments before this meeting, I was assured the UDO would not affect our current operations, but it was agreed the UDO is up for interpretation. Therein lies our main concern. The Ordinance as designed continues the practice of unduly restricting the rights of all property owners. Businesses will not be able to expand or develop other means of generating revenue which will grow the county coffers as well. This is not perfect world and the stringent requirements of this ordinance will not create one. Laura Streitfeld is Chair of the Board of Preserve Rural Orange. She thanked the Planning staff for explaining the UDO to her and answering some of the questions she had about zoning and how it affects the rural community. She asked the County Commissioners to consider specifically the key role that the County plays and can play in providing increased accountability, oversight, and public notice and limiting permitted uses for government entities including the County itself, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, OWASA, and others. She said that the University, at present, is permitted by right in agricultural/residential zones, in particular, the Bingham Township community, a research facility that was built years ago and had an expansion that was planned without any public notice to surrounding neighbors or the general public. She asked the County Commissioners to look at alternatives and look at ways to approach the UDO in this and future phases to approve the accountability and the oversight of such projects. Public notice is key for community members. She said that the County Commissioners should look at ways, in the case of special use permitting and conditional zoning, to increase the ability of citizens to be a meaningful part of the conversation and be able to request conditions that would have prevented the kinds of incidents they have seen with wastewater spills in the watershed, multiple malfunctions, and dramatically affected property values in the surrounding properties. She agreed with notifying neighbors beyond 500 feet in rural areas and seeking to extend public notice for upcoming development projects. She said that in the Town of Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina is not permitted by right to develop in residential zoning without a special use permit or rezoning. She asked the County Commissioners to consider looking at government uses in ways that would protect the rural community and the watershed so that agricultural and residential zoning might not be areas in which large-scale projects by government entities might take place. Pat Karow said that she is speaking on behalf of Darryl Chandler and they live in Rougement on NC 57. She read a statement from Darryl Chandler. Mr. Chandler has been working on trying to have some type of commercial zoning for almost seven years. The County put together a small area task force that he was part of. He thought that the conclusion was that the area around Orange County Speedway, go-cart track, concrete company, and the quarry should be allowed to have some type of commercial use. It has gone on for 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 that he owns is 37 acres. Approximately four 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 also. Directly across the street is the go-cart track and this is also very noisy. Just to the south of the property is Orange County Speedway. These four acres are not suitable for any type of residential use. He built a 4,000-square foot home on the site across the road from the concrete plant and lives there full time. He is not going to do anything that is going to hurt the value. He wants to put some mini storage units on the four-acre site behind the concrete company. He asked the County Commissioners to sign into law the conditional use and the ordinance so residents like himself are allowed to do some type of commercial use. Dolly Hunter read a prepared statement. The proposed Landscaping Standards for Plant Material in UDO Article 6.8.5C require using larger plant size at installation than in the existing Zoning Ordinance. These larger sizes are a hardship for the following reasons: � The proposed larger sizes can primarily be met by using Ball & Burlap (B&B) instead of container grown plant material. A B&B plant is dug out of the ground severing two-thirds of the roots causing root shock in transplanting while a container-grown plant retains all of its roots and transplants more successfully. B&B's take many more years to get established than container-grown plants (a smaller container-grown plant outgrows and catches up to the size of the larger B&B quickly because of less transplant stress. A B&B weighs a minimum of 500 pounds while a 10 gallon container-grown plant weighs a maximum of 75 pounds, making transport much easier. B&B's need much more watering and staking and have a lower chance of survival. � A primary reason for keeping the existing Zoning Ordinance requirements for plant material size at installation is that the proposed sizes will double and triple the cost of the plant material. The UDO should not also cause a financial hardship above the existing regulations. The following is a comparison of the existing and proposed plant material sizes and their costs, using a cost list from Taylor's Nursery in Raleigh, a primary resource for landscape installers (see Attachment). Canopy or Evergreen Tree: Existing - not less than 6' tall and 3/4" caliper. Proposed: not less than 8' tall and 2" caliper. A Willow Oak— 10 gallon at 6' tall, 3/4" caliper costs $59.95; B&B at 8' tall, 2" caliper costs $139.95. A `Savannah' Holly— 10 gallon at 6' tall, 3/4" caliper costs $49.95; B&B at 8'tall, 2" caliper costs $199.95. Understory Deciduous Tree: Existing — not less than 6' tall and 3/4" caliper. Proposed: not less than 8' tall and 1" caliper. A Fringe Tree - 7 gallon at 6' tall and 3/4"caliper cost$49.95; B&B 7' tall (8' not available), 1" caliper costs $139.95. (Truthfully, there are very few landscape plants available that are 8' tall and those are 2 %2" plus caliper). Understory Evergreen Tree: Existing and Proposed are the same. Shrubs Evergreen and Deciduous: Existing and Proposed are the same. I recommend that the UDO minimum landscape plant sizes at installation remain the same as in the existing Zoning Ordinances. One exception is that the Evergreen Tree and Understory Evergreen Tree size should be a minimum of 4' tall at installation because that is the size most available in the trade. Sincerely, Dolly Hunter Desiree Goldman has lived in Orange County for 14 years and is the Legislative Affairs Director for the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors. She urged the County Commissioners to approve Phase I and move forward with this UDO. Many of the issues that the citizens have spoken to are related to Phase II. She said that there is no such thing as a perfect plan. She spoke in support of economic development. The UDO is one way that Orange County can get into the game. Kristen Smith is from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. She spoke on behalf of Aaron Nelson, President and CEO. She said that she was here to represent the interests of over 900 businesses and non-profit members who understand that successful economic development in Orange County is good for all of Orange County and that growing the commercial tax base outside the municipal boundaries will have a positive impact on the taxes paid by the people within the municipal boundaries. She said that there is increased interest in the surrounding towns for economic development. She said that one of the most important ways to show that Orange County is supportive of economic development is for the County Commissioners to take action and proceed with implementing Phase I as soon as possible. Linda Finch read a prepared statement. She said that she has practiced architecture for many years. She asked that the email that she sent to the County Commissioners last night be entered into the record: February 27, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Orange County, NC Re: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Consideration Commissioners: I previously wrote you of my concerns about the UDO on November 21, 2010. Since that time I have made a conscious effort to understand its contents and potential impacts on the County once implemented. I would like to offer the following comments: On 10/19/09 during a public meeting, Mr. Harvey summarized that the UDO document would be "rewriting but not changing policy". I must respectfully disagree and voice my concern that both the Conditional Use District and the Conditional Zoning Districts could lead to commercial, mixed use, industrial, warehousing and many other higher density developments which are not consistent with the land uses identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the County. I doubt that even planning staff can project the consequences of enacting what I believe are "spot zoning" alternatives to the general rezoning processes we currently have in place. The Conditional Use District calls for a "concurrent" Legislative and Quasi-Judicial approval which could limit public input to one meeting. The Conditional Zoning District MPD-CZ changes the approval process to merely a Legislative process, eliminating the Quasi-Judicial (Special Use Permit) process. Although the State has allowed Conditional Districts to be adopted, there is no mandate to require them. I don't believe the public is aware that introduction of these Districts can produce some very unwanted adjoining land uses which can cause real impact to their property and disruption of their current uses. The notification requirements on a rezoning are woefully inadequate. A Notice for just a 500' radius of adjoining property owners does not come close to adequately informing the public; and with the potential UDO projects it will be even less effective. I urge the BOCC to double this requirement to 1000'. For the sake of saving a few months in processing time for applicants, the county risks diminishing their role in guiding the County's growth and fulfilling their responsibility to protect the health and welfare of our county. These "floating zones" have the potential to create burdens on our infrastructures and schools because they are indeterminate and can not be planned for. Why should the county apply Conditional Districts county-wide? Would it not make more sense to tie this new construct to the identified Commercial Nodes, Commercial & Industrial Nodes, and the 10 & 20 year Transition areas mainly located along the I-40 corridor. The County is already committing financial resources to provide utility services in this area. If rezoning is not addressed in a manner which strengthens the envisioned Land Uses, we may end up with urban sprawl despite all of the preceding efforts of the citizens and public officials. Planning text books repeatedly identify Rezoning as a process to make properties "more compatible with significant changes in the area". But these "floating zones" have the potential to create undesirable islands of uses throughout the county. West's Encyclopedia of American Law states "Zoning laws are meant to further the general welfare rather than to improve the economic interests of any particular property owner. They are designed to stabilize neighborhoods and preserve the character of the community by guiding its future growth" The failure of the Buckhorn Project should be taken as a warning that there is no guarantee that unlimited commercial, retail and office space can thrive in Orange County. We have sufficient area designated for these uses and should focus special attention to efforts encouraging infill and renovation or replacement of out of date facilities. I appreciate this opportunity to address the proposed UDO and hope that you will take into consideration the effect that this ordinance could have on the quality of life of all the County's citizens. Sincerely, Linda Finch Architect 1438 Gray Bluff Trail Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Please enter my email of 2/28/11 into the public record Please consider requiring a super majority vote on all rezoning requests in the proposed "Conditional Districts" Spot zoning usually involves a very limited number of property owners who are trying to secure special benefits for themselves, without regard for the rights of adjacent landowners. Please consider requiring the petitioner to build out any properties submitted and approved for rezoning under Conditional Use and Conditional Zoning Districts; if the property is not developed the rezoning should expire and the property revert back to the original zoning and uses. This would ensure that the County would gain the additional tax base anticipated in the approval rather than line the pockets of land speculators. Consider restraining the Conditional Use Districts to the existing Commercial, Industrial, and Economic Development Nodes of the county and exclude their use in Agricultural- Residential, Rural Buffer, Rural Residential, Resource Protection areas and Municipal Town limits and their Extra-Territorial Jurisdictions. These Conditional Districts may lead to inharmonious land use patterns. There should be a requirement that the rezoning is compatible with the County's Comprehensive Paln including existing zoning maps. Review the 11/8/10 Planning Staff Memo to BOCC on changes to the Planning Board duties: The current Ordinance allows them to propose and recommend plans The substituted language in the UDO allows them to prepare and adopt plans The adoption of plans is a BOCC duty She pointed out that the Haw River is an area that also needs to be protected and should be included in this. Planning Board member comments— none. Board of County Commissioners' comments: Commissioner Gordon said that Councilmember Penny Rich from Chapel Hill asked her to enter the following draft resolution into the record: A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR ORANGE COUNTY (2011-02-28/R-0.1) WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council is committed to upholding the stipulations of the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) and to maintaining the integrity of the Rural Buffer (RB); and WHEREAS, Orange County has proposed a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and as one of the partners to the Joint Planning Agreement, the Council may provide comments on the UDO to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Unified Development Ordinance has been described as a consolidation of several Orange County ordinances, with no significant changes in wording; and WHEREAS, nonetheless, with the incorporation of existing ordinances into the new UDO, important changes have been introduced in the new UDO, so that certain aspects remain unclear as the document is 800 pages and is not quickly understood; and WHEREAS, the major concerns about the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) are focused on revisions that appear to change the regulatory approach and the uses which were established in the original ordinances, in ways that are not in concert with the provisions of the Rural Buffer and other sections of the Joint Planning Agreement; and WHEREAS, it is important to understand these major changes to the UDO, because they could have an unintended effect on the way development occurs in Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following areas have been identified as of particular concern to the Chapel Hill Town Council: (1) Concerns related to "Conditional District" (CD) This "floating zoning district" is a new construct for Orange County and it refers to a district that is not mapped until a rezoning application is approved. This new CD district replaces the Planned Development District in the current zoning ordinance. However, the wording for the new CD district leaves out important text from the original ordinance which specifically ties any CD rezoning to conformance with the underlying Comprehensive Plan, including the land use categories in that plan. What is missing, for example, is language utilized in the original ordinance that explicitly refers to protecting the character of surrounding neighborhoods. In the UDO there are two kinds of Conditional Districts proposed: "Conditional Use Districts" and "Conditional Zoning Districts." The language for the Conditional Use District states that, except for 31 exclusions, any use permitted in the Table of Permitted Uses can go almost anywhere in Orange County's planning jurisdiction. With respect to Conditional Zoning Districts, these floating zoning districts can be placed in any of the general use zoning districts, according to the regulations associated with each district. Also, in contrast to the original Orange County zoning ordinance, no special use permit is required, thus eliminating the need for a quasi-judicial process with a decision based on competent, substantial evidence presented at a public hearing. (2) Concerns related to the Rural Buffer and the Joint Planning Agreement Some of the proposed new language in the UDO changes essential features of the Rural Buffer (RB). The original language in the existing ordinance specifies that development in the Rural Buffer is for low densities and relies on ground absorption systems for sewage disposal. However, one of the proposed new development standards for the RB district would substitute the term "wastewater treatment facility" and use that term instead of the term "ground absorption systems," for approved Conditional Districts. The definition of a wastewater treatment facility includes a system that discharges to surface waters, and indeed any other system as may be permitted by the Health Department or the State of North Carolina. That is a significant difference, and the original language should be restored. Conditional Districts should not be allowed in the Rural Buffer. Instead they should only be placed in the Economic Development Districts and other areas with specifically identified land use categories so that they are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding land uses. Concerns articulated above are relevant to the Watershed Overlay Districts. Accordingly the conditional districts should be prohibited in the University Lake Watershed Overlay District. In addition, though outside the scope of the Joint Planning Agreement, conditional districts should be prohibited in the Cane Creek and Upper Eno Protected and Critical Watershed Overlay Districts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council asks the Orange County Board of Commissioners to look further into the areas of concern explained above, in order to head off possible consequences unintended by the Board; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, because of these concerns, it does not seem prudent to adopt the UDO for the sections of the ordinance identified above until the proposed language is clarified, or substantively changed where necessary. In some cases the original language of the existing ordinances should simply be restored. This the 28th day of February, 2011. Commissioner Gordon said to enter into the record emails and comments that Board of County Commissioners received. These are shown below: Draft resolution from the Town of Carrboro: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) FOR ORANGE COUNTY Resolution No. 78/2010-11 WHEREAS, revisions have been proposed to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and under the Orange County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement, Carrboro is to give comments on these revisions to the Orange County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, Orange County Planning Staff made a presentation to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on January 18, 2011, at which time staff described proposed changes as essentially a consolidation of several Orange County Ordinances, with no significant changes in wording; and WHEREAS, nonetheless, with the incorporation of existing ordinances into the new UDO, important changes have been introduced in the new UDO, and although public presentations have explained certain aspects of the UDO, certain aspects remain unclear as the document is 800 pages and is not quickly understood; and WHEREAS, these particular areas have been identified as of concern to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen: • The Conditional District (CD): This "floating zoning district" is a new construct for Orange County and it refers to a district that is not mapped until a rezoning application is approved. The new wording for the CD district leaves out important text, which specifically ties any rezoning to compliance with the underlying Comprehensive Plan. What is missing, for example, is language utilized for the original Planned Development (PD) district that explicitly refers to protecting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and seeking opportunities for neighborhood scale mixed use; and • Certain provisions for the University Lake Watershed Overlay District: the Conditional Districts should be prohibited in the University Lake Watershed Overlay District, and • For the Cane Creek and Upper Eno Protected and Critical Watershed Districts though outside of the Joint Planning Area, the conditional use district should be prohibited; and • Certain provisions for the Rural Buffer: the original language in the existing zoning ordinance specifies that development is for low densities and relies on ground absorption systems for sewage disposal. The new UDO text changes the disposal method to wastewater treatment facilities, which seems to imply the use of package systems. WHEREAS, it is important to understand these major changes to the UDO, because these could have an unintended effect on the way development occurs in Orange County; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen asks the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to look further into these areas of concern explained above, in order to head off possible consequences unintended by the Board. The foregoing resolution having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and was duly adopted this 22nd day of February 2011. Email below from Lee Rafalow Member, Economic Development Commission Dear Orange County Commissioners; Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight's public hearing but I do have a couple of concerns that I hope you will take into consideration. I am disappointed that in the EDC meetings we were told several times that this phase of the UDO development process was simply to consolidate existing ordinances and that no new proposals would be included in this first phase. On scanning some sections of the proposed Ordinance, this is clearly not the case. But since I don't recall the sources of that information and since it appears to be a moot point now, I would only ask, if you haven't done so already, that the staff be directed to never make such a claim in its interaction with volunteer boards and the public at large. My principal concern about the portions of the proposed Ordinance that I have had the opportunity to read is with the new designation of Conditional Districts. There appears to be virtually no limit to where these districts can be placed. Surely there are areas of the County and joint planning jurisdictions that we know are not appropriate for these uses and others where we believe it might be appropriate for such uses. My reading of the proposed Ordinance indicates that there is always a public hearing and that, even for the CUD, the process has a phase in which the BOCC is NOT acting as a quasi-judicial body and, therefore, the neighbors and general public will have adequate opportunity to make themselves heard. If this is not the case, then these Conditional Districts do not serve the public interest in that there is very limited opportunity for public input into what are land use decisions and not special uses in permitted districts. The flip side of this concern is that--again, if my reading is correct--Conditional Districts do not serve to expedite the development process for new business opportunities. When attempting to be placed in areas where there is no consensus supporting that placement, the applicant may be bogged down in a drawn-out land use decision. A better approach, I believe, would be to be clear in general zoning districts about appropriate uses and make efforts to include the public in those legislative decisions. Then, when specific proposals come forward, have the staff work with the developer to expedite the process with the confidence that the use is supported though, perhaps, with some conditions. It may take some work to come up with these general zoning districts and uses, but the public will be better served by both a fair and open process and an expedited process that helps to promote new business. Lee Rafalow Member, Economic Development Commission From: Frank Tozzolina ftoz34 yahoo.com Dear Commissioners, My wife and I attended the last public meeting at the library. It was a good presentation. We thank you for extending the public hearing on the county's UDO, giving opportunity for citizens of the county to have a voice. We expect that the changes you make will protect the interests of property owners and our community. I respectfully ask for your assurance that the zoning be aligned with the comprehensive plan. The important language aligning planned development to the comprehensive plan has been deleted and it needs to be reinstated. I especially hope that economic development will be directed to designated Economic Development Districts, in order that these uses not be allowed to sprawl all over the county. Further, I respectfully ask that citizens be involved in planning and zoning decisions that affect rural areas and rural economic development areas. Thank you for serving the citizens of Orange County. Frank Tozzolina Email From: Gabriella Tal <gtal@nc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:11:47 -0500 Subject: UDO, Comprehensive Plan and Economic Development Dear Commissioners: I support the county's goal for a simpler zoning ordinance to encourage healthy economic development. At the same time, I expect zoning to protect the interests of property holders and the community at large. I ask for your assurance that the new UDO will, first and foremost, align to and support the Comprehensive Plan. I raise this because important language that aligned "planned development" to the comprehensive plan in the old ordinance has been removed from new sections in the UDO on "conditional districts". I'd like to see that language reinstated I further ask that economic development- especially industrial and intense commercial uses - be directed to economic development districts and not be allowed to sprawl all over the county. Please help create a transparent process going forward where citizens can participate in development of small area plans, agricultural districts, and other zoning features that impact our communities and quality of life. You have our community's commitment to help and work with our neighbors in the Schley community. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Orange County Sincerely, Gabriella Tal (resident of Orange County for 22 years) Email from Jeanne Brown From: "gkneeb@aol.com" <gkneeb@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:06:07 -0500 Subject: Thoughts on Unified Development Ordinance from southern Chapel Hill Orange County Commissioners: The purpose of my letter is to express my concerns regarding the currently proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) which will be discussed tonight. My family and I live in southern Chapel Hill, outside of the town limits. Our neighborhood is bordered by a large property that is zoned for low density residential use due to its inclusion in the Jordan Lake Watershed district. There are many such properties in southern Orange County. It is properties, like the one bordering our neighborhood, that maintain the rural character of the county and continue to provide protection to the water resources that are important to our growing community. At present, Jordan Lake is out of compliance with federal water quality regulations. Of major concern is the land-use water pollution in areas such as the Haw watershed district—which includes southern Chapel Hill and southern Orange County. Given this situation, it is important that all new legislation include the strongest protections for sensitive watershed properties. I am concerned about the apparent lack of verbiage in this document to protect the watershed areas. This has been mentioned in the resolution presented to you by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. I anticipate that the Town of Chapel Hill will express similar concerns. I am also concerned about the uncertainty that the new conditional zones will place on homeowners and neighborhoods. When purchasing homes, my husband and I have always abided by the "Caveat emptor"(Buyer Beware) motto. While we understand that there are times when rezoning of a property may be necessary, we feel that a robust public process should always be part of rezoning to insure that fair decisions are made. Laws and processes established by county and town officials should provide for a process that is objective and inclusive. It appears that there are many instances in which the currently proposed UDO may favor developers and would exclude Public input. For my family, neighbors and me, that is unacceptable. It appears that the UDO needs further consideration and amendment before it meets the standards to which it should be held. I urge each of you to slow down this process and do the due diligence necessary to ensure that your decisions do not result in unintended consequences. Sincerely Jeanne Brown 104 Beechridge Court Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Commissioner Gordon said that she has her own written comments that she will be submitting herself. She said that some of the language of the Planned Development Districts was left out for Conditional Districts and this is important to note because the deleted text contained more language which tied approval of conditional districts to the Comprehensive Plan and had specific language which referenced the protection of the character of surrounding neighborhoods. She will write up the issues and submit the comments. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the conditional zoning districts and if they are grounded in that the land use plan regulates their compatibility with their surroundings. Other people are contending that the districts have been decoupled from the base zoning. He asked Craig Benedict to address this point. Craig Benedict said that in the UDO, there is specific language in Section 1.1.7. He read this. He said that the language is very specific to make sure there is a strong linkage between rezoning applications that come forward to the County Commissioners and linkage to small area plans of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he thinks the discussion tonight is not allowing someone to ask at all or allowing somebody to ask and then the County Commissioners saying that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that a neighboring jurisdiction had a rural zoning at an interchange and somebody came in and wanted to build a 1,000,000 square foot mall. The zoning was changed and the economic development was accommodated. He asked what would be different in the proposed system in how Orange County might consider something like that, which was not consistent with the Land Use Plan. Craig Benedict said that Orange County is unique in that there are multiple layers of planning concepts that are reinforced. There are some counties in the state that have no zoning. If there is a land use plan that says what the future land use is, and it is next to an interstate, there would be a conscious decision about what type of use would be appropriate for the future. There is also the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement and small area plans. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the section on Planned Development Districts in Article 7 and said that there was a section at the beginning of the article that described the districts "generally." She also made reference to 3.7, in the UDO that described the Conditional Districts "generally." She said that for the Planned Development (PD) Districts there is overarching language, that pertains to all of the districts, which ties the approval of PD Districts to the Comprehensive Plan, and it includes more specific language that references guidelines like protecting the character of surrounding neighborhoods. She made reference to Section 3.7, page 3-62 for Conditional Districts and compared that language with the language for Planning Development (PD) Districts. In comparison with PD Districts, there is much less overarching language that ties the approval of Conditional Districts to the Comprehensive Plan in ways that take into account the surrounding land uses and the character of the area in which the Conditional Districts will be located and the types of infrastructure that should be in place. Also, the text for Conditional Districts (CD) describes four circumstances when a CD is allowed. At least one of those standards seems to indicate that perhaps the Comprehensive Plan does not always have control. For example, the first standard says that a CD could be allowed if it was consistent with the objectives of the UDO "and/or" the Comprehensive Plan, and that seems questionable. Overall, there does not seem to be the same protection in the UDO as there is in the existing ordinance. It is the combination of all these factors working together in the ordinance that changes what can be done. She thinks that is why people are concerned. Commissioner Gordon stated that there were other sections of the ordinance that were of some concern, such as a section on quarterly public hearings that has eliminated the stipulation that those hearings be held in February, May, August and November. That makes it more difficult for the public to keep track of when the public hearings will be held, and she wondered why that was changed. However, the main concern and therefore the main point has to do with Conditional Districts and their effectively being allowed in more areas that would have been allowed before, in comparison to PD Districts. This is a consideration. She said that this is why people that have read the UDO are concerned. She does think that these CDs are a really good idea for areas like economic development districts and other areas meant for more intense commercial or economic development. The problem is the way the Conditional Districts will be located in other parts of the county. Craig Benedict said that the important part of what Commissioner Gordon said was the update of the Comprehensive Plan. This was the land use medium with 284 guiding policies. He said that this document was a great effort and will be used to make regulatory changes in the future. Commissioner McKee thanked the Planning Board members for their time and effort and said that their discussions were not always on the same page. He applauded the public as well. He said that he understands many of the concerns about having something disagreeable spring up in a rural area. He said that he also understands many of the rural residents' concerns and fears. He said that this first phase is critical to economic development and he would like for them to move forward with this and move on to Phase II to iron out the concerns. Chair Pelissier echoed Commissioner McKee's comments and said that after reading the Planning Board minutes, she was very impressed with the thoroughness and the thoughtfulness in the deliberations. She said that reading the deliberation was helpful to her to be able to understand the UDO better. She said that she is ready to move forward with the second phase of the UDO. She said that some of the requests in the towns' resolutions will add clarification and she would like a Q&A document to respond to the towns' concerns. She said that one area she would like to see addressed is public involvement. She said that there are questions from the public about the conditional zoning where there would not be a special use permit but a master plan. The perception was that there was less public input if there was not a special use permit. She went back to the minutes from the August meeting where the Board approved looking at conditional districts. One of the things suggested was an increase in public input by having neighborhood meetings before a public hearing. She said that some of those issues need to be clarified that there will not be a decrease in public input, but a planned increase. She said that these things are embedded and not very clear. John Roberts said that the Chapel Hill resolution was approved tonight and sent to him. The only change was to the title of the resolution and not the body. Commissioner Gordon said that she hopes it is clear that the County Commissioners want the Planning Board and staff to answer all of the points and comments that were made concerning the UDO. Chair Pelissier said that the Planning Board will deliberate and will see if they want to make any changes and if so, they will come to the County Commissioners with revisions to the Board of County Commissioners, but she was not asking that every question be addressed by the Planning Board or staff. The major themes are the ones that need to be addressed. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is reasonable to ask the general questions. He thinks that it is important to understand that Conditional Zoning is different in some ways than Planned Developments, but not in a way that lessens the protection that is provided. He said that it is critical in approving any conditional zoning that the Board justify that. Part of the justification of the conditional zoning is that it is compatible with the land use plan. Brian Crawford said that one of the things the Planning Board has done is that it has spent so much time on the comprehensive plan and it has always been the most important document. The Planning Board thought that the consolidation of the UDO was to help fulfill the purposes of the comprehensive plan. He said that there may be areas where there is not enough language about the comprehensive plan. He suggested having a statement that it is a goal of Orange County that the comprehensive plan be fulfilled. He stressed the importance of following the comprehensive plan. He said that the Planning Board would not be able to answer every question. Larry Wright said that it would be good for the Planning Board to have a set of goals from the County Commissioners so that there can be an agenda rather than relying on staff to say what the County Commissioners want. Commissioner Foushee said that minimally what the Planning Board brings back in each of these areas of concern is a linkage between the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan. She said that an overarching fear is that people may be comfortable with what the current BOCC is going to do, but they may be uncomfortable with what a future Board composition might do. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Chair Pelissier to send a formal response to the towns that will address the issues and concerns that were raised in the respective resolutions in a format of a Q&A document that will also be posted on the County's website. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon said that there are overriding issues that people have raised, and they are given in the concerns stated by both the towns' and by the public. She would like to see, in response to the overarching themes in the concerns raised at this hearing, a list of specific things that can be changed in the ordinance to address these concerns. The staff can help with this. Judith Wegner asked Commissioner Gordon to write these amendments because it seems that there are very specific things and it is not clear to her. She asked that these specifics be written up because she does not understand the Planning Board's role in this. Brian Crawford confirmed the request for Commissioner Gordon to provide her comments. Commissioner Gordon said that she has only stated her own view. In response to the request, she will try to submit her comments by Wednesday for the Planning Board meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to: 1. Receive the proposed Unified Development Ordinance materials contained in this agenda abstract. 2. Conduct the continued public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments on the subject of the proposed Unified Development Ordinance. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board (along with any BOCC directives) with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 5, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 5, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Ordinance or Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment To review a citizen-initiated text amendment to add a permitted use to the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial—2)zoning district and to receive citizen comment on the proposed text amendment. Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation. February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM: C2 PUBLIC HEARING Petition for a ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses to allow motor vehicle sales as a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) Zoning District APPLICATION SPECIFICS: Applicant: Ben Lloyd Proposal: Allow the Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental (New and Used) as a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) Zoning District with a 12 vehicle limit; Currently Allowed: General Commercial Four (GC-4), Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Existing Industrial (EI), Low, Medium, and Heavy Industrial (I-1, I-2, and I-3), and Eno EDD Primary. Also allowed in Buckhorn EDD with a Planned Development (PD) approval Impact: If approved, this amendment would allow the use on all current, and future zoned, NC- 2 zoned properties throughout the County NC-2 — FACTS: Intent of the NC-2 district is to allow for the development of commercial uses serving neighborhood and rural populations with convenience goods and personal services. District is allowed within the following land use categories: Commercial Transition Activity Node Rural Community Activity Node Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node Zoning Officer Analysis: Text amendments and rezoning petitions are reviewed under a legislative decision making process (i.e. no required findings of fact) Amendment appears inconsistent with the intent of the NC-2 district as the use has a broader market area than currently envisioned Amendment would allow for a land use that is inconsistent with several nodes/land use categories where the NC-2 district is allowed Zoning Officer Analysis (continued): Amendment creates potential enforcement problem by requiring staff to constantly inspect property to ensure no more than 12 cars are present Staff recommends denial of petition due to the aforementioned reasons There are potential conditions that could be imposed on the adoption of the amendment that would address the majority of staff's concerns Staff Recommendations: Receive the zoning text amendment petition, Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment(s) on the petition, 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 June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Ben Lloyd said that late today some changes were made to the recommendations and he approves of the new amendment. He said that the property in question was purchased in 1958. In 1960, he built a building that has always been used as automotive repair. In 2010, he had several offers from people to rent this property for automotive repair. He said that he is very particular about what goes on there and he was not impressed by the people that had approached him that wanted to rent the building. He does not want vehicles sitting around the property. In the fall of 2010, someone else approached him that wanted to lease this property who is an elderly car dealer. He rented his property to this gentleman and everything was fine until he went to the County office to get his permit. He was told that auto sales were not allowed on the property. He said that this property has always been used for automotive repair, but it is much more acceptable to him and the community to have automobile sales. He said that the building has been vacant long enough and must produce an income. This is the most acceptable use that he has found for it. He read his petition that was signed by every adjoining property owner. "To Whom It May Concem: Re: Text Amendment change on Ben Lloyd commercial property at 3228 US 70 W, Efland, NC. We, the undersigned owners or controllers of property adjoining the Ben Lloyd property at 3228 US 70 W in Efland do hereby offer no objection to and support the text amendment change to allow automobile sales on this property as is being requested. We feel that the service provided by this business would be very beneficial to the residents of our community." PUBLIC COMMENT: Robbie Riley said that he is right across from this property and he and his wife do not have a problem with car sales in this area. He supports this text amendment. Loren Peters said that he supports this text amendment. He lives directly across from this building. Benny Cecil said that he supported this text amendment and a comer of his land adjoins this proposed shop. He said that a car lot would be better for this property. Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to revisit his comments about the commercial transition activity node and commercial industrial transition activity node and what he would recommend as zoning. Michael Harvey said that a condition was discussed between himself and the applicant. This has been discussed for about a year. The easiest option is to use a text amendment. Regarding the activity nodes, the definitions are more geared to allow this type of development. He said that the rural community activity and the rural neighborhood activity node are not intended to have this type of development. As a compromise, this text amendment was suggested. Michael Harvey said that if this is approved, it is a countywide amendment. There are broader implications. Discussion ensued and Michael Harvey further clarified the recommendation. Commissioner McKee said that he is glad to see discussion on this. He said that this is the area in his mind where accommodations need to be made in order to bring in some more economic development. He is glad that there is some accommodation. Michael Harvey made reference to page 345 and said that there are two rural community activity nodes and he pointed these out on a map. Commissioner McKee said that he was concerned about the time that it takes to move these projects along. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Planning Board staff could move this forward in the schedule. Michael Harvey said that this would not be able to come to the meeting in April, so it would have to be the first or second meeting in May. Commissioner Foushee said that it seems that the Planning staff and the applicant have worked out accommodation and this should move forward. Ben Lloyd said that this has been sitting with the Planning Board for six months and this needs to be put on a fast track. Brian Crawford asked if this could be added to the next agenda. Michael Harvey said that this is the prerogative of the Planning Board Chair. He said that his problem is that the agenda has already gone out for March. Brian Crawford said that there is an option to do add-ons. Michael Harvey said that he does not think it is practical to add this on with all of the UDO work on the Planning Board agenda in March. Commissioner Jacobs suggested approving the staff recommendation and encourage it to be brought back sooner if feasible. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to: Receive the zoning text amendment petition, Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment(s) on the petition, 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 second meeting in May, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and Adjourn the public hearing until the second meeting in May, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Master Telecommunications Plan Map - To review the item and receive citizen comment on the Master Telecommunications Plan Map. [Note: Item C.3 is only a BOCC public hearing; the item is not referred to the Planning Board]. Public Hearing: Review and Adoption of the Master Telecommunication Plan (MTP) Map Application Specifics: Review and adoption of the MTP Map in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.18, including 6.18.5 of the Ordinance Board is being asked to adopt the attached map denoting properties where telecommunication towers have been deemed suitable for location Map contains publicly owner properties (i.e. County), quasi publicly owned properties (i.e. fire departments), and private properties where owners have expressed written interest Background—what does map do: Serves as a marketing tool for staff in identifying underserved portions of the County needed expanded service, Provides available locations to telecommunication providers on where towers are needed, Assists the County to address existing impediments to essential County communications. Adoption represents a proactive step by the County to comprehensively address local communication issues and access to services Background-what map does NOT do: Create an automatic exemption for these properties from the normal review and approval process for towers, including any necessary public hearings (Class A and B Special Use Permits) Eliminate the need for permits prior to the start of construction (i.e. Zoning Compliance, Erosion Control, and Building) Convey or establish a greater use of property than otherwise exists within the Ordinance. Times Have Changed Public safety response, Information technology info exchange Economic development Enable core competency of government through improved service delivery 70% of emergency calls from cell phones Broadband demand from citizens MTP Map Includes: The Map Denotes: Viable locations for cell towers Existing tower locations Major transmission towers Natural areas Historic properties Scenic corridors Volunteer agricultural districts Properties on Map: Map includes the following properties: County properties (i.e. Northern Park, Cedar Grove Park, County Soccer Fields, Walnut Grove Solid Waste site) OWASA property Volunteer fire departments (i.e., Caldwell, Cedar Grove, Eno, White Cross) Privately-Owned (i.e. Mellot) County Owned Property Self Imposed Conditions: Staff has recommended that the County consider imposing conditions concerning processing of administrative requests involving County property, including: Requiring a balloon test Notification of adjacent property owners via certified mail Scheduling and holding of a neighborhood information meeting Staff requests direction from the BOCC on these matters Recommendations: The Planning Director recommends that the Board: 1. Receive the item. 2. Conduct a public hearing and accept all public comments on the subject. 3. Adjoum hearing to the April 5, 2011 regular meeting for action by the Commissioners. It should be noted that there is no action required by the Planning Board on this item. Commissioner Jacobs asked why there were no self-imposed conditions. Craig Benedict said that it is not a requirement of the Master Telecommunications Plan to have self-imposed conditions. The fire stations do not have to do a balloon test. He said that this is a separate item for when the County is a participant. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the minutes from December 14th and said that the motion specifically said to ask staff to bring to the public hearing criteria which the County would apply to its own site. He asked if reading it aloud at the public hearing was considered bringing it to the public hearing, or if it is putting it in the material that the public sees. Craig Benedict said that he would bring back a resolution to the Board with self-imposing criteria at the second meeting in May. Brian Crawford made reference to Commissioner Gordon's recommendation at the beginning of the meeting and said that the staff recommendation did not include a Planning Board action. He asked what she wanted the Planning Board to review. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be important for the Planning Board to read the portions of Section 6.18 related to this discussion. The question has to do with the difference in the process that a person must follow when applying for permission to build a telecommunications tower. Is it a special use permit process or not, is there a balloon test, etc. With respect to the process, what is the significance of a site being placed on the MTP map. She made reference to page 356 and the criteria for ranking sites. Craig Benedict said that this is a policy issue and it is not what is being reviewed tonight. This is not a regulation change that is being requested. The request is to use an element of the existing code. Discussion ensued with Brian Crawford and Commissioner Gordon about the private sites. Commissioner Foushee asked about the process of private properties enrolling and how property owners would know that the County was considering enrolling the properties. Craig Benedict said that the intent to have a master plan has been advertised over the years and the property owners have had the ability to fill out an application to be part of the plan. This is the first phase and other property owners will be accepted in the next phase. There have been no exclusions in the applicants. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the ordinance is not being changed. He read the second bullet point on page 355. "Any tower less than 150 feet in height on which the owner of such facility permits the County to co-locate its wireless facilities on a structure, etc., as determined at the sole discretion of the County; those towers do not have to go through the balloon test." Therefore, any private site that is designated on this map does not have to go through the balloon test. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tony Blake said that he is President of the White Cross Fire Department and there is a hole with cell tower coverage and they support this on their site. He said that some of the 911 calls come in on cell phones and it is important to have coverage in this area. Matthew Danielson said that staff directed him to one of the cell sites and he is a cell tower developer. His company wants to develop a tower in the southeast portion of the County. He said that he is willing to go down on the height of the tower if it means not going through the public hearing process. Amy Scott is a rural property owner in Cedar Grove and based on the map, there is a large gap in coverage in this area. She said that she understands that the only way she can proceed forward is to bring maps of the property and ask to be formally added to the plan. She would like to be added to the master telecommunications plan. She said that she has ten acres of land and she has no cell phone coverage in this area. She also has no DSL or cable in this area. Patrick Mulkey lives on Stanford Road. He said that he does not own a cell phone. He commended the staff on the plan of how to deal with County-owned property and communicating to the neighbors. He said that there is no notice posted on the property and this was excluded in the requirements. He said that by creating the criteria followed by the County, it is pushing the business community away from the County site. He would like to see these criteria apply to anything under 150 feet. He lives next to OWASA and they do not communicate with the neighborhood. He thinks that it is important that neighbors communicate with each neighbor. With reference to the Planning Board discussing this item, Planning Board member Pete Hallenbeck said that the intent of this is great but the details need to be worked out. Frank Clifton said that the staff intent is to get the Board to authorize moving forward with the publicly owned sites. Any private owner that wants to enlist their property that complies with the zoning regulations could be added to the list of willing participants. Commissioner Jacobs said that, in an effort to move this along, this is an appropriate thing to be visited during Phase II of the UDO. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to: 1. Receive the proposal for the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) map contained in the agenda abstract. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public comments on the subject of the proposed MTP map. 3. 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 second meeting in May, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until the second meeting in May, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board recommendations and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was no Planning Board recommendation requested at this point, so he wanted to ask the Planning Board to revisit this in Phase II of the UDO. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like the Planning Board to see this. Chair Pelissier said that what was passed at the beginning of the meeting did not give clear direction to the Planning Board. She suggested a new motion that revises the date and specifies what is being asked of the Planning Board. Commissioner Gordon said that the Planning Board needs to review the advantages of getting on the map. She suggested giving everyone the chance to apply to get on the MTC map and to receive the revenue for a tower. The sites would still have to meet the criteria. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is the purview of the Board of Commissioners and it is not a Planning Board issue. Commissioner Jacobs called the motion to question. VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Foushee, Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 4 MOTION FAILED A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the staff recommendation (moving the date to the second meeting in May) and refer to the Planning Board and Planning staff in Phase II of the UDO any additional considerations regarding cell towers. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nays, 3 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Hemminger, and Commissioner Yuhasz) D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board