Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 05-22-2000APPROVED 4!3!2001 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAY 22, 2000 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on Monday, May 22, 2400 at 7:3Q p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leo Allison and members Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, Craufard D. Goodwin, Rachel Preston, Co-Chair James Selkirk, and Robert Strayhorn ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Barry Katz, Theresa Nicole Goading-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Holtkamp, Runyon Woods, COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Harmony Whalen COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe {all other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Orange County Board of Commissioners Chair Moses Carey said that the Orange County Planning Board Chair Leo Allison would be chairing the first two items on the agenda tonight and he would be chairing the third item. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Section 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof Planning Director Craig Benedict made the presentation. He outlined the items to be discussed as stated on the agenda. He summarized the two Zoning Ordinance amendments. He said that, consistent with the goals that have been put forth from the County, staff lacked at the public participation procedures that are a requirement of the zoning code. They found that when a public hearing is called, the first time the public hears about what will be on the public hearing is something in the newspapers. He said that a lot of the public believes, from this advertisement, that all of the ideas have been created and decisions have been made. He summarized the process of a public hearing. He said that the new process is consistent with state law and includes notifications sent out to the public. He gave an example of changing regulations within a watershed and said that the County would have to notify every person within the watershed and every person within a 500-foot radius around the watershed. The proposal is that a notice will be sent out to have an open house or public forum prior to the public meeting. This would give the staff an opportunity to meet with the public and explain the changes that are being made. There would also be another opportunity after the public hearing for additional comments from the public. He said that the staff worked with the Institute of Government and an intern that was doing a paper on decision making and public policy. He said that bringing in the public at an earlier time usually leads to better understanding. He said that aver the next 12 to 18 months, there would be a lot of changes in the comprehensive plan and he hoped that the public participation procedures would assist in making the changes more understandable. QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Commissioner Brown asked what the new procedures would eliminate from the present practice. Craig Benedict said that instead of sending out 5,000 notices, the Planning Department would place ads in a newspaper for four consecutive weeks. In addition, they would have an open house -meeting at a residence or location in the specific area. These changes in notification would only be when the County is changing major regulations. Anyone who petitions for a zoning change to make their property commercial, or to build a tower, would have to follow the other guidelines and every person within that 500-foot boundary would have to be notified. Commissioner Brawn asked if a public information meeting would be done each time. Planner Robert Davis said that for a regular rezoning this procedure would not be followed. There would also be signs posted around the property announcing the public hearing. Craig Benedict said that the Planning staff could consider some sort of neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Brown clarified that the neighborhood meeting could be added and Craig Benedict said yes, this is a suggested change that the Planning Board will consider. Commissioner Gordon feels that the education process is an improvement but she hesitates to eliminate the letters and asked if the letters could be retained in the process. Craig Benedict explained the reasons far not retaining the sending out of letters in the process. He feels that it is a better investment in staff time to meet personally with people in the area where a change has been requested. Commissioner Gordon feels that it would help if people received a letter because some people do not read the newspaper. Craig Benedict said that the staff would consider keeping the letters as proposals are brought back. Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares the concerns of Commissioner Gordon about eliminating the letters. He made reference to the advertising and Craig Benedict clarified that it would be four weeks in one newspaper of public record. He likes the idea of open houses and having the meetings in the communities. He made reference to page five and questioned the posting of signs at least ten days before the meeting and asked if people could be given additional time and if the signs could be pasted more in advance. Craig Benedict said that the signs could be pasted sooner than 10 days. Commissioner Jacobs would like for the signs to be posted longer than ten days. He made reference to page six and the advertising according to state statute and the rationale behind placing larger advertising. The state statute is less than ~/ of a newspaper page in size. Craig Benedict said that because Orange County sends out individual notices, that the ads have been smaller in the past. He said that the staff is suggesting that the County put larger ads in the paper than what is required by state law. He said that even though the larger ad is expensive, the increasing amount of letters sent out is also expensive. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page eight and asked if this was the explanation or the verbiage that would be included in the ordinance. He feels that 'adjacent' needs to be defined. He said that he hopes this can be coordinated with developing a citizen's guide for dealing with the planning process. He suggested that a subcommittee of the Planning Board might want to initiate this project. He feels that citizens who have attended meetings to speak one way ar the other should be included an the committee. He volunteered to serve on the committee along with Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown asked about the follow up process after the neighborhood meetings. Craig Benedict said that follow up would occur. From the neighborhood meetings a mailing list will be developed and follow up notices will be sent for each step of the process. There were no questions from Planning Board members. John Link made reference to page 10 and compared the old with the new procedure and asked about the BOCC work session. Craig Benedict said that each item would be presented at a work session before beginning the process of public input. John Link feels it is a goad idea. However, typically work session agendas are full. He wonders if this is workable. Craig Benedict clarified that the notice of the public hearing would follow the item being introduced at a work session. He wants, in some way, to notify the County Commissioners that the process has begun an a specific item or issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer item C- 1-a to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than June 29, 2040. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Section 4.2.12 Existing Commercial - V (EC-5) Craig Benedict explained that there were 113 separate existing commercial uses, known as EC-5. The Planning staff is suggesting that under extreme circumstances, small existing commercial parcels, less than one acre, would be able to shift from one lot to an adjacent one. This would be allowed under a list of ten criteria. The criteria are listed in the agenda. This would allow for the continuation of the commercial use in the future. Any change in the operation would have to meet new standards. He made reference to the criteria and said that if an EC-5 district is wiped off the map, reduced, or becomes non-functional based on some sort of right-of-way taking that is in excess of what is required by the comprehensive plan, the property owner would not be able to purchase other land. QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12, item "C" that reads, "Existing district shall be eliminated and returned to the zoning of surrounding land. If the old district is adjacent to more than one district, the tract shall be returned to the lower use category." (This relates to a proposed change to deal with the condemnation by the Department of Transportation for a change in Erwin Road. The stare property is zoned ECS. If the store is condemned, present regulations would not allow rebuilding in another location.) She asked far further explanation. Craig Benedict said that it means that if a portion of the district is made non-functional and they will lose the rights they have of a portion of the land, that portion of the land would have to revert back to the use designation of the adjacent property. Craig Benedict said that this language would be reworded to make it clearer. Commissioner Gordon asked about item "D" on the same page and asked why expansion would be allowed. Craig Benedict said that this was in response to a concern to encourage the property owners to redo their building and this would provide an incentive for their potential conversion and adherence to the stricter regulations. Commissioner Gordon suggested using an additional square footage allowance as an incentive. She asked if the EC-5 was allowed by right and how it would be decided if the land was condemned whether or not there was an impact on adjacent properties. Craig Benedict said that the process for EC- 5 is that if the property owner wants to change the zoning district by purchasing additional property that notification would be given to the neighbors and the County Commissioners would approve through the regular rezoning process. Commissioner Brawn asked of the 113 EC-5 uses how many were operational and Craig Benedict did not know. He has received complaints on quite a few of these properties. Karen Barrows said that it feels that something has happened to bring this item forward. Craig Benedict said that the best way to address a regulatory change is to address it comprehensively instead of doing it for one or two people who have requested that this be reviewed for changes. He said that he has received requests from some of the owners of EC-5 properties to expand or change their business in some way. He said that right now there were not enough regulations in the code to direct what the future building should look like. He hopes to have some standards for some consistency. Karen Barrows clarified that Craig Benedict has received same inquiries from businesses and also some complaints from citizens and Craig Benedict verified this. Crauford Goodwin asked about the logic of this change and said that it seems that the concern is the taking of the right and compensating the property owner in some way. Craig Benedict said that the consequence would be that a neighbor would see that a business might move closer or adjacent to a person's property line. He said that the neighbor would receive a notification of any changes made. Commissioner Gordon asked about the question of what to do with abandoned property. Craig Benedict said that the EC-5 standards do not fallow the rule that after 180 days, the use would be lost. It is hoped that road improvements would be made in Orange County that may involve a widening of a road or the expansion of an intersection. He foresees this as a problem for some businesses in the future. If a person abandons the business and later wants to reopen, they would have to meet the new standards and setbacks. Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to put in writing the impacts that would be considered. Chair Carey asked about a situation which prevents a property from being continued in its intended use if it would revert back to the surrounding land use and Craig Benedict said that it would revert back to the least intensive use. However, the applicant could ask for a rezoning. Commissioner Brown clarified that what this would do is keep the small businesses in business. She feels it is an improvement to offer an initiative for improving the property. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer item C- 1-b to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than June 29, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Orange County Sail Erasion and Sedimentation Cantral Amendments Craig Benedict said that Christy Anspach of the Erosion Control Department is here tonight and has contributed a large amount of work towards these changes. This ordinance is not part of the zoning text or subdivision text. It is a freestanding ordinance. These rules are ones that have been created at the state level and it is up to the County to put them into the ordinance. He summarized the changes made to the ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to certain land disturbing activities that have to do with agriculture. There are also exemptions for forest land and mining activities. He said that the erosion control plan had to match other environmental issues that are attached to the site. Some of the notices of violations and penalties have been amended as well. QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Commissioner Gordon said that gender neutral language should be used throughout. She asked about page one regarding forestlands and the forest practice guidelines that relate to water quality. Craig Benedict said that there were different guidelines for the state because of the preservation of agriculture and forestry. The County's guidelines are more stringent. Commissioner Gordon asked about section 18 and the erosion control plan and about the utilization of ditches for the purpose of de-watering or lowering the water table. Craig Benedict said that it was a notification provision so that the Division of Water Quality could know if this type of land disturbance activity would lower the water table that might in turn affect the farm operation or wells in the area. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page three and the deadline for reviewing a plan. She said that it seems that this language sounded very similar to the other language that was just revised. Craig Benedict said that this refers to staff restrictions for a time frame versus an elected body. Commissioner Gordon asked that the issues about the ditches and the forestry be brought to the Commission for the Environment for their information. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff analyze the forest practice guidelines related to water quality and share comments with the boards before they are submitted. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 16, item h, "Consideration of applicant's past performance", and made an editorial change. Crauford Goodwin asked for a definition of plants and animals use for humans. Craig Benedict feels the list is wide open -any plants and animals useful to humans. Commissioner Brawn asked Craig Benedict to be specific about what these amendments would do. Craig Benedict said that most of the changes will benefit the ordinance and that there would be a clearer process for enforcement of the ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control amendments to the Planning staff to receive further input from the public prior to it being returned to the County Commissioners for consideration of adoption no sooner than June 29, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Consideration of the Neuse River Basin Storm Water Control Ordinance Craig Benedict presented a summary of the information in the agenda. He said that this was the start of a process that would continue for the next six months. These are rules that have been developed by the state to be enforced by the County. These rules were put forward aver the last four or five years primarily for nitrogen control within the water basin. He said that if the County does not adapt its own rules, that the state would review all applications for subdivisions within Orange County. The staff is suggesting that there be a storm water program to implement at the local level, reducing the amount of nitrogen that goes into the water basin. The staff is evaluating same storm water management programs with Chapel Hill and Carrboro to talk about how best to manage erosion control and the amount of nitrogen that gets into the water basin. He said that the County could hire Triangle J Council of Governments to help in the outreach programs. In August he will bring back a document in ordinance format. At that time, the Planning Staff will ask for permission to transmit this to the state for review and comment. Commissioner Gordon said that this program was the same one that she heard about at a Triangle J Council of Governments meeting. She asked for an analysis of what affect this program would have an Orange County. She feels that it will have a profound effect on the amount of development. She also asked for a bigger picture of how the standards are stricter upstream. Craig Benedict said that he would put an analysis together on the program's effect on Orange County's development. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a discussion at Triangle J about impervious surface storm water runoff per acre and whether or not this might mitigate against infill. There was also a discussion about whether or not there could be an average across the jurisdiction as opposed to per acre, and having a transfer of storm water rights from a rural area to an urban area so that there could be infill and provide the same impervious surface in the County. Chair Carey clarified that this program submission was not due to the state until August 19tH The state will then review it and return it. The program will be implemented in Orange County by March 1, 2001. Chair Carey said that the Cape Fear Storm Water Control Ordinance might have a greater effect on Orange County than this one. He feels that this ordinance should be monitored very closely. Craig Benedict explained the process that would be followed. The model program will be refined over the next few months. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to transmit the Neuse River Basin Storm Water Control Ordinance to the State NCDENR/UVQ for review and comment prior to being returned to the County Commissioners for consideration of final adoption no sooner than June 29, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the County Commissioners to consider, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next meeting on the regular meeting calendar will be held on Thursday, May 25 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordan Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk