Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 08-28-2000APPROVED 4/17/2001 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD August 28, 2000 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Monday, August 28, 2000 at 7:3Q p. m. in the Judge Gordon F. Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Lea Allison, Chair and members Runyon Woods, Bob Strayhorn, Crauford Goodwin, Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, Barry Katz, and Rachel Preston COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John 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 VICE-CHAIR He announced that Chair Carey was out of town and that he, Commissioner Halkiotis, would be chairing this meeting along with Leo Allison, Chair of the Orange County Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners agreed to address item C5 first -Shaping Orange County's Future Report. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Commissioner Halkiotis read the public charge. NOTE: Planning Board Chair Leo Allison chaired items C1 and 4 Commissioners' Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis chaired items 2, 3, and 5 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Oranae County Zonina Ordinance Text Amendments a. Article 22 Definitions far Lot, Usable b. Article 22 Definitions of Stream Buffer c. Section 6.23.7 Stream Buffers d. Detailed Table of Contents e. Section 6.24 Stream Buffers Outside of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts f. Section 6.25 Usable lot areas when using Ground Absorption Septic Systems Planner Robert Davis summarized this item. He said that these text amendments were coming forward to clean up a section of the ordinance for better interpretation and to consistently interpret what the stream buffer section means. He said that right now there was not a stream buffer requirement unless the land was in a watershed. He explained a map showing the stream buffers and the edge of the flood plain. On the calculation of the width, the ordinance indicates that only a perpendicular line across the stream should be drawn, but it does not say how many times this should be done along the stream. He said that the minimum feet that the staff is recommending is 100 feet along the horizontal area. Also, the definition of a Usable Lot has been clarified as, "the portion of a zoning lot unencumbered by stream buffers, conservation easements, drainage easements, public and private right-of-ways, access easements, and utility easements." The definition also includes areas affected by steep slopes, which are slopes greater than 15%, wildlife corridors, ponds, lakes, and streams. This item will be going back to the Planning Board with a recommendation back to the Commissioners no earlier than October 3~d. The Ordinance Review Committee will also review these amendments. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the statement on page four, Section 7, "Usable lots for parcels between 40,000 square feet and 1.99 acres in size shall be either 30,000 square feet or 40°~ of the total zoning lot, whichever is greater. Zoning lots two acres and greater shall have a minimum usable lot area of at least 40,000 square feet." She asked if some kind of usable lot area could be settled on and required for everybody instead of stepping it up. Robert Davis said that the 40°~ was added because there was quite a gap between 40,000 and two acres. Commissioner Gordon said that her point was that the amount of square footage should be justified. Her question is why more should be added to the justified amount. Craig Benedict said that 30,000 square feet was the definite minimum because it would accommodate the house site, driveway, septic area, and repair area with a margin for some accessory structures. With zoning lots of two acres or more, the people who are going to have a two-acre lot would most likely have other accessory structures that would need additional usable area. He agrees that the 40°~ is not critical on the smaller lot size. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that it would be nice to include an illustration on the definition of a steep slope. He asked about Section one and the Usable Lot. He asked about conservation easements. Craig Benedict said that they were definitely not trying to discourage conservation, but that stream buffers or conservation easements should not be included in the accomplishment of the minimum lot size. Rachel Preston asked if there was any verbiage on what a homeowner could do to streams and vegetation. Craig Benedict said that it was handled by the Erosion Control and Sedimentation Ordinance, which says that natural water courses are not supposed to be diverted. There is encroachment to some degree but changing water courses is limited in the majority of cases. If there is any disturbance of this nature, there has to be some kind of mitigation. Commissioner Brown asked if this establishes a 30-foot buffer and Craig Benedict said that it did establish a 30-foot buffer in areas that are not part of the protected watershed. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Joe Phelps said that he did not know that his subdivision request would cause so much work and so many drastic changes in the rules and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. He feels that the changes in the rules and regulations are very drastic. He feels that most of these amendments are not necessary. He questioned why the County Commissioners would want to put stream buffers in areas that are in the non-protected watershed. He supports affordable housing and thinks that with these new rules on development, no one could afford to buy land in Orange County. His main concern is what is being taken away from present landowners with regard to the 33% of required open space with no compensation. He said that these new regulations would greatly reduce the number of people coming into Orange County in the next 30 years. Scott Radway had some questions on what was meant by the proposals. Section 1 -Usable Lat Area -steep slopes {i.e., greater than 15%}. He prefers a 25°fo grade. Wildlife Corridors - as identified by whom, when, where, and for what purpose Section 2 -Stream Buffer -who identifies the floodplains Minimum buffers that are not in protected watersheds -why 30 feet and not more Section 6 -Minimum Usable Lot Areas -should say minimum usable lot area for lots that utilize ground absorption 30,000 ar 40,000 square feet lot -much easier to say 30,000 or 40,000 and not 40°~ Bobby Nichols said that he has stream buffers on his land that he is concerned about. He made reference to page three, section two, which says, "must remain undisturbed in its natural state," and asked for a definition. Craig Benedict said that if someone owned land that was within the floodplain and wants to have any type of agricultural production or forestry, they are exempted by the majority of state laws. With na further public comment, Chair Allison closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the proposed zoning text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners na sooner than October 3, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ORANGE COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS Craig Benedict made a correction to the agenda abstract that this item was a public hearing. The abstract indicated that it was not a public hearing. Craig Benedict made this presentation. He said that it had been four years since the inception of the telecommunication rules in Orange County. A lot of improvements have been made since that time. He explained in detail the following issues and suggestions. A section of definitions could be added that describes the different types of antennae arrays that can be on the towers. He explained the possibility of putting towers on existing structures such as hotels, etc. One of the suggestions is for the County to put together a master plan where the County has more involvement in the placement of telecommunications towers. Another suggestion is allowing telecommunication facilities to be in electrical transmission lines. Another suggestion is the development of utility corridors across the County. There are minimum standards that can be augmented within the County's code to promote more co-location and multi-use. At this time, the standards for telecommunications towers is that anything 200 feet and above is a Class A Special Use and it goes to both the Planning Board and County Commissioners. If it is 199 feet, it is a Class B and just goes to the Board of Adjustment. The staff provided the County Commissioners with a report over the last year, and all of the towers were Class B with a height of 195 feet and above. He said that the County Commissioners could change the height at which the tower would require a Class A Special Use Permit. He said that there were other counties and towns that were putting together master telecommunication plans. The reaction to these plans has been favorable so far. He said that the Commissioners did not have to make any decisions tonight. Commissioner Gordan made reference to page 7, Telecommunications Facilities, and asked Craig Benedict why the facilities would be permitted as an accessary use in parks and recreation greater than 1.25 acres and in community facilities. Also, at the top of page 9, Section C, it says "it shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any residential district or residential portion of a PUD unless a property is designated as part of the special utility overlay district. She asked if that could sometimes negate the placement in parks, recreation areas, and community facilities. Craig Benedict said that, in regards to the parks and community facilities, they were zoning designations that may or may not be on the zoning map at this time. He said that there was enough latitude in the regulations so that there were no conflicting provisions. Commissioner Gordon said that community facility needed to be defined. Craig Benedict said that in his previous experience, towers were located in parks where there were lights. He said that towers could be incorporated in parks and could sometimes reduce the cost of sports lighting poles. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a differential fee structure, which would encourage people to do the things that the County prefers, such as co-location. Also, regarding the issue of the height of the poles, he would like for the County Commissioners to review all of the applications. He said that if the requests far towers were going to the Board of Adjustment, then the County Attorney should be present at the meetings. Craig Benedict will do some research with the present ordinance and look at the rationale for the height number, which causes the application to go to the Board of Adjustment instead of to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the $4,000 application fee and asked if the County's legal representation was included in that. Craig Benedict will take a look at the fee structure, County staff time, attorney time, etc. Commissioner Halkiatis made reference to ca-location and said that it seemed like the only people interested in co-location are government agencies, school systems, emergency services, fire departments, etc. He said that some of the tower companies were very prejudiced about who would ca-locate on their towers. Commissioner Brown asked for a list of all the towers and a map. She asked about how these towers were being located. She asked if the trend was for the towers to go along the interstates and major highways and Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Brown is interested in having the County Commissioners review the requests for telecommunications towers. Karen Barrows said that she would like for the County Commissioners to take over the telecommunications tower process. She said that she feels the County should have an independent engineer who is familiar with this process to advise the County Commissioners. Howard McAdams said that the Board of Adjustment has had six applications with two denied. For one application, 500 notification letters were sent out and no one spoke against the tower. Bob Strayhorn said that a lot of pain needs to be taken to be sure that the towers are located appropriately. He feels it should be a high priority to put the towers in conservation districts. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the contract with Metrosite or any contract with a comparable company. Craig Benedict said that Metrosite was sanctioned with the North Carolina Association of Counties and there is a standardized contract that can be used around the country. He will bring forward a contract for the County Commissioners' consideration. PUBLIC COMMENT Sharlene Pilkey, member of the Board of Adjustment, said that there were forty-one towers in this County. The problem is that the range is two miles and this is not far enough. Grey Styers spoke an behalf of Bell South Mobility DCS and American Tower Corporation. He said that he has spoken with all of the towers companies operating in North Carolina and most carriers, and they are very interested in the proposal tonight. He said that his law firm worked with the County in 1995 and 1996 in drafting the current ordinance. They would like to be involved in the process to explain and provide illustrations. He said that wireless communication was becoming a fact of life. He agrees that it is bad when two towers are located next to each other. He said that ordinances are needed that encourage and require co-location and minimize the number of towers. He does have answers to some of the questions raised about accessory uses, stealth, etc. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordan, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to discuss the telecommunication towers and antenna amendments at a work session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL LANDFILL (MODIFICATION) SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CLASS "A" Commissioner Halkiotis explained that the process for receiving public comment on a Special Use Permit is different in that it is an evidentiary hearing where evidence is heard. An explanation of this type of hearing was available at the back table. Evidentiary zoning hearings, unlike legislative hearings, are not designed to solicit broad public opinion about how the Board should vote on a matter before it. Rather, evidentiary zoning hearings provide an opportunity for the Board to gather the facts it needs to apply policies already set in the ordinance. Therefore, the standards and gathering evidence are much stricter than they are for legislative hearings. The Clerk gave an oath to Planner Eddie Kirk and Landfill Engineer Mike Meagher. Planner Eddie Kirk explained the proposed modification. The particular property is located immediately west of the existing landfill on the north side of Eubanks Raad, on a 12.76- acre tract of land. The existing special use permit was approved on May 5, 1997. This included a construction of a 4,000-square foot vehicle maintenance building, with the processing of yard waste and stone debris on an ongoing basis. A modification to the special use permit was approved on November 17, 1998 by the Board of County Commissioners to add an area to be used for recycling glass and metal cans. The expansion included a 7,500-square foot concrete slab, two open sheds, and 44,000 square feet of additional vehicular surface area. The proposed modification calls for the addition of two buildings that total 6,120 square feet an the existing 7,500- square foot recycling pad that was previously constructed. Also, the modification calls for the construction of an additional 1,125 square feet of concrete pad contiguous to the existing pad and storage of six roll off containers on the site. Landfill Engineer Mike Meagher explained the reasons far the modifications. He said that the new structures would protect the workers from the sun, rain, etc. The concrete pads would give the trucks better traction instead of tearing up the gravel. Commissioner Gordan asked about the cast of this project. The staff will provide this information to the Board at a later time since this is only a public hearing. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the recommendations from the Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Task Force that involve the possibility of more structures. He asked why these structures would be built that might not have enough room to include what would be added in the future. Mike Meagher said that there would probably not be room on this tract for C&D waste. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested scheduling a visit to the site. He also invited the members of the Planning Board to visit the site. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill made some comments about moving ahead with this process. Commissioner Halkiotis is not comfortable moving ahead with this process without scheduling a visit to the landfill. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer this modification to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than November 1, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE MAP AMENDMENT {Rural Industrial Node) Craig Benedict said that the rural industrial node was brought forward earlier this year. He suggested that in the Comprehensive Plan process that staff look at the rural industrial nodes and rural neighborhood nodes and indicate what uses are appropriate within the rural sections of the County. Rural industrial nodes could have a hard or a soft use. The hard rural industrial node would have more manufacturing and the soft rural industrial node would have less environmental effect. The issue that came up on June 29t" had to da with the quarry and the rural industrial node. He said that there were ways to control uses through zoning by having a Planned Development-1 District where there can be specific uses. Commissioner Gordon asked if staff could define the two industrial nodes as "hard uses" and "soft uses". In response to inquiries from Commissioner Gordon, Craig Benedict said that it would be important to not do very specific land use changes, but Countywide or within the watersheds. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the Orange County Comprehensive Map Amendment to the Planning Staff for incorporation into the Comprehensive Planning Amendment Process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S FUTURE REPORT - Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil gave this report. He presented a PowerPoint presentation. The Shaping Orange County's Future task force included 30 citizens who met for three and a half years and developed some recommendations in April 2000. The task force was asked to develop a quality growth strategy for the entire County, develop a community building component to the strategy, and develop a process for maintenance of community in every part of the County. The task force made some projections of the growth in Orange County by the year 2030. Taking the growth in Orange County over the past 30 years, the population in the year 2030 could be 178,740. The task force also projected that 46% of the County's land area would be developed. Ellen Ironside summarized several areas of the SOCF report. In summary, she noted the values that the task force identified as follows: 1) sustainable renewable use of resources and environmental stewardship through joint planning, cooperation, and action; 2} towns which are friendly and accessible, centers of education, culture, and civic life; 3) places where individuals and neighborhoods thrive along with businesses and institutions that serve their needs; 4} rural areas which retain natural visual and economic resources by maintaining the integrity of forests, streams, and open space through voluntary incentives, thus preserving the land's continuing potential for agriculture and other uses; 5} the development of children and youth as well as adult citizens in various phases of their lives, by providing excellent elementary and secondary education, cultural experiences and life-long learning opportunities; 6) a strong commitment to the well-being of all individuals, young and old, of any race or ethnicity, and with any disability by providing for basic physical and social needs; 7) governance that provides necessary public services efficiently, proactively establishes collaborative ties within the region and state, encourages civic participation, and is fully representative of all the County's citizens, responsive to their needs, consistent and fair, socially just in decision making, and accountable for the promises made on behalf of citizens; 8) a shared sense of community -civil, collaborative, vibrant, friendly, caring, and both diverse and inclusive where citizens feel responsible to and for one another, where involvement in community life is both encouraged and anticipated, where the contributions of all are welcome and respected. Norm Gustaveson made reference to the recommendations and asked that the Board of County Commissioners read the recommendations very carefully and look at the issues which are identified in the report. He said that in looking at the governmental structure, the concern was the issue that somehow all parts of the County should be represented an the County Board of Commissioners. A second big question is the interlocal and regional planning. The idea of a growth management board may be one of the best ways to keep track of growth in the County. He said that it is hoped that two-thirds of the future growth will be placed in those places that already have water and sewer. The report suggests an evaluation of a growth management budget. He said that the big question was the importance of being sure the open space in Orange County was not lost. Carl Shy talked about transportation and environmental water issues and a diverse economy. He said that the vehicle miles traveled were expected to double by the year 2030. The major way to reduce the number of vehicle miles is to place incentives ar restrictions on the use of cars. The report has several suggestions to be sure that the vehicle miles do not double in the next thirty years. These include park and ride lots, public transportation nodes, low emission vehicles, etc. Regarding water quality, the committee hopes to drive growth away from watersheds. The task force hopes that incentives will be used to encourage people to use less water. The conservation of water will reduce the cast of new reservoirs and water supply. Regarding the economy, the main recommendation is that the task force thought the County could be more progressive in encouraging new businesses to come to Orange County. In general, the County and Towns could support the startup of businesses through a variety of means and make developing regulations more flexible to accommodate new businesses. Peggy Pollitzer said that the task force wants to encourage both public and private initiatives to make affordable housing a reality in Orange County. This would include governments, non-profits, and for-profit corporations to take an interest and make a real effort to provide a wide range of affordable housing. The task force also recommends asking UNC to develop affordable housing for its students, staff, and faculty in proportion to their increases. Regarding Human Service Priorities, she said that it would require significant effort to promote healthy behaviors on the part of the citizens. The task force also recommends adequately funding and providing community-based services to meet the demand for mental health, mental illness, and substance abuse. The task farce also has recommendations in the report on senior citizens, childcare, public safety, education campaigns, and the needs of the Latino population. Regarding K-12 education, the task force is encouraging cooperation between the two school systems and asks that the County and school systems consider the appropriateness of school merger. The task force also encourages increased cooperation between the administration of the two systems and to look at whether merger is a possibility. The task force would also like for the Board to look at adult education. The task force feels it is important to the citizens to have a continuing education program. Also, English as a Second Language is a critical component of bringing everybody in as an equal opportunity. Ellen Iranside talked about the citizen's roundtable. The Governments would actively pursue community and citizen involvement in decision making. An ongoing citizen's roundtable modeled after the SOCF Task Force was relied upon by the Town and County governments to provide an avenue for citizen's concerns to be transmitted and heard by the elected bodies. The roundtable is charged to examine issues, gain broad citizen input, come to consensus, and make recommendations to the governing boards to give serious weight and consideration to this input. The roundtable is also charged with monitoring implementation of the adapted SOCF recommendations and examining the County's vision for any necessary corrections. The roundtable members are volunteers who are selected for appointment by each of the governing boards in the County to reflect the diversity of Orange County citizens. The roundtable will use facilitation and dispute resolution techniques in working with community issues. PUBLIC COMMENT James Carnahan spoke on behalf of the Village Project, an ad hoc group of citizens {designers, planners, and environmentalists). They want to promote alternatives to sprawl by supporting traditional patterns of land use and transportation. Their primary goal is preservation of the rural landscape. They are commenting tonight about the environment and land use section of the task force report and support its call to, "identify areas of the County in which to promote denser mixed use development and channel growth into these areas." They ask the County Commissioners and the task force to consider two items. They ask that the County Commissioners consider the North Carolina railroad between Charlotte and Morehead City as an alternative transportation corridor along which to concentrate the growth. The Village Project believes it would be prudent and exciting to plan transit villages for several sites along the railroad line. Secondly, they strongly support the earlier language of the task force report, the proposed rural villages as growth receptors at appropriate sites in rural Orange County. He said that this would require some growth focussing mechanism for rural areas, and they support the task force proposal that rural citizens work in small area planning processes to establish a fair and equitable mechanism for directing development into a few sites where compact mixed use communities can grow over time surrounded by large conservation buffers. The Village Project shares the concerns about utility issues, particularly sewer, and they concur that extension of municipal services into rural villages is neither necessary nor desirable. Jeff Schmitt was representing about 75 citizens in the County. He commented about the item, Putting Community Building First, which involves convening asix-month study group to look at the basis for the representation and the election of the Board of County Commissioners. He said that 47 of the 100 counties in North Carolina elect their representatives on a basis other than fully at-large. He made reference to the executive summary and said that there was no mention in that document of convening a study group to look at the basis for the representation of the County Commissioners. With no further citizens to speak on this item, Vice-Chair Halkiotis closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown that the Board of County Commissioners take the Shaping Orange County's Future report up at a work session before it is taken to the Assembly of Governments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the Board to consider, a motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Boardroom of the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Stephen H. Halkiotis, Vice Chair Beverly A. Blythe, CMC