Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08-22-2011 APPROVED 9/20/2011 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING August 22, 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, August 22, 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: Annette Moore and Sahana Ayers COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members Alan Campbell, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Judith Wegner, and Larry Wright PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine Mitchell, and Johnny Randall A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Pelissier welcomed everyone. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to add an additional item to the closed session for the purpose of: To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. PUBLIC CHARGE — Planning Board Chair Crawford read the public charge. The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS- Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford chaired these items. 1. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - To review a government-initiated text amendment to Section 2.5.3 (Plan Specifications) of the Unified Development Ordinance which will add language requiring development projects subject to site plan approval to demonstrate compliance with adopted County access management and connectivity plans. Michael Harvey presented this item. He went over Attachment 1. He read some amended language, as follows: "Compliance with County adopted access management, transportation, or connectivity plans and denote the location of future roadways and access easements, whether public or private, to ensure and encourage future connectivity." Andrea Rohrbacher arrived at 7:09 P.M. There was no public comment. Brian Crawford noted that there is a Planning Board quorum. Commissioner McKee asked Michael Harvey about a project when he was on the Planning Board that there was a road that was stubbed out and there was opposition in the community. Also, recently with the Habitat for Humanity, there was another stub-out to the property behind it. He asked if this addressed the issue of going in with a stub-out to another piece of property and then opposition to the further development in it to stop it. Michael Harvey said that this amendment attempts to identify stub-outs and to ensure that landlocked parcels are guaranteed access to a public road. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the Manager's recommendation: 1. Receive the UDO text amendment request; 2. Conduct the public hearing on the petition; 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the October 18, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until October 18, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment -To review a govemment-initiated text amendment to the following Sections of the Unified Development Ordinance: 5.1.4(E), 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.6, and Article 10. The amendment will uncouple kennels and riding stables as a land use. No changes to the existing standards or approval processes are being proposed with this action. Michael Harvey presented this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. August 22, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM C2: PUBLIC HEARING Petition for a UDO TEXT AMENDMENT UDO/ZONING 2011-04 Splitting the existing Kennels (Class II)/Riding Stables Land use category ISSUE: - During UDO development, staff was asked to split the existing land uses into separate categories - Concern was expressed that uses are too dissimilar to be reviewed under the same development criteria - Certain regulations did not apply to both land uses SOLUTION: - Amend Section 5.2.1 Table of Permitted Uses to split existing land use category, - Amend 5.6 Standards for Commercial uses to create separate development standards governing development of Kennel (Class II) and Riding Stable - This includes eliminating existing requirements that Animal Services issues a permit for a Riding Stable (they have no standards or requirements to do so within their regulations) - Amend existing definitions contained in Article 10 to eliminate inconsistent language Kennels (Class II)/Riding Stables permitted within: - Rural Buffer (RB) - Agricultural Residential (AR) - Rural Residential (R-1) - Community Commercial Three (CC-3) - General Commercial Four (GC-4) - Agricultural Services (AS) - Economic Development Buckhorn Higher Density (EDB-2) (Kennel Class II Only), and - Economic Development Eno Higher Density (EDE-2) (Kennel Class II only) subject to the review and approval of a Class B Special Use Permit application. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT ACCOMPLISHES: - Amends UDO as directed by BOCC - Completes the requested first step in the process to allow for a comprehensive re- evaluation of existing development standards and review processes for each land use - Eliminates existing contradictions WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO: - Alter established review processes. Kennels and Riding Stables shall still be reviewed as Class B Special Use Permits (i.e. Board of Adjustment) - Modify standards (i.e. setback requirements, signage, lot area, etc.) - Allow uses in any new general use zoning district not previously noted Staff Recommendations: 1. Receive the UDO text amendment request, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment(s) on the petition, 3. 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 October 18, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until October 18, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. There was no public comment. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 21 and the revision in Section 5 Kennel Class 1, which is a change to the text. She read the bullet point, "Kennel Class 1 can be considered a customary accessory use to a residential land use." She said that this change seems to be premature and going too far to say a kennel can be considered a customary accessory use to a residential land use. She said that currently Kennel Class 1 is listed as a commercial use. Michael Harvey said that staff added this in because the Class 1 Kennel is not considered a commercial operation. The animals are kept only for the purpose of showing competitions and sport. There is no boarding or breeding or commercial activity for a Class 1 Kennel. This is an attempt to make it more consistent with existing definitions and services. Commissioner Gordon said that 19 animals could make a lot of noise. Commissioner Jacobs said that one of the biggest sore points in Orange County is the establishment of kennels in residential areas. He said that if it could be geared more toward density it would be better, but 20 dogs in a one-acre zoned area is too much. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the classification of whether it is a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit is not important, but the standards by which each case is judged are important. Judith Wegner said that there have been some contentious issues with kennels in recent memory that did not come through the Planning Board, so if the Board of County Commissioners know of any, she would like to be made aware of them. She asked Michael Harvey about his thoughts on these two cases and it was, "not in my backyard,"from the neighbors because of the presence of too many animals. Judith Wegner asked to have a summary to the Planning Board from Animal services about what is different about the aggregation of animals. Michael Harvey said that a Class 2 Kennel is related more to a commercial entity. Commissioner McKee said that he has his own concerns about the noise potential to neighbors. He said that these kennels should be based on density. He said that if limits are set, it will be arbitrary. Annette Moore said that she works with Animal Services directly and they are seeing some of these cases as rescue/foster homes; and they are seeing upwards of 50+ or more dogs. This is where there are problems. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was an issue about ten years ago about a rooster that continued to crow and it was in a one-acre density, and people found it very intrusive but this is not regulated. He said that the County Commissioners need to remember that Orange County is becoming a more suburban community and there needs to be a more sophisticated analysis of this issue. Larry Wright asked Michael Harvey about the intent of this amendment. Michael Harvey said that the intent is to split the land use category into two separate uses, with no changes in standards. This will allow staff to do a comprehensive assessment of existing regulatory requirements for each use, which may lead to further discussion of the standards. Brian Crawford said that this issue would be referred to the Planning Board in September. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the UDO text amendment request, 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 October 18, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and adjoum the public hearing until October 18, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment -To review a govemment-initiated text amendment to Article 10 (Definitions) of the Unified Development Ordinance which will modify the definition of"Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node Land"to be consistent with the definition contained in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The definition contained in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was modified on June 21, 2011. Perdita Holtz made a PowerPoint presentation. UDO Text Amendment Article 10 - Definitions UDO/ZONING 2011-05 Quarterly Public Hearing August 22, 2011 Item C.3 Proposed Action - Update definition of "Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node Land" in UDO o Consistent with changes made on June 21, 2011 to the same term in the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Text Amendment Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node Land Land near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses; and/or manufacturing and other industrial uses; office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses. Public Notification - Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO o Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks Recommendation - Receive the proposal to amend the UDO. - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. - 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 October 18, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. - Adjourn the public hearing until October 18, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as detailed in this abstract and attachments, refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the BOCC in time for the October 18, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until October 18, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the quarterly public hearing at 7:39 P.M. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. CLOSED SESSION - To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease. (NCGS 143-318.11 (a) (5)) A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting into closed session at 7:39 p.m. for the purpose of "To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease." (NCGS 143-318.11 (a) (5)) and, To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3) VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to reconvene into regular session at 8:55 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board