Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20020225In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordan about the timeline for participation, Craig Benedict said that there is no timeline and that other towns and counties can join next year or the year following that. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about floodplains and verified with Craig Benedict that the mare development there is, the mare impervious surface there will be, and the more direct impact there will be on the floodplains. Craig Benedict explained impervious surface as a surface that does not allow the water to percolate through such as concrete, pavement, rooftops, etc. Commissioner Gordon asked if the plan would address more active hazards rather than something like drought. She said that it occurred to her that some of the things that would affect the floadplain and surface water would also affect groundwater. Craig Benedict said that drought would be included in the plan. Chair Jacobs said that in eastern North Carolina, the state is looking into restricting withdrawals from the aquifers because it has almost reached a crisis. Commissioner Brown pointed out that the storms seem to impact low-income people more because the lower income housing is usually in the floodplains. She asked about the flooding at Eastgate in Chapel Hill and said that she understands that the drains needed to be cleaned out and that the flooding would probably not take place again. Craig Benedict said that the degradation that can come from lack of maintenance cuts the design capacity of a pipe in half. He said that part of the mitigation strategy is to know where all the pipes are and what size they are, as well as which pipes are susceptible to sediment. Craig Benedict made reference to technological hazards that were also on the list. We need to have some mitigation strategies when technology becomes subject to terrorism or natural disasters. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not see that drought is listed as a hazard. She said that it is fairly likely and it can cause properly damage and harm. She would like to see this added. Craig Benedict agreed and indicated that it will be added. Chemical spills and chemical fires will also be added. Chair Jacobs suggested that we add nuclear accident because the likelihood of occurrence is possible, the location is large, and the impacts could be catastrophic. He thinks the hazard index would be low to moderate. He also made reference to wildfire on page seven. He thinks that it does not seem consistent to have the impact listed as negligible. Chair Jacobs suggested that someone re-reads the plan because it needs some grammatical work. He also asked to have a glossary or an index far the Orange County map. Planning Board member Barry Katz asked if we need to break out groundwater contamination as separate from chemical spills. Craig Benedict said that this would be reasonable and would be done. Commissioner Brown asked if we get state information on monitoring oil tanks that have been dug and the implications of groundwater contamination. Craig Benedict said that if there are incidences that have been recognized, then we da get information on the monitoring of wells. He only knows of a few isolated cases. Commissioner Brown would like to receive this data an a regular basis in order to keep track of how many tanks are monitored. Chair of the Planning Board Nicole Gooding-Ray asked if chemical spills include hazards from transporting of hazardous materials through the County and Craig Benedict said yes. There was no public comment on this item. No action was needed an this item. This plan will come back to the County Commissioners for consideration of approval at a future Board of County Commissioners' meeting. 3. Adoption of the 2002 North Carolina Building Codes Craig Benedict said that state legislation requires that by 2003, every municipality and county in North Carolina adopt a new international building code. This is a composite of many states communications. He has been talking to his colleagues about helping Orange County to develop a wireless telecommunications component to the plan. Bill Howard, Zoning Manager for American Tower Corporation, said that he works with the licensed carriers in any given industry, which includes Orange County. He agrees with Robert Ekstrand in that the industry is interested in continuing to work with the County on the amendments to the regulations. He said that in the period from 1998 to 2002 the number of subscribers more than doubled to what is now over 130 million subscribers to licensed digital communications. This is why there has been so much activity in telecommunications tower development. He emphasized that American Tower has nine facilities in Orange County now. He made reference to the concern about the 199-foot telecommunications towers and the fact that this might be an effort to avoid coming before the County Commissioners. He said that there is a federal threshold level involved at the 199-foot level, and that is that anything under 200 feet does not have to be lighted. He also asked the County Commissioners to consider exempting from the moratorium co-location applications on existing towers. Todd Griffin, Real Estate Manager for Verizon Wireless, said that Verizon Wireless does a lot of business in Orange County and they want to improve the system far their customers and also for emergency communication services. They are looking forward to being a part of this process and would like to offer their services to educate the elected boards during this process. Joey Greene, Real Estate Manager for Crown Castle, said that they do not function as a company that would build a very expensive structure for the use of one company, but that they try to pursue multiple carriers. Noah Ranells is a neighbor of a proposed telecommunications tower on Buckhorn Road. He requested that other citizens have this primer available to them as to what is appropriate to present at a meeting and what is not. He made reference to a third party objective analysis that citizens and Boards can look to for another opinion. He feels the system needs to be looked at an a countywide basis. He asked the County Commissioners to please consider a solid moratorium that restricts all towers until citizens in the County are educated on language, propagation, co-location, etc. sa that they can make pertinent comments. Commissioner Gordon said that the third party objective analysis was very important and she hopes we look into this and come up with a plan to provide this analysis. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Ekstrand where the tower is that they now have an application far and Mr. Ekstrand said that it was at the intersection of NC 54 West and Gold Mine Road. The proposed tower is 199 feet and it would be a monopole design. Commissioner Halkiotis said that back in 1996 after Hurricane Fran, there were same serious communication issues. He questioned if anything would be different today than in 1996 when everybody decided to get on their cell phones. It was answered that there is always limited capacity, but sites are starting to serve a more limited geographic area because the demand is higher. He said that the capacity problems would not be as serious today because the infrastructure can absorb more capacity. Commissioner Brown asked Robert Ekstrand what his company could offer as help to Orange County in the hazard mitigation plan. Mr. Ekstrand said that they could offer enhancements to the EMS communications (staff within the department). Commissioner Brown asked for some written information on what Mr. Ekstrand's company could offer the County. Commissioner Carey asked the staff if we are including the co-location of communications equipment on existing towers an the moratorium. Craig Benedict said that this was the original intent, but it is subject to discussion. Planning Board member Barry Katz asked about the proposed tower that was requested to be exempted and Mr. Ekstrand said that Craven Castle would build it and it would accommodate four other carriers. Verizon will be on the top of this structure. Barry Katz asked if it is better to have the location of the transponder higher on the tower. Robert Ekstrand said that usually when the problem is coverage, the higher the better up to a certain APPROVED 5!8102 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2002 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, February 25, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray, Bob Strayhorn, Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Ted Triebel, Rachel Preston, Howard McAdams and Hunter Schofield PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Maria Tad and Lynn Holtkamp NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to add to the agenda a Closed Session "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board," pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3) in the case of Orange County versus Nuclear Regulatory Commission AND "to consider the qualifications, competence, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6). VOTE: UNANIMOUS B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair read the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Petitioner Initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this item is a text amendment to the zoning regulations in article 9, "Signs." The purpose was to receive public comment on a proposed change to the zoning ordinance, which would allow for larger signs for model homes to be unregulated. Presently, four square-foot signs for builders are unregulated. Petitioner Pierre Morin of Biltmore Homes LLC is a developer at Churton Grove and has asked that an amendment be made to the sign code to allow a 16 square-foot sign to be unregulated. The petitioner is also suggesting that there be 12 feet of associated ground landscaping used to adorn the base of the sign. The sign would limit information to the builder's name, phone number, hours the model is open for viewing, and an a-mail address. There is no fiscal impact associated with this decision. Staff is recommending denial of this request at this time because exempting a larger sign from the requirements, when other signs under 16 square feet are regulated {businesses, etc.), would set a bad precedent. The staff believes that a four square foot model sign that is permitted by the code is adequate representation for the information needed to be conveyed to the public. The administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than May 21, 2oa2. Public Comment Pierre Morin, the petitioner, said that he was one of four builders in Churton Grove subdivision. He said that it was a little difficult to compete without showing new homebuyers the differences in each of their products. He said that a 2'x2' sign was not sufficient because most homebuyers would see the first house and assume that it was the only builder in the subdivision. He said that 16 square feet might be larger, but it is not as large as the Parade of Homes signs, which are 36'x36'. He said that he was just showing to new homebuyers their product as compared to other builders' products. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than May 21, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Orange County Hazard Mitigation Plan Craig Benedict said that this item is in response to new legislation that was put into effect in June 2001, also known as Senate Bill 300. It was an act to amend the laws regarding emergency management as recognized by the legislation because of some of the recent disasters in North Carolina such as flooding. In response to the legislative act, there was a strong suggestion that any local government that would like to be in line far assistance in case of future natural disasters should put together a hazard mitigation plan. If local governments are interested in assistance funds, it is a requirement that they adopt a plan prior to August of this year. The purpose of this item is to explain what a hazard mitigation plan includes. There was a PowerPoint presentation. Orange County worked with Greensboro and the Emergency Management Division of North Carolina to develop this plan. The goal is to make residences and businesses less vulnerable to impacts and have a coordinated approach through discussion between local governments. Hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning, and snowstorms are some of the disasters that have hit North Carolina in the past few years. Another part of the mitigation strategy is to identify the junkyards and automobile establishments that are in the way of flooding because oil and other liquids from the cars can get caught up in the flooding and cause further damage downstream. Part of the requirement in the Senate bill is that the plan should be very strong in the Planning aspect. Emergency Management is an up front participant, but the state wanted the focus to be on planning to prevent structures from going into the floodplain or being placed in hazardous areas. EMS typically comes in the reactive stage so the state wants planning to be proactive to guide this in the areas of building, planning and erosion control. There has been some development along floodplains in the past, and this needs to be identified. This draft plan will be transmitted to the state for comment. The comments will came back and the final plan can be submitted. Part of the requirement of the plan is to do training with the community. Commissioner Brown asked if there were any counties in the east that were not participating. Craig Benedict said that about 90°~ of the counties in the east were participating. There are a few counties in the coastal areas that have not put it together. Some communities do not have the ability, between their existing departments or staff, to put it together. The proposed action for this meeting is that we continue getting input from the local governments in preparing the plan and bring back a transmittal version of the hazard mitigation plan to the County Commissioners prior to June 1St. The state will send back their comments in order for the County to send the plan back to the state by August 1St. There is no financial impact at this time. trying to use consistent terminology. There are few differences between the old code and the new code. Probably 98°l0 of it is the same but just written differently. This will require public outreach to explain to homeowners, contractors, etc., that there will be a new code and that it roughly says the same thing, but that there are differences in certain areas. One of the major changes has to do with wind load on structures and waterproofing. There are same issues that could be added to the code specifically for Orange County that would upgrade the standards. There are two companion codes that are still in effect nationwide -National Electric Code and National Fire Code. These codes will remain the same. The staff recommends that after this public hearing the building code be brought back to the Board for approval. Commissioner Brawn asked if the Planning Department plans to do any education far the contractors and Craig Benedict said that they will develop a public outreach program. Commissioner Gordon asked haw Craig Benedict would educate the County Commissioners. She asked that he write the changes out. Craig Benedict said that the staff would not be recommending anything unique for Orange County this year. When it is time for the code to change, it will be very specific. Chair Jacobs said that it will be important to have stakeholder meetings so that people are not alarmed that we are going to change standards that will adversely affect the way in which they live. No action was needed on this item. The County Commissioners will bring it back on a future agenda for consideration of approval. 4. Moratorium on Telecommunications Towers Craig Benedict explained that this moratorium would be for six (6) months for telecammunicatiantnwers that are in process, unapproved, or applied for. After this is transmitted to the Planning Board, it will be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for a recommendation on March 6t". He distributed the draft resolution that would be an the March 6t" agenda. He spoke about the reasons for the moratorium. There have been some questions in the past year about the changes to the telecommunication tower ordinance. There has also been some discussion about the existing regulations and their conformance to the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and questions about any new standards and technology that could be put into the ordinance that would make it more functional and aesthetic. There have been very few towers applied for in the class A category, which is 200 feet and above and would require Planning Board and Board of County Commissioner approval. One of the issues that causes concern is notification to the general public of balloon tests, etc. Another issue has to do with co-location opportunities. The staff will work with the telecommunication industry during the moratorium to identify their needs. The staff will also consult with other stakeholders such as neighborhoods that have towers. Staff is suggesting that the moratorium be invoked for six months to give the planning staff sufficient time to update the regulations based on new technology. Another issue is equity so that the public as well as the appointed bodies all have input instead of it being a purely technical matter. The moratorium would run from March 6t" to September 6t" Chair Jacobs suggested having a primer for the citizens an how to present evidence. He encouraged the staff to take notes on the kinds of questions that come up from citizens and the kinds of issues that arise that are of an evidentiary nature so that citizens can understand the process. Public Comment Robert Ekstrand spoke on behalf of the telecommunications companies such as Verizan, Cingular, AT&T, and Sprint; and also the companies who develop the infrastructure for those facilities such as Crown Castle, SBA, Spector Site, and American Tower. He said that the industry is not at all opposed to the moratorium because the industry and the technology are changing. He asked that the industry as stakeholders be involved in this process. He asked that the County Commissioners consider exempting one site from the moratorium because it is about three days from filing. He asked the County Commissioners to also consider exempting applications from the moratorium for permits to co-locate on existing structures. He made reference to the hazard mitigation plans and the component of point. There are same carriers that have capacity problems at the higher heights and are looking to fill in the gaps in coverage. Nicole Gooding-Ray said that she is concerned about the Planning Board making a decision on this within 30 minutes of the start of their meeting. She suggested that the Planning Board meet at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30 p.m. on March 6t". A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer the Moratorium on Telecommunications Towers to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no later than 8:00 p.m. on March 6, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Presentation: Triangle GreenPrint Regional Open Space Assessment Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil introduced those making the presentation, Ms. Loralei Costa and Mark degree. Ms. Costa said that the Triangle GreenPrint is a partnership project to create a regional network of open space in the Triangle. She spoke about a database that has data about all of the natural areas and water quality sites in the Triangle. She said that Orange County is a leader in the Triangle and the state in terms of open space preservation. The goal of the GreenPrint is to provide support to local governments with conservation planning, to encourage local governments to work together, and to encourage local governments to build programs. The idea of the GreenPrint is not to supercede local plans, but to incorporate the local plans and make sure that they are together. Mark degree, Million-Acre Coordinator for North Carolina, described the maps. He said that they would like to work with the advisory boards in Orange County to come up with a resolution to say that Orange County is interested in open space protection and interested in being a regional partner for open space protection. Commissioner Gordon asked if the state might be able to put funds toward helping localities carry out this mission. Mark Debris said that with the tight budget situation, it is hard to tell. Commissioner Brown asked if this was focused on watershed protection also. It was answered that the GreenPrint program is looking at resource protection at a large scale and this includes watershed protection. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to receive the GreenPrint presentation and refer the report to the Planning Board, Commission far the Environment, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, Historic Preservation Commission, and Agricultural Preservation Board for their further review and comment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Presentation: Population and Demographic Update and Build-out Projections Using GIS Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation, which is incorporated herein by reference. He reiterated that this is just for information and is not a public hearing item. Orange County has had a growth rate of 26% from 1990-2000. Chapel Hill Township accounts for 70°~ of the growth. The staff is working on a new comprehensive plan for Orange County, and the major effort will be in the land use planning element. The GOOD plan stands for the Growth Optimal Overlay Design plan. Urban sprawl is a major concern in Orange County and the new comprehensive plan will mitigate the effects of sprawl. The GOOD plan directs growth towards urban service areas and away from fiscally inefficient and environmentally sensitive places. The conclusions are that growth management scenarios can provide for preservation of Orange County's lifestyle, the maximum allowable density could almost quadruple the County population in 60 years, spatial considerations for growth need to be implemented, and the comprehensive plan is a growth pattern guide, not a forced lifestyle change. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to receive this report as information. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown to go into closed session "ta consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board," pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a){3) in the case of Orange County versus Nuclear Regulatory Commission AND "to consider the qualifications, competence, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143-318.11 {a)(6). VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 6, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Barry Jacobs, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, CMC