HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-22-2012 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 22, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
February 27, 2012 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board ~
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1 '
1
2 DRAFT MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 February 27, 2012
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
12 Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
15 Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
19 Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified
20 appropriately below)
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Larry Wright,
22 Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher,
23 Lisa Stuckey
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine
25 Mitchell, Alan Campbell
26
27 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
28
29 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
30
31 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
32 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
33
34 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
35 Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford announced the agenda and read the public charge.
36
37 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments-To review government-
38 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to add a conditional zoning district (REDA-
39 CZ-1) that would be applicable to the geographic area addressed in the NC Highway
40 57/Speedway Area Small Area Plan and other necessary amendments to implement
41 recommendations made in the small area plan.
42
43 Planner Glenn Bowles made a PowerPoint presentation.
44
45 Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
46 NC Highway 57 Rural Economic Development Area (REDA)
47
48 Conditional Use(REDA-CZ-1) District
49 • Encourage compatible, non-residential development,
50 • Address existing non-conforming uses,
2
1 Facilitate unique economic development opportunities, and
2 Allow non-conforming uses to become conforming.
3
4 Rural Economic Development Area
5 • Adopted Plan REDA (map)
6 • Proposed UDO REDA (map)
7
8 REDA-CZ-1 --SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
9 1. Only to non-residential development.
10 2. Only uses listed in REDA-CZ-1 (Section 5.2.3).
11 3. Specific uses only with BOCC approval.
12 4. Impervious surface restrictions.
13 5. Follow UDO standards or creative alternatives.
14 6. Comprehensive groundwater study
15 7. Groundwater use not > 240 gallons/day/acre.
16 8. No negative impacts without mitigation.
17
18 REDA-CZ-1 Permitted Uses
19 • Libraries,
20 • Beauty & Barber Shops,
21 • Contractors, Building & Trade,
22 • Office & Personal Services, Class 1,
23 • Real Estate Agents & Brokers,
24 • Storage of Goods, Outside,
25 • Storage or Warehousing: Inside Building,
26 • Studio (Art),
27 • Theater, Indoor or Outdoor(including Drive-ins),
28 Race Track (Motorized, etc.) and Go-Kart Track Facilities,
29 • Postal & Parcel Delivery Services,
30 • Accessory Uses, and
31 • Assembly Facility Less Than 300 Occupants.
32
33
34 Brian Crawford said that he was informed by the County Attorney that all 7 members of
35 the Planning Board must be present for the meeting to continue. The seventh member was on
36 his way. The boards agreed to move to item 10, which does not require the Planning Board.
37
38 The boards moved on to item C-10 and then recessed until the seventh member arrived.
39
40 Chair Pelissier called the meeting back to order at 7:32 PM.
41
42 Glenn Bowles went through the PowerPoint again.
43 Larry Wright made reference to page 17, item D and the 250-foot landscape buffer
44 where it says, "no vegetation in this area shall be disturbed." He asked what happens as the
45 limbs die off and what might be done for mitigation for decibel levels. He asked if anyone has
46 looked into this.
47 Glenn Bowles said that they look at this at the site approval stage and if the buffer looks
48 inadequate or that it need beefing up, they will deal with it at that time.
49 Larry Wright said that he is concerned that if someone wants to infiltrate and put some
50 sort of vegetation or buffer to protect a neighbor. Glenn Bowles said that this would be
51 permitted.
3 '
1 Commissioner Foushee asked that clarification be added regarding the vegetation that
2 could be added. Glenn Bowles said that clarification would be added.
3 Commissioner McKee asked if there were any facilities on the racetrack property in
4 which part of the facilities themselves is less than 200 feet from the property line. It was
5 answered yes.
6 Commissioner McKee asked how this would be mitigated. Glenn Bowles said that they
7 would be innovative with the developer to see what could be done.
8 Commissioner McKee said that he wants to address this issue. Glenn Bowles said that
9 he would bring something forward.
10 Commissioner McKee made reference to the requirement of mufflers and said that this
11 would be very restrictive to this site. He said that Orange County sometimes makes it so hard
12 for other uses that it will be a hindrance to economic development.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said that he worked on this plan and the group worked very hard
14 to strike a balance between development and rural life.
15 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item J and a litter collection system. He
16 suggested it say, "a litter and recycling collection system."
17 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7 and the goals that were put forward.
18 Goal #7 says, "the creation of additional parkland within the study area shall be encouraged."
19 He said that that he recalls that the proposal from the Atica Company was that all of the facilities
20 would be given to Durham. The recommendation was specifically that it be negotiated that
21 Orange County have an equal part of those facilities and that is not reflected here. He said that
22 there was also a conversation that the County specifically did not want an asphalt plant. That
23 does not seem to be indicated here.
24 Glenn Bowles said that any new development would need to meet air quality standards,
25 which would inhibit an asphalt plant. Regarding the parkland, he said that the goal was to get a
26 placeholder there and work out the percentages later.
27
28 Michael Harvey said that this additional zoning district is intended to provide existing
29 non-conforming land uses a pathway to compliance.
30 The additional Planning Board member arrived—Johnny Randall.
31
32 Michael Harvey said that what he is hearing from the Board is that it wants the staff to
33 take the proposed regulations, apply it to the speedway and ascertain whether there are
34 problematic areas and identify potential solutions, and allow the Board to see the impact. Also,
35 to identify where there could be methods where we could modify what is being proposed to
36 address a real life scenario and at the same time, encourage any new development to insure it
37 will not have a negative impact on adjacent property.
38 The Board agreed.
39
40 Discussion ensued on whether the property owners were notified of this meeting.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
43 Hemminger to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
44 returned to the BOCC in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC regular meeting.
45
46 An amendment was made by Commissioner McKee to include Michael Harvey's
47 comments:
48
49 Take the proposed regulations, apply it to the speedway and ascertain whether there are
50 problematic areas and identify potential solutions to allow the Board to see the pro and con
51 impact. Also, identify where there could be methods where we could modify what is being
4
1 proposed to address a real life scenario and at the same time, encourage any new development
2 to insure it will not have a negative impact on adjacent property.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 (Later, after item C-2 the Board returned to vote on an additional portion of C-1)
7
8 A motion was made by Chair Pellissier, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn
9 the public hearing until May 1, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
10 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 2. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments — To
14 review government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
15 Map and to the Zoning Atlas to change the land use classification of approximately 493.5
16 acres in the vicinity of the Interstate 85/US Highway 70 interchange (in the vicinity of the
17 Eno Economic Development District near the eastern county line) and to change the
18 zoning district of approximately 351.5 acres of property in the same area
19 Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that last Wednesday, the County
20 held an outreach meeting and it was very robust. It was a wonderful facility. There were also
21 planners from the City of Durham at the meeting because this area is within the Urban Growth
22 Boundary.
23
24 Orange County
25 Quarterly Public Hearing
26 February 27, 2012
27 Agenda Item C-2
28 Eno Township and Economic Development Area
29 Land Use and Zoning Amendments
30
31 Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area
32
33 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
34 Land Use Intensity Categories
35 Higher Intensity Areas:
36 These areas are generally synonymous with the ten and twenty year transition areas in
37 the existing Land Use Plan (adopted 1981, amended 1988) or they are adjacent to areas
38 proposed for future development on an urban scale. At some future date, they will most likely
39 be incorporated into the municipalities of Hillsborough and Durham through the annexation
40 process. A mix of land uses is possible in these areas and they will be served by water and
41 sewer. They could be viewed as "receiving areas" for lower density areas to the south.
42
43 Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1)
44 EDE-1 Allows:
45 ■ Finance
46 ■ Government
47 ■ Services *
48 ■ Transportation
49 ■ Miscellaneous
5
1 EDE-1 Doesn't Allow:
2 ■ Agricultural
3 ■ Construction
4 ■ Information
5 ■ Manufacturing, Assembly & Processinq
6 ■ Recreation
7 ■ Wholesale Trade
8 ■ Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2)
9 EDE-2 Allows:
10 ■ Agricultural
11 ■ Construction
12 ■ Finance
13 ■ Government
14 ■ Manufacturing, Assembly & Processinq
15 ■ Retail
16 ■ Services
17 ■ Transportation
18 ■ Wholesale Trade
19 EDE-2 Doesn't Allow:
20 ■ Information
21 ■ Recreation
22 ■ Residential
23
24 Recommendations
25 1. Receive the proposal to amend:
26 a. Land Use
27 b. Zoning
28 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public, BOCC and Planning Board comments,
29 3. Refer the matter to Planning Board to be returned for BOCC action by April 17, 2012,
30 4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until April 17, 2012 to receive any written comments between
31 February 27, 2012 and Planning Board recommendation.
32
33 Eno Neighborhood Meeting
34 Citizen Comments
35 1. Stoney Creek Basin EDE-1 vs. EDE-2
36 The EDE-2 is suggested by staff because of the frontage along 1-85 and its relative
37 isolation between the interstate, Mt. Herman Church Road, railroad tracks, and high
38 voltage primary electric transmission lines. The opposite side of the road is also
39 EDE-2.
40
41 2. Resource Protection Areas (RPA)
42 RPAs are a layer of the land use plan and are still operational.
43
44 3. What is light industrial compare Orange County and Durham County?
45 The uses were discussed during the Eno EDD SAP meetings and comparability was
46 achieved.
47
48 4. Why now? Public utilities
49 This area has been noted as an urban growth land use since 1981 and reconfirmed
50 in 1994 and 2008. Orange County is facilitating the proposed land use pattern since
6
1 any one small business could not afford to build infrastructure and jobs growth is
2 more important than ever.
3
4 5. Annexation
5 These land use and zoning amendments do not create annexation programs. If a
6 new business or resident wants public water and sewer, they will sign a voluntary
7 annexation form and if the City of Durham decides the petition meets state law and is
8 fiscally feasible then it may be annexed.
9
10 6. Why are there two plans Orange County and City of Durham
11 Where are these two land use plans and one zoning plan? The area is within
12 Orange County which has a land use and zoning program. If a city also has an area
13. of county within its future urban growth boundary (UGB) then they also have a future
14 land use plan map.
15
16 7. Mobile Home Parks
17 The northern mobile home park is being rezoned to EDE-2 which has frontage on I-
18 85. The southern mobile home park will remain Planned Development HR 4 zoning
19 since its approval contains special `Planned Development' conditions until such time
20 a different project is proposed.
21
22 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if any conforming uses would be rendered non-conforming by
23 any of these changes. Craig Benedict said that he has analyzed the complete list and there would be
24 no non-conformities.
25 Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners received a letter for the record from
26 Charles Gunter. She gave this letter to the Clerk,which is shown below:
27
28 February 23, 2012
29
30 Ms. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
31 Orange County Board of Commissioners
32 4516 Mystic Lane
33 Hillsborough, NC 27278
34
35 Dear Ms. Bernadette Pelissier:
36
37 1 received a letter dated February 10, 2012, notifying of us two scheduled neighborhood meetings. 1
38 have attended the first meeting. Regarding proposed changes, that letter states, in bold print, "You
39 property is not impacted...". I must respectfully differ with the statement that what you propose will
40 not impact my property at 4411 Hwy 70 E, Durham, NC 27705, located immediately west of the
41 Duke Energy and Energy high lines. All activities adjacent to one's property logically affects that
42 property as well.
7
1 Previous zoning changes have already affected my property,through the arrival of a company
2 offering "concrete and asphalt recycling." We have also watched as a small mountain of fill dirt has
3 grown alongside and beneath the power high lines. These are occasional, sometimes continuous,
4 intense noise pollution caused by heavy earth-moving equipment. Sounds like gun shots, as dump
5 trucks slam their tailgates, and the noise of engines and backup warning signals of other heavy
6 earthmoving equipment not only lowers our property values, but it degrades the quality of life for all
7 near this designated"light industrial"zone.
8 Also, in recent years, we have observed many changes along the section of Stoney Creek that runs
9 through our property, and none of them were good. We have seen greater sediment loan from
10 upstream, increased water turbidity, more frequent and more severe flooding and much more erosion
11 from the creek banks. The new mountain of earth and recent tree-clearing in the power line right-of-
12 way, within 100 meters upslope from the creek, is likely to exacerbate this. We feel that the further
13 proposed changes can only continue to have a similar negative impact on Stoney Creek.
14 Further development such as you are proposing, of areas draining immediately into Stoney Creek,
15 will create additional opportunity for sheet runoff, flooding, and point source pollution. This will further
16 degrade wildlife habitat, destroying aquatic plants, fish, amphibians, mollusks, and crustaceans.
17 These are essential components of a health ecosystem. As the stream health declines, surrounding
18 habitat also declines. Currently this habitat supports deer and other mammals and a great variety of
19 birds, including wild turkeys.
20 Stoney Creek leaves our land, flows north beneath Hwy 70, and enters the Eno at the Eno River
21 State Park. Ecosystems do not stand alone; they are interconnected. Further degradation of water
22 quality, land, and wildlife habitat along Stoney Creek, by connection also affects the Eno River, Falls
23 Lake Reservoir, and the Neuse River. Various agencies and entities are entrusted with protection of
24 watersheds and stewardship of North Carolina's resources on behalf of the state's citizens. As an
25 example, the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor was designated for low-intensity use and connects the
26 Eno River State Park to Duke Forest(Reference: Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan: Chapter 3,
27 Pages 12-13—approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996).
28 1 can understand the need for controlled development. I can understand the need to expand county
29 and city tax bases. What I cannot understand is promoting those goals at the sacrifice of important
30 life-giving ecosystems—particularly our watershed system. I implore you to reconsider the changes
31 that you propose and to furthermore restrict commercial activities directly adjacent to drainage into
32 Stoney Creek and the Eno River. Such activities damage essential and protected watershed
33 ecosystems and, by extension, are detrimental to all citizens of the state. Please take this
34 recommendation under advisement prior to approving irreversible development in this ecologically
35 sensitive area.
36 "Environmental Responsibility in County Government"adopted as an Orange County Goal,
37 December 5, 2005 is laudable. The goal statement reads as follows: "Perform all County
38 governmental functions, both internal and external,with a sensitivity and ethic that promotes
39 environmental responsibility and leadership, and an understanding of the actions of government
40 activities as they affect the natural and cultural resources of the County, region, state, nation, and
41 world."
42 Because I must be out of town on business February 27, 2012, 1 cannot attend the second meeting.
43 Therefore, in lieu of my in-person comments, I ask that you please enter this letter, imploring you to
44 reconsider your proposed plan, into the meeting minutes.
8
1 Thank you for considering my concerns as you plan an orderly development of this area. 1
2 encourage you to establish a broader buffer between commercial development and the vital water
3 resources of the people of Orange County and of the State of North Carolina. I and other will work
4 toward that end.
5
6 Sincerely,
7 Charles P. Gunter
8 P. O. Box 507
9 Hillsborough, NC 27278
10
11 PUBLIC COMMENT
12 Edward Hill lives on Live Oak Trail,which is off of Mt. Herman Church Road. His property is
13 within 100 yards of the RE-1 area(??). He said that he was not able to attend the February 22nd
14 meeting because he did not know about it. He asked about the notification requirements. He
15 became aware of these actions when the signs went up at the corner of Old NC 10 and Mt. Herman
16 Church Road.
17 Craig Benedict said that staff notified by letter people within 600 feet of all rezoning, and the
18 last tax record owner of the property is used.
19 Edward Hill said that his comment is that the area that he lives in is residential, R1. He would
20 like to see the Planning Board remove this section below the railroad tracks,which was expanded at
21 the request of Durham County. He understands the mobile home park's property owners' desire to
22 have the potential for municipal sewer access, but he does not see any reason for Durham City to be
23 dictating to Orange County where the zoning limits are.
24 Phillip Rhew said that he is worried about bringing water and sewer by his house because of
25 the requirement to hook on to this.
26 Dianne Rabalais lives on Old Hillsborough Road within Whispering Pines. She said that she
27 moved to Orange County not to be in Durham County. She is concerned about Durham County
28 annexing this property. She said that she moved to Orange County for her children to go to Orange
29 County Schools. If the water and sewer will be brought from Durham for certain people to develop
30 their lands, then these people need to pay for this.
31 Craig Benedict said that these residents will remain within Orange County Schools no matter
32 what happens, even if the City of Durham does come into Orange County. There will be two layers
33 of taxes—Orange County and Durham City. This is similar to places in Hillsborough. The water and
34 sewer program is not intended to be put through the middle of any existing development. It is
35 primarily a backbone to serve undeveloped properties or underdeveloped properties.
36 Darcy Willson read a prepared statement.
37
38 Darcy Willson
39 5315 Old Hillsborough Road
40 Durham, NC 27705
41 darcvwillson ayahoo.com
42 919-612-7442
43 The Eno Economic Development District has many natural and manmade attributes that should be
44 protected and enhanced by any future development.
9
1 Zoning and land use policies should take into consideration the established residential housing. The
2 emphasis should be to protect existing residential housing, and create a blend of new single family
3 housing, new multifamily housing, retail, office, and industrial areas. New single family residential
4 and multifamily residential housing should be encouraged in the E. D. 2 and E. D. 1 areas so that the
5 residential aspect of this area is not overshadowed by any new non-residential development.
6 This area should be a mixed use development similar to Waterstone in Hillsborough. It should not be
7 a large industrial complex.
8 Duke Forest, the Eno River and Stoney Creek and new and existing housing should be buffered from
9 Industrial Development. Using open space and transition zoning from residential, to office/retail and
10 then industrial would help preserve quality of life for existing and new residents. Facilities that
11 enhance quality of life should be strongly encouraged. Schools, a senior center, community center,
12 daycare facility, medical center, library, arts space and outdoor recreation should be part of this area.
13 Follow Guidelines Shaping Orange County's Future including the following:
14 1. The availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income households is a critical
15 requirement.
16 2. Create multi-use community facilities that would enable a variety of functions such as a
17 school, community center, senior center, senior care facility, adult learning center, teen
18 center, day care facility, medical center, branch library, arts space and outdoor recreation.
19 3. Ensure that affordable rental and owner occupied homes are available for low and moderate
20 income households.
21 4. Create high density mixed use development.
22 5. Land use patterns should be designed to enhance desirable aspects of community character
23 in new and old neighborhoods.
24 6. We need to manage development and create land use patterns that maintain quality of life
25 and help to build community.
26 7. Integrate uses(residential, commercial, light industrial and commercial).
27 8. Continue current efforts to guide growth away from public water supply watersheds to prevent
28 new discharges into these watersheds.
29
30 Eno Economic Development(EDD)Area Small Area Plan
31 1. Ensure that zoning text and map changes are completed in such a way that residential uses
32 that were constructed as conforming uses in the current Secondary EDD area are not made
33 nonconforming uses under any new zoning designation.
34 2. Ensure that if existing mobile home parks are redeveloped into other uses that the property
35 owner and county work together to help displaced residents find suitable, decent, alternative
36 housing.
37 3. If the region pursues commuter rail in the future, the spur line to Chapel Hill would likely
38 become an important connector within the rail network.
39 4. The ability to have a commuter train station in the future should be explored. A station could
40 serve the existing Amtrak service or a station could be incorporated into the future Triangle
41 commuter rail system.
10
1 5. How land is used is a major factor in many aspects of people's lives. Land Use directly
2 affects people's quality of life in a variety of ways. Community character, traffic generation
3 and flow, availability of services and the quality of the natural environment are all affected by
4 Land Use decisions. Indeed, one of local government's principal powers is the authority to
5 control land development so that growth is managed in such a way that negative impacts are
6 minimized and mitigated.
7 6. Preserve stream corridors and create a network of publicly-accessible trails between
8 developed areas and the Eno River State Park to the north of the focus area and Duke
9 Forest to the south of the Focus Area.
10
11 Last week residents were informed about an interlocal agreement with Durham that had been
12 recently made. I can find no mention of this agreement anywhere on Orange County's website. This
13 agreement and the process that led to it should be made public. It concerns me that local residents
14 weren't informed that an interlocal agreement was being negotiated with the City of Durham.
15 Affected residents should have been informed and invited to be a part of the process. If the
16 agreement does not include provisions for the City of Durham to abide by the recommendations and
17 policies set forth in Shaping Orange County's future and the Eno Economic District small area plan
18 this should be added to ensure that Durham's policies are aligned with Orange County's.
19 Questions:
20 1. How will buffering and transitioning of existing and possible future, nonresidential
21 development be accomplished to avoid impacts on existing and new residences?
22 2. What types of additional nonresidential land uses are to be considered for the area and how
23 will their impact be mitigated?
24 3. What will be done to protect the environmental integrity of Duke Forest, and 'Eno River State
25 Park and Stoney Creek?
26
27 Robin Jacobs spoke on behalf of the Eno River Association. She is the Executive Director.
28 She served as the Chair of the Carrboro Planning Board for a little over ten years while the University
29 Lake Watershed Agreements and the Joint Planning Agreement were issued. She distributed a
30 handout. She pointed out a resource protection area that is along Stoney Creek. She said that the
31 Stoney Creek Plan does talk about higher, middle, and lower intensity uses. The plan is totally
32 focused on residential development and is not talking about higher intensity industrial uses. Her
33 concern is that Stoney Creek will have more industrial use. She said that just because there are
34 regulations, it does not mean that the County can control what happens.
35 Jennifer Gunter verified that her father's letter was received and entered into the record.
36 Jim Brown said that it was stated that there is currently no development proposed that is
37 pushing these zoning changes and that this is all in the planning phase. It was answered yes.
38 Jon Arvik asked about a sewage lift station. He has lived within ten miles of one of these at
39 one time. He is concerned about this. He would like to know where this station is and he would like
40 to have public input. He wants to know what it will look like, sound like, smell like, etc. He asked
41 what authority Orange County would have to resist the annexation by Durham. He said that he
42 moved here for a reason and he would like to maintain the quality of life.
43 Craig Benedict said that Orange County would not be choosing a consultant for engineering
44 design until later this summer.
11 `
1 Todd Orr spoke against the plan to rezone the area north of Old NC 10 and south of the
2 railroad to ECE-1. It is inconsistent with the current residential character or undeveloped character of
3 this area. He said that this area is proposed by Durham to be low-density residential. He does not
4 understand why Orange County would be proposing a more intense development of that area.
5 Chris Kelsey said that the maps are very confusing. He suggested that the maps be clearer.
6 He said that he moved into Orange County to be in a more rural environment. He suggested limiting
7 the amount of industry.
8
9 Commissioner McKee asked for an answer to a question about forced hookups to water and
10 sewer. Craig Benedict said that no lines would be extended to specific properties in the residential
11 neighborhoods. There will be a policy similar to the City of Durham's sewer policy.
12 John Roberts said that several people mentioned annexation as a concern. He said that
13 annexation is not a County function. He said that the General Assembly has made annexation a little
14 more difficult for cities to do involuntarily. Cities now have to provide notice to counties when they
15 cross county lines. Property owners do have the ability to some extent block involuntary annexation.
16 For the most part, cities will only annex on a voluntary process.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the western portion of what is being proposed beyond where
18 it was recommended by the Eno EDD group.
19 Craig Benedict said that the western portion was not within the original Eno Economic
20 Development boundary. When the Durham interlocal agreement was brought forward, it was found
21 that there was an urban growth boundary outside of the Eno and it was suggested to bring forth land
22 use plan amendments to backfill the urban growth boundary.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said that last week when the Board considered the advertisement for
24 this public hearing, he specifically asked if this exactly followed what the Eno EDD Work Group
25 recommended and Craig Benedict said yes. He said that this is, in fact, not true, but it is an
26 amplification to match what Durham put on the map of Orange County. It is not what the EDD worts
27 group recommended to the Board of County Commissioners.
28 Craig Benedict said that aspects within that Eno Economic Development zone, especially
29 around Whispering Pines, were within the district. That part is correct. There were areas outside of
30 that, and if he was not as clear, then he apologizes.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said that he started on the Planning Board in 1985 and this is one of
32 the most poorly presented proposals that he has seen. There was a small area plan in which the
33 Board of County Commissioners had no presentation and members of the public had to bring it up at
34 the community meeting. There is still no copy. The maps are very confusing. There was not one
35 word mentioned by staff about environmental impacts. There was not one word mentioned by staff
36 about rural character impacts. There was barely a mention of neighborhood impacts. He said that
37 this is a County where these are the values (applause). He does support economic development
38 and he has worked on virtually all of the small area plans, but to rush to do something without doing it
39 thoroughly and openly is a mistake. He suggested getting some written responses from Durham
40 about what happens when the water line crosses individual properties. All of the issues of
41 annexation need to be in writing. He wants to be honest with people that they will be in the City of
42 Durham at some point.
12
1 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a lot going on here and the maps are confusing. He
2 thinks that it is important to look at the entire scope of what is reasonable to serve regarding water
3 and sewer. He is not suggesting rushing this, but the infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for
4 reasonable and considerate development of this property over the next 20-30 years. He thinks that it
5 will be short-sighted not to move forward at this point.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said that he wants to take a particular exception to the way in which
7 staff is proposing the impact on Stoney Creek. He said that the thought that this should be higher
8 intensity industrial is preposterous. He does not know why Orange County would be so insensitive to
9 the environment.
10 Craig Benedict said that no matter what land use or zoning category that is applied to the
11 lands in and around creeks,they will adhere to the highest standards applicable. Those impacts will
12 be monitored equally no matter what type of use. The reason the EDE-2 is suggested is that
13 because it does have 1-85 frontage and is near an intersection and isolated by railroad tracks to the
14 south. Also, the uses across from the mobile home park are industrial in nature. He said that the
15 staff will continue to take comments from the County Commissioners and the public and work with
16 the Planning Board to come up with recommendations.
17 In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict said that one of the
18 higher intensity areas in the Stoney Creek Basin plan is similar to areas where there is an existing
19 truck stop and additional retail opportunities. It is a mix of land uses and not just residential or non-
20 residential.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said that it would have been helpful to have a small area plan on the
22 website or in the packet.
23 Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' comments about the Stoney
24 Creek area. She said that she does believe that had the task force had the opportunity to look at that
25 area in particular,there would be no recommendations to include this part. She does think that the
26 task force agreed to what is proposed here otherwise, but not this particular area of Stoney Creek.
27 Commissioner Hemminger said that this is very confusing to her and she does not feel
28 comfortable making a decision. She thinks that this should be reworked. She would not be ready by
29 April 174h.
30 Chair Pelissier said that the Board could change this to another date.
31 Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board would like an opportunity to extend this item.
32 The Planning Board will need three or four meetings to really work this through.
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to defer
34 this item to be heard again at the Quarterly Public Hearing in May and direct staff to address the
35 concerns that have been raised and bring them back to public hearing. If staff chooses to have
36 another public information meeting, the materials can be presented then.
37 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz)
38
39 Chair Pelissier pointed out that a motion was missing on Item 1. This motion was added to
40 the end of Item 1.
41
13
1 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review a government-initiated amendments to the Zoning
2 Atlas to rezone approximately 232 acres from Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural
3 Residential (R-1) to Office-Institutional (0-1). The properties are located south of Interstate
4 85/40, west of West Ten Road, north of Bowman Road, and east of Ben Wilson Road.
5
6 Craig Benedict said that this has to do with zoning changes and no land use changes.
7 Zoning Atlas Amendment
8 Buckhorn-Mebane Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN)
9 UDO/ZONING 2012-05
10 Quarterly Public Hearing
11 February 27, 2012
12 Item C.3
13
14 Proposed Action:
15 Rezone 232 acres to Office/Institutional
16
17 Current zoning:
18 AR (Agricultural Residential) in western portion
19 R-1 (Rural Residential) in eastern portion
20
21 Future Land Use Map
22 • Commercial — Industrial Transition Activity Node
23 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement(WASMPBA)
24 • Area proposed for rezoning is within the County's Primary Service Area
25 Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan
26 • Consistent with intent of plan which calls for Mixed Use and Economic Development in
27 this area
28 • A project is not proposed at this time
29 — Pre-zoning the area for potential economic development projects to reduce the
30 overall time frame of the approval process
31 — Development standards and requirements contained in the Unified Development
32 Ordinance still apply
33 Office/Institutional Permitted Uses
34 Section 5.2 of UDO—Table of Permitted Uses
35 — Currently 34 permitted uses
36 — 10 Special Uses (Class A or B)
37 Examples of Permitted Uses in 0/1
38 • Child Care Facility
39 • Library
40 • Dance, Art & Music Schools
41 Universities, Colleges, and Institutes
42 • Offices and Personal Services
43 • Storage and Warehousing (Inside a Building)
44 • Wholesale Trade
45 • Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings
46 • Animal Hospital and Veterinarians
14
1 Health Services Under 10,000 sq. ft.
2 Hospitals
3 Multiple Family Dwelling
4 Community Center
5 Research Facility
6
7 Public Notification
8 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
9 — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
10 — Mailed notices to affected property owners
11 — Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties
12 — Posted 11 signs in strategic areas of the affected area
13 Recommendation
14 • Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas.
15 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
16 the proposed amendment.
17 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
18 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC
19 regular meeting.
20 • Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the
21 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
22
23 Craig Benedict said that no projects are proposed at this time.
24
25 PUBLIC COMMENT
26 Wayne Doby said that if the County is going to change the zoning, he would prefer that it go
27 to either commercial or industrial. He asked if it would make sense to bring it all the way out to West
28 Ten Road.
29 Craig Benedict said that staff could discuss this further.
30 Charles Bowman said that he has 33 acres and asked about the tax status.
31 Craig Benedict said that when property is rezoned the tax status does not automatically
32 change. The tax administrator has put a rough draft together in writing about this issue.
33
34 Tom Darnell said that he has four pieces of property on Buckhom Road and has owned them
35 for about 30 years. Since the 30 years, he has been told that it is going to be commercial. Everyone
36 he knows on that road wants to sell their property for commercial. He said that there is no O or 1
37 within ten miles of this area. He wants to see high-density commercial. He said that he could not
38 market his property unless it was zoned commercial.
39
15
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
2 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
3 Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn
4 the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
5 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 4. Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) Text Amendments-To review government-
9 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to amend regulations pertaining to
10 Telecommunication Facilities.
11
12 Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation.
13
14 February 27, 2012
15 AGENDA ITEM: C4
16 PUBLIC HEARING
17 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)—TEXT AMENDMENT(S)
18 TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
19
20 SECTIONS OF UDO INVOLVED:
21 • Section 5.3 Table of Permitted Uses by modifying tower heights approved under Class A
22 and B Special Use Permits,
23 • Section 5.10 Telecommunication Facilities by incorporating tower height modifications as
24 well as re-organizing existing text.
25 WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES:
26 • Towers over 75 feet but under 200 feet in height processed as Class B Special Use
27 Permit
28 • Towers 200 feet and higher would be processed as a Class A Special Use Permit.
29 • Towers can be approved administratively, under specific standards and in specific
30 situations, up to 200 feet in height—current Ordinance limits it to 150 feet
31 • Changes in allowable heights (i.e. Class A and B Special Use Permits) were
32 recommended to coincide with lighting requirements enforced by the Federal Aviation
33 Administration (FAA) and foster additional tower development opportunities in an effort
34 to address communication needs in the County.
35 • Changes to allowable heights under administrative approvals based on recommended
36 changes to Class B Special Use permit height thresholds
37 Moves existing language around by grouping similar standards in central sections.
38 — Example: Standards for the Annual Telecommunication Meeting were in 4
39 different sections. They are all now in a central section.
40 Eliminates redundancy by deleting regulations that are repeated in multiple sections.
41 — Example: Permit review standards were listed in 3 difference sections. They are
42 now listed in 1 central section.
43
16
1 WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO:
2 • Alter/modify submittal requirements
3 • Alter/modify pre-application standards (i.e. balloon test, notification of surrounding
4 property owners, etc.)
5 • Alter/modify inspection requirements for towers both during and after construction
6 • Eliminate/modify required fees, including consulting escrow fee
7
8 RECOMMENDATION:
9 1. Receive the request,
10 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
11 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
12 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC
13 regular meeting.
14 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning
15 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
16
17 Clarifying questions were answered by staff.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said that the tower height related to bird fatalities. He suggested that it
19 would be nice to track that in the document somehow. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to
20 page 5 and avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. He asked about the
21 environmental assessment.
22 Michael Harvey made reference to pages 25-27 where there are provisions about
23 environmental assessments.
24 Commissioner Jacobs said that the County requires that developments identify significant
25 natural areas and have a plan to protect them or avoid them. He would like this reflected.
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
27 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
28 County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the
29 public hearing until May 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation
30 and any submitted written comments.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 Commissioner Yuhasz asked to amend the motion to include Commissioner Jacobs'
34 concerns about the natural areas.
35 VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: UNANIMOUS
36
37 5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government-
38 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to add a new Section 6.20 that will pertain to
39 public sewer connection requirements.
40
41 Planning staff Kevin Lindley gave background on this material. In general, this is a new
42 section, Section 6.20. About 25 years ago, the County invested in a small sewer system in
43 Efland for the general purpose of improving public health by helping out with some failing septic
44 systems. The County is currently constructing a sewer system as an extension to that original
17
1 system to serve the same purpose and fulfill a promise that was made to the citizens in that
2 area. There is relatively high density and poor soil, so this system will provide help to this area.
3 This will also help with the Efland Small Area Plan in that it will assist with the economic
4 development. This new section describes how no one will be paying the County back for this
5 system. Any new development in areas where sewer system is available will be required to
6 connect to the system. However, people with functioning septic systems can continue to use
7 their system. If a property owner's system fails, then they would be required to connect to this
8 system.
9 The recommendation is to receive public comment and to refer the matter to the
10 Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners on April
11 17tH
12 Commissioner McKee said that he understands that property owners with a previously
13 approved repair area would not be able to use that if their system failed and would have to
14 connect to this system. It was answered yes. Commissioner McKee said that this concerns
15 him.
16 Frank Clifton said that all of the citizens of Orange County are subsidizing the users of
17 this system now and the revenues do not even cover the costs of operating the system. This is
18 the standard to require people to connect to this system if their systems fail. Ultimately, the
19 County will be turning this system over to the City of Mebane and their policies will take
20 precedence.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares Commissioner McKee's concerns. He
22 thought that an alternative was that there was a compromise for people to be able to use their
23 repair area and not have to hook on. He thinks that C1 is a good compromise because it allows
24 for some reasonable continuation.
25 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there are a number of parcels that are served by sewer
26 that are very large. He asked if there was any consideration given to maximum distance.
27 Kevin Lindley said that this is more of a concern for a pumping system and this is not as
28 much of a concern with this system.
29 Frank Clifton said that there may be some provisions that make sense.
30 Pete Hollenbeck said that he does not think that anyone in Efland who would say that
31 this makes sense to have to hook onto a system when there is an approved repair area. He
32 said that no one will think this is a good idea.
33 Commissioner McKee asked that there be an amendment that a viable repair area be
34 acceptable for a septic system that fails.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
37 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
38 BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; adjourn the public hearing until April
39 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
40 submitted written comments; with the addition that it be returned to the Planning Board with the
41 suggestion that the Planning Board discuss and consider an additional item #2 using an
42 approved repair as a possible alternative, and also to consider distances.
43
44 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
45
46 Commissioner Jacobs said that when the Planning Board considers this, then maybe it
47 could consider whether this is ad infinitum or whether there would be a time limit beyond which
48 property owners would have to hook up.
49 Frank Clifton suggested having the time limit be until ownership is transferred to the City
50 of Mebane.
18
1 Brian Crawford asked that the motion be extended because April 17th will not be enough
2 time to consider this.
3 Craig Benedict pointed out that the cost of connecting to the public sewer system is
4 probably comparable to creating a repair area. It may be financial viable and preferable to tie
5 into the system versus encumbering the land, etc.
6 Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion. Commissioner Foushee agreed.
7 Commissioner McKee informally asked the Planning Board to consider the comments
8 that were made about the repair area.
9 John Roberts said that once a motion has been made and seconded, then it has to have
10 a vote.
11 VOTE: All Nay
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
14 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
15 BOCC no sooner than April 17, 2012; and adjourn the public hearing until the BOCC considers
16 this item again in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
17 submitted written comments.
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20
21 6. Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) Text Amendments - To review government-
22 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the Table of Permitted Uses for
23 EDB-1 (Section 5.2)to make the district more retail-oriented and to revise Section
24 5.1.4 to reduce the list of Conditional Use District exclusions within the land use
25 classifications targeted for non-residential development.
26
27
28 Planner Shannon Berry made a PowerPoint presentation.
29
30 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments
31 UDO/ZONING 2012-01
32 Quarterly Public Hearing
33 February 27, 2012
34 Item C.6
35
36 Sections Proposed for Amendment
37 ❑ Section 5.1.4—Conditional Uses
38 ❑ Section 5.2.2 —Table of Permitted Uses-Economic Development Districts (EDB-1 District
39 Only)
40 Purpose
41 To create additional economic development options in the areas of the County designated for
42 higher intensity development
43 Proposed Changes to Section 5.1.4
44 ❑ Reduce the List of Conditional Use Exclusions for the following Land Use Classifications:
45 ■ Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node
46 ■ Economic Development Transition Activity Node
47
48 Conditional Use Exclusions - Current
49 ❑ 32 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use
19
1 ❑ Countywide - no exceptions
2
3 Conditional Use Exclusions - Proposed
4 ❑ 14 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use in two land use classifications:
5 ■ Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node
6 ■ Economic Development Transition Activity Node
7 ■ Original list of 32 `Exclusions' remains in effect for all other land use
8 classifications
9 • 32 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use
10 • 14 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use
11
12 Proposed Changes to Section 5.2.2
13 ❑ Changes to EDB-1 Zoning District Only
14 ❑ Add uses to permitted list for EDB-1 Zoning District, including, but not limited to:
15 ■ Financial Institutions
16 ■ Restaurants
17 ■ Retail Establishments
18 ■ Medical Offices
19 ■ Multi-Family Dwellings (as part of mixed-use development)
20
21 Proposed Changes to Section 5.2.2
22 ❑ Remove uses from list of permitted uses in EDB-1 Zoning District, including, but not
23 limited to:
24 ■ Dwelling, Single-Family
25 ■ Dwelling, Two-Family
26 ■ Dwelling, Mobile Home
27
28 Recommendation
29 ❑ Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
30 ❑ Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
31 the proposed amendments.
32 ❑ Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
33 returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting.
34 ❑ Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the
35 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
36 Questions and Public Comment
37
38 Larry Wright made reference to page 17 and the issue of restaurant drive-ins. He said
39 that the issue of drive-in facilities was brought before the Board of County Commissioners. He
40 asked if this ever came back to the County Commissioners. He said that if this is left at the
41 bottom of page 17, then it implies that the County Commissioners have acted on it.
42 Shannon Berry said that it does not imply that the County Commissioners acted on it. It
43 went to the Economic Development Commission and it did not get brought forward.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said that the only place it is banned is in the Hillsborough EDD,
45 and Hillsborough ignores it.
20
1 Commissioner Yuhasz said that it could be approved as a conditional use and not as a
2 use by right.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
5 to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
6 the BOCC no sooner than April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing
7 until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and
8 any submitted written comments.
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 7. Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) Text Amendments-To review government-
12 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise several Sections pertaining to
13 stormwater. These amendments are required by the State of North Carolina to meet the
14 Falls Lake and Jordan Lake New Development Rules.
15
16
17 Stormwater Resource Officer Terry Hackett made a PowerPoint presentation.
18
19
20 Unified Development Ordinance
21 Proposed Text Amendments
22 Stormwater Requirements for
23 New Development
24 (UDO/Zoning 2012-08)
25 February 27, 2012
26 Quarterly Public Hearing
27 Item C.7
28
29 Purpose
30 Modify stormwater development standards to meet the state required Falls Lake and Jordan
31 Lake New Development stormwater rules.
32
33 Background
34 ➢ Both Falls Lake and Jordan Lake considered polluted due to excessive nutrient input
35 ➢ Nutrients include Nitrogen and Phosphorous
36 ➢ Stormwater runoff is one of the major sources
37 ➢ The State designated both lakes/watersheds as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
38 ➢ State legislature required new rule making, mandating nutrient reductions entering lakes
39 Jordan Lake Rules became effective...August 11, 2009
40 Falls Lake Rules became effective...January 15, 2011
41 ➢ Both rules require new development to meet nutrient limits in stormwater runoff
42 Significant Changes
43 ➢ Section 6.14.5
44 Applicability
45 Based on land disturbance
46 ➢ Section 6.14.6
47 Review Criteria
48 Includes peak flow, volume control and nutrient requirements
49 ➢ Section 6.14.7
21
1 Nutrient loading limits
2 • Very restrictive for Falls and UNHA of Jordan
3 Offset payments
4 • A portion of the nutrient load can be offset
5 • Must meet on-site requirements first
6 Implications
7 ➢ For Development:
8 ➢ Longer review time
9 ➢ Increased design and construction cost
10 ➢ More land needed to construct stormwater controls
11 ➢ Individual residential lots may require formal plan, calculations, and controls
12 Implications
13 ➢ For Staff:
14 - More projects requiring review
15 - Increased review time per project
16 - Post-construction inspections and tracking
17 ➢ Currently analyzing staff resource needs
18
19 Recommendation
20 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as detailed in
21 the abstract and attachments.
22 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
23 the proposed amendments.
24 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
25 returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 regular meeting.
26 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the
27 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
28
29 Commissioner Yuhasz asked what happens if the County does not do this. Terry
30 Hackett said that he does not know.
31 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 14, 1-C and that the new development is
32 part of a larger common plan. He asked if this referred to a new subdivision or an existing
33 subdivision. He asked if new development would apply to those existing lots in an old
34 subdivision.
35 Terry Hackett said that it applies to new subdivisions.
36 Terry Hackett answered clarifying questions of Commissioner Yuhasz and
37 Commissioner Jacobs.
38 Commissioner McKee made reference to page 18 regarding the restrictions. He said
39 that this is in place to ensure that a future owner would not keep the best management practices
40 in place. He asked about enforceable restrictions and what kind of penalties there would be.
41 Terry Hackett said that it would be on a case-by-case basis.
42 Commissioner McKee said that the requirement for Falls Lake is not attainable. This is
43 his opinion.
44 Craig Benedict said that it will be problematic for higher intensity development. There is
45 some discussion of transfer of nutrient rights where developers that want to develop intensely in
46 some of the economic development zones may have to trade the nutrient percentages into an
47 area.
22
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
2 to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
3 the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing
4 until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and
5 any submitted written comments.
6 VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1
7
8 8. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government-
9 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise Section 6.12.5 to incorporate
10 recent modifications to State law concerning placement of political signs within the right-
11 of-way of the State highway system.
12
13 Michael Harvey presented this item.
14 Andrea Rohrbacher asked if this would affect the November election. Michael Harvey
15 said yes. This is just catching up with State law.
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
17 to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
18 the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing
19 until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and
20 any submitted written comments.
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 9. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments-To review government-
24 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise Section 2.24 to incorporate
25 recently passed State legislation that modified the statute of limitations for the appeal of
26 local government decisions.
27
28 Michael Harvey presented this item. He said that the State has changed the appeal
29 deadline, and the deadline is now 60 days for issues related to the Zoning Atlas, 365 days for
30 issues involving the UDO, and 1,035 (3 years) for issues related to an alleged defect in the
31 UDO.
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
33 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
34 BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until
35 April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
36 submitted written comments.
37
38
39 The following item is not reviewed by the Planning Board. It is heard at public hearing
40 only by the Board of County Commissioners:
41
42
43 10.Telecommunication Plan Map-To review government-initiated amendments to modify
44 the adopted Master Telecommunications Plan Map (MTP) by adding 4 additional sites.
45
46 Glenn Bowles showed the Telecommunication Plan Map modifications. At the February
47 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing, the boards reviewed the initial MTP map and then in May the
48 BOCC approved the initial map. This is a modification of that map. The map that was approved
49 last year was all the red and green areas (red being existing towers and green being proposed).
50 The light green circle around each area is a two-mile buffer. There are four additional sites—
51 two of which are County-owned sites (Blackwood Farms and the park across the street from the
23 .
1 Chapel Hill Service Center). Site B-12 is owned by OWASA and is also the American Stone
2 Quarry property. The Scott property is in the northwest part of the County. He asked the
3 County Commissioners to accept this map.
4 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Site P-10, the Blackwood property and said
5 that there was a discussion about a ten-acre parcel that was going to have a cell tower, and he
6 thinks that the County ended up buying that site. He wants to make sure that this is the same
7 site he is thinking about.
8 Craig Benedict said that he is not familiar with whether this is that site or not. He will
9 research this.
10 Commissioner Hemminger said that the County did purchase the ten acres.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said that he is interested in being involved in site placement of
12 towers on each site.
13 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to see a map of all private towers and also
14 an inventory of which of those sites have available space.
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
16 to close the public hearing and forward any comments to the March 22nd meeting.
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Chair Pelissier asked that the public hearing be adjourned until March 22nd instead of
20 closing it.
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz
22 to adjourn the public hearing until March 22"d
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
28 to adjourn the quarterly public hearing at 10:52 PM.
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 Bernadette.Pelissier, Chair
32
33 Donna S. Baker, CMC
34 Clerk to the Board
35