Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-27-2012 APPROVED 3/22/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 27, 2012 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Larry Wright, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine Mitchell, Alan Campbell Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford announced the agenda and read the public charge. 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments-To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to add a conditional zoning district (REDA- CZ-1) that would be applicable to the geographic area addressed in the NC Highway 57/Speedway Area Small Area Plan and other necessary amendments to implement recommendations made in the small area plan. Planner Glenn Bowles made a PowerPoint presentation. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments NC Highway 57 Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) Conditional Use (REDA-CZ-1) District • Encourage compatible, non-residential development, • Address existing non-conforming uses, • Facilitate unique economic development opportunities, and • Allow non-conforming uses to become conforming. Rural Economic Development Area • Adopted Plan REDA (map) • Proposed UDO REDA (map) REDA-CZ-1 --SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Only to non-residential development. 2. Only uses listed in REDA-CZ-1 (Section 5.2.3). 3. Specific uses only with BOCC approval. 4. Impervious surface restrictions. 5. Follow UDO standards or creative alternatives. 6. Comprehensive groundwater study 7. Groundwater use not> 240 gallons/day/acre. 8. No negative impacts without mitigation. REDA-CZ-1 Permitted Uses • Libraries, • Beauty& Barber Shops, • Contractors, Building &Trade, • Office & Personal Services, Class 1, • Real Estate Agents & Brokers, • Storage of Goods, Outside, • Storage or Warehousing: Inside Buitding, • Studio (Art), • Theater, Indoor or Outdoor (including Drive-ins), • Race Track (Motorized, etc.) and Go-Kart Track Facilities, • Postal & Parcel Delivery Services, • Accessory Uses, and • Assembly Facility Less Than 300 Occupants. Brian Crawford said that he was informed by the County Attorney that all 7 members of the Planning Board must be present for the meeting to continue. The seventh member was on his way. The boards agreed to move to item 10, which does not require the Planning Board. The boards moved on to item C-10 and then recessed until the seventh member arrived. Chair Pelissier called the meeting back to order at 7:32 PM. Glenn Bowles went through the PowerPoint again. Larry Wright made reference to page 17, item D and the 250-foot landscape buffer where it says, "no vegetation in this area shall be disturbed." He asked what happens as the limbs die off and what might be done for mitigation for decibel levels. He asked if anyone has looked into this. Glenn Bowles said that they look at this at the site approval stage and if the buffer looks inadequate or that it need beefing up, they will deal with it at that time. Larry Wright said that he is concerned that if someone wants to infiltrate and put some sort of vegetation or buffer to protect a neighbor. Glenn Bowles said that this would be permitted. Commissioner Foushee asked that clarification be added regarding the vegetation that could be added. Glenn Bowles said that clarification would be added. Commissioner McKee asked if there were any facilities on the racetrack property in which part of the facilities themselves is less than 200 feet from the property line. It was answered yes. Commissioner McKee asked how this would be mitigated. Glenn Bowles said that they would be innovative with the developer to see what could be done. Commissioner McKee said that he wants to address this issue. Glenn Bowles said that he would bring something forward. Commissioner McKee made reference to the requirement of mufflers and said that this would be very restrictive to this site. He said that Orange County sometimes makes it so hard for other uses that it will be a hindrance to economic development. Commissioner Jacobs said that he worked on this plan and the group worked very hard to strike a balance between development and rural life. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item J and a litter collection system. He suggested it say, "a litter and recycling collection system." Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7 and the goals that were put forward. Goal #7 says, "the creation of additional parkland within the study area shall be encouraged." He said that that he recalls that the proposal from the Atica Company was that all of the facilities would be given to Durham. The recommendation was specifically that it be negotiated that Orange County have an equal part of those facilities and that is not reflected here. He said that there was also a conversation that the County specifically did not want an asphalt plant. That does not seem to be indicated here. Glenn Bowles said that any new development would need to meet air quality standards, which would inhibit an asphalt plant. Regarding the parkland, he said that the goal was to get a placeholder there and work out the percentages later. Michael Harvey said that this additional zoning district is intended to provide existing non-conforming land uses a pathway to compliance. The additional Planning Board member arrived—Johnny Randall. Michael Harvey said that what he is hearing from the Board is that it wants the staff to take the proposed regulations, apply it to the speedway and ascertain whether there are problematic areas and identify potential solutions, and allow the Board to see the impact. Also, to identify where there could be methods where we could modify what is being proposed to address a real life scenario and at the same time, encourage any new development to insure it will not have a negative impact on adjacent property. The Board agreed. Discussion ensued on whether the property owners were notified of this meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. An amendment was made by Commissioner McKee to include Michael Harvey's comments: Take the proposed regulations, apply it to the speedway and ascertain whether there are problematic areas and identify potential solutions to allow the Board to see the pro and con impact. Also, identify where there could be methods where we could modify what is being proposed to address a real life scenario and at the same time, encourage any new development to insure it will not have a negative impact on adjacent property. VOTE: UNANIMOUS (Later, after item C-2 the Board returned to vote on an additional portion of C-1) A motion was made by Chair Pellissier, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the public hearing until May 1, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments — To review government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and to the Zoning Atlas to change the land use classification of approximately 493.5 acres in the vicinity of the Interstate 85/US Highway 70 interchange (in the vicinity of the Eno Economic Development District near the eastern county line) and to change the zoning district of approximatefy 351.5 acres of property in the same area Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that last Wednesday, the County held an outreach meeting and it was very robust. It was a wonderful facility. There were also planners from the City of Durham at the meeting because this area is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Orange County Quarterly Public Hearing February 27, 2012 Agenda Item C-2 Eno Township and Economic Development Area Land Use and Zoning Amendments ■ Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Land Use Intensity Categories. Higher Intensity Areas: These areas are generally synonymous with the ten and twenty year transition areas in the existing Land Use Plan (adopted 1981, amended 1988) or they are adjacent to areas proposed for future development on an urban scale. At some future date, they will most likely be incorporated into the municipalities of Hillsborough and Durham through the annexation process. A mix of land uses is possible in these areas and they will be served by water and sewer. They could be viewed as "receiving areas"for lower density areas to the south. Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity(EDE-1) EDE-1 Allows: ■ Finance ' ■ Government ■ Services * ■ Transportation ■ Miscellaneous EDE-1 Doesn't Allow: ■ Aqricultural ■ Construction ■ Information ■ Manufacturinq Assemblv& Processinq ■ Recreation ■ Wholesale Trade ■ Economic Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2) � EDE-2 Allows: ■ Aqricultural ■ Construction ■ Finance ■ Government ■ Manufacturinq Assemblv & Processina ■ Retail ■ Services ■ Transportation ■ Wholesale Trade EDE-2 Doesn't Allow: ■ Information ■ Recreation ■ Residential Recommendations 1. Receive the proposal to amend: a. Land Use b. Zoning 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and receive public, BOCC and Planning Board comments, 3. Refer the matter to Planning Board to be returned for BOCC action by April 17, 2012, 4. Adjourn the Public Hearing until April 17, 2012 to receive any written comments between February 27, 2012 and Planning Board recommendation. Eno Neighborhood Meeting Citizen Comments 1. Stoney Creek Basin EDE-1 vs. EDE-2 The EDE-2 is suggested by staff because of the frontage along I-85 and its relative isolation befinreen the interstate, Mt. Herman Church Road, railroad tracks, and high voltage primary electric transmission lines. The opposite side of the road is also EDE-2. 2. Resource Protection Areas (RPA) RPAs are a layer of the land use plan and are still operational. 3. What is light industrial compare Orange County and Durham County? The uses were discussed during the Eno EDD SAP meetings and comparability was achieved. 4. Why now? Public utilities This area has been noted as an urban growth land use since 1981 and reconfirmed in 1994 and 2008. Orange County is facilitating the proposed tand use pattern since any one small business could not afford to build infrastructure and jobs growth is more impo►tant than ever. 5. Annexation These land use and zoning amendments do not create annexation programs. If a new business or resident wants public water and sewer, they will sign a voluntary annexation form and if the City of Durham decides the petition meets state law and is fiscally feasible then it may be annexed. 6. Why are there two plans Orange County and City of Durham Where are these two land use plans and one zoning plan? The area is within Orange County which has a land use and zoning program. If a city also has an area of county within its future urban growth boundary (UGB)then they also have a future land use plan map. 7. Mobile Home Parks The northern mobile home park is being rezoned to EDE-2 which has frontage on I- 85. The southern mobile home park will remain Planned Development HR 4 zoning since its approval contains special `Planned Development' conditions until such time a different project is proposed. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if any conforming uses would be rendered non-conforming by any of these changes. Craig Benedict said that he has analyzed the complete list and there would be no non-conformities. Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners received a letter for the record from Charles Gunter. She gave this letter to the Clerk,which is shown below: February 23, 2012 Ms. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners 4516 Mystic Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Ms. Bemadette Pelissier: I received a letter dated February 10, 2012, notifying of us two scheduled neighborhood meetings. I have attended the first meeting. Regarding proposed changes,that letter states, in bold print, "You property is not impacted...". I must respectfully differ with the statement that what you propose will not impact my property at 4411 Hwy 70 E, Durham, NC 27705, located immediately west of the Duke Energy and Energy high lines. All activities adjacent to one's property logically affects that property as well. Previous zoning changes have already affected my property,through the arrival of a company offering"concrete and asphalt recycling." We have also watched as a small mountain of fill dirt has grown alongside and beneath the power high lines. These are occasional, sometimes continuous, intense noise pollution caused by heavy earth-moving equipment. Sounds like gun shots, as dump trucks slam their tailgates, and the noise of engines and backup warning signals of other heavy earthmoving equipment not only lowers our property values, but it degrades the quality of life for all near this designated"light industrial"zone. Also, in recent years,we have observed many changes along the section of Stoney Creek that runs through our property, and none of them were good. We have seen greater sediment loan from upstream, increased water turbidity, more frequent and more severe flooding and much more erosion from the creek banks. The new mountain of earth and recent tree-clearing in the power line right-of- way,within 100 meters upslope from the creek, is likely to exacerbate this. We feel that the further proposed changes can only continue to have a similar negative impact on Stoney Creek. Further development such as you are proposing, of areas draining immediately into Stoney Creek, will create additional oppo�tunity for sheet runoff,flooding, and point source pollution. This will further degrade wildlife habitat, destroying aquatic plants,fish, amphibians, mollusks, and crustaceans. These are essential components of a health ecosystem. As the stream health declines, surrounding habitat also declines. Currently this habitat supports deer and other mammals and a great variety of birds, including wild turkeys. Stoney Creek leaves our land,flows north beneath Hwy 70, and enters the Eno at the Eno River State Park. Ecosystems do not stand alone;they are interconnected. Further degradation of water quality, land, and wildlife habitat along Stoney Creek, by connection also affects the Eno River, Falls Lake Reservoir, and the Neuse River. Various agencies and entities are entrusted with protection of watersheds and stewardship of North Carolina's resources on behalf of the state's citizens. As an example,the Stoney Creek Wildlife Corridor was designated for low-intensity use and connects the Eno River State Park to Duke Forest(Reference: Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan: Chapter 3, Pages 12-13—approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on August 5, 1996). I can understand the need for controlled development. I can understand the need to expand county and city tax bases. What I cannot understand is promoting those goals at the sacrifice of important life-giving ecosystems—particularly our watershed system. I implore you to reconsider the changes that you propose and to furthermore restrict commercial activities directly adjacent to drainage into Stoney Creek and the Eno River. Such activities damage essential and protected watershed ecosystems and, by extension, are detrimental to all citizens of the state. Please take this recommendation under advisement prior to approving irreversible development in this ecologically sensitive area. "Environmental Responsibility in County Government adopted as an Orange County Goal, December 5, 2005 is laudable. The goal statement reads as follows: "Perform all County govemmental functions, both internal and external,with a sensitivity and ethic that promotes environmental responsibility and leadership, and an understanding of the actions of government activities as they affect the natural and cultural resources of the County, region, state, nation, and world." Because I must be out of town on business February 27, 2012, I cannot attend the second meeting. Therefore, in lieu of my in-person comments, I ask that you please enter this letter, imploring you to reconsider your proposed plan, into the meeting minutes. Thank you for considering my concerns as you plan an orderly development of this area. I encourage you to establish a broader buffer between commercial development and the vital water resources of the people of Orange County and of the State of North Carolina. I and other will work toward that end. Sincerely, Charles P. Gunter P. O. Box 507 Hillsborough, NC 27278 PUBLIC COMMENT ' Edward Hill lives on Live Oak Trail, which is off of Mt. Herman Church Road. His property is within 100 yards of the RE-1 area (??). He said that he was not able to attend the February 22"� meeting because he did not know about it. He asked about the notification requirements. He became aware of these actions when the signs went up at the corner of Old NC 10 and Mt. Herman Church Road. Craig Benedict said that staff notified by tetter people within 600 feet of all rezoning, and the last tax record owner of the property is used. Edward Hill said that his comment is that the area that he lives in is residential, R1. He would like to see the Planning Board remove this section below the railroad tracks,which was expanded at the request of Dufiam County. He understands the mobile home park's property owners' desire to have the potential for municipal sewer access, but he does not see any reason for Durham City to be dictating to Orange County where the zoning limits are. Phillip Rhew said that he is worried about bringing water and sewer by his house because of the requirement to hook on to this. Dianne Rabalais lives on Old Hillsborough Road within Whispering Pines. She said that she moved to Orange Counry not to be in Durham County. She is concerned about Durham County annexing this property. She said that she moved to Orange County for her children to go to Orange County Schools. If the water and sewer will be brought from Durham for certain people to develop their lands, then these people need to pay for this. Craig Benedict said that these residents will remain within Orange County Schools no matter what happens, even if the City of Durham does come into Orange County. There will be finro layers of taxes—Orange County and Durham City. This is similar to ptaces in Hillsborough. The water and sewer program is not intended to be put through the middle of any existing development. It is primarily a backbone to serve undeveloped properties or underdeveloped properties. Darcy Willson read a prepared statement. Darcy Willson 5315 Old Hillsborough Road Durham, NC 27705 darcvwillson(a�vahoo.com 919-612-7442 The Eno Economic Development District has many natural and manmade attributes that should be protected and enhanced by any future development. Zoning and land use policies should take into consideration the established residential housing. The emphasis shou�d be to protect existing residential housing, and create a blend of new single family housing, new multifamily housing, retail, office, and industrial areas. New single family residential and mulfifamily residential housing should be encouraged in the E. D. 2 and E. D. 1 areas so that the residential aspect of this area is not overshadowed by any new non-residential development. This area should be a mixed use development similar to Waterstone in Hillsborough. It should not be a large industrial complex. Duke Forest,the Eno River and Stoney Creek and new and existing housing should be buffered from Industrial Development. Using open space and transition zoning from residential, to office/retail and then industrial would help preserve quality of life for existing and new residents. Facilities that enhance qualiry of life should be strongly encouraged. Schools, a senior center, community center, daycare facility, medical center, library, arts space and outdoor recreation should be part of this area. Follow Guidelines Shaping Orange County's Future including the following: 1. The availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income households is a critical requirement. 2. Create multi-use community facilities that would enable a variety of functions such as a school, community center, senior center, senior care facility, adult leaming center,teen center, day care facility, medical center, branch library, arts space and outdoor recreation. 3. Ensure that affordable rental and owner occupied homes are available for low and moderate income households. 4. Create high density mixed use development. 5. Land use patterns should be designed to enhance desirable aspects of community character in new and old neighborhoods. 6. We need to manage development and create land use patterns that maintain quality of tife and help to build community. 7. Integrate uses(residential, commercial, light industrial and commercial). 8. Continue current efforts to guide growth away from public water supply watersheds to prevent new discharges into these watersheds. Eno Economic Development(EDD)Area Small Area Plan 1. Ensure that zoning text and map changes are completed in such a way that residential uses that were constructed as conforming uses in the current Secondary EDD area are not made nonconforming uses under any new zoning designation. 2. Ensure that if existing mobile home parks are redeveloped into other uses that the property owner and county work together to help displaced residents find suitable, decent, altemative housing. 3. If the region pursues commuter rail in the future,the spur line to Chapel Hill would likely become an important connector within the rail nefinrork. 4. The ability to have a commuter train station in the future should be explo�ed. A station could serve the existing Amtrak service or a station could be incorporated into the future Triangle commuter rail system. 5. How land is used is a major factor in many aspects of people's lives. Land Use directly affects people's quality of life in a variety of ways. Community character, traffic generation and flow, availability of services and the quality of the natural environment are all affected by Land Use decisions. Indeed, one of local govemment's principal powers is the authority to control land development so that growth is managed in such a way that negative impacts are minimized and mitigated. 6. Preserve stream corridors and create a nefinrork of publicly-accessible trails between developed areas and the Eno River State Park to the north of the focus area and Duke Forest to the south of the Focus Area. Last week residents were informed about an interlocal agreement with Durham that had been recently made. I can find no mention of this agreement anywhere on Orange County's website. This agreement and the process that led to it should be made public. It concems me that local residents weren't informed that an interlocal agreement was being negotiated with the City of Durham. Affected residents should have been informed and invited to be a part of the process. If the agreement does not include provisions for the City of Durham to abide by the recommendations and policies set forth in Shaping Orange County's future and the Eno Economic District small area plan this should be added to ensure that Durham's policies are aligned with Orange County's. Questions: 1. How will buffering and transitioning of existing and possible future, nonresidential development be accomplished to avoid impacts on existing and new residences? 2. What types of additional nonresidential land uses are to be considered for the area and how will their impact be mitigated? 3. What will be done to protect the environmental integrity of Duke Forest, and `Eno River State Park and Stoney Creek? Robin Jacobs spoke on behalf of the Eno River Association. She is the Executive Director. She served as the Chair of the Carrboro Planning Board for a little over ten years while the University Lake Watershed Agreements and the Joint Planning Agreement were issued. She distributed a handout. She pointed out a resource protection area that is along Stoney Creek. She said that the Stoney Creek Plan does talk about higher, middle, and lower intensity uses. The plan is totally focused on residential development and is not talking about higher intensity industrial uses. Her concem is that Stoney Creek will have more industrial use. She said that just because there are regulations, it does not mean that the County can control what happens. Jennifer Gunter verified that her father's letter was received and entered into the record. Jim Brown said that it was stated that there is currently no development proposed that is pushing these zoning changes and that this is all in the planning phase. It was answered yes. Jon Arvik asked about a sewage lift station. He has lived within ten miles of one of these at one time. He is concemed about this. He would like to know where this station is and he would like to have public input. He wants to know what it will look like, sound like, smell like, etc. He asked what authority Orange County would have to resist the annexation by Durham. He said that he moved here for a reason and he would like to maintain the qualiry of life. Craig Benedict said that Orange Counry would not be choosing a consultant for engineering design until later this summer. Todd Orr spoke against the pian to rezone the area north of Old NC 10 and south of the railroad to ECE-1. It is inconsistent with the current residential character or undeveloped character of this area. He said that this area is proposed by Durham to be low-density residential. He does not understand why Orange County would be proposing a more intense development of that area. Chris Ke�sey said that the maps are very confusing. He suggested that the maps be clearer. He said that he moved into Orange County to be in a more rural environment. He suggested limiting the amount of industry. Commissioner McKee asked for an answer to a question about forced hookups to water and sewer. Craig Benedict said that no lines would be extended to specific properties in the residential neighborhoods. There will be a policy similar to the City of Durham's sewer policy. John Roberts said that several people mentioned annexation as a concern. He said that annexation is not a County function. He said that the General Assembly has made annexation a little more difficult for cities to do involuntarily. Cities now have to provide notice to counties when they cross county lines. Property owners do have the ability to some extent block involuntary annexation. For the most part, cities will only annex on a voluntary process. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the western portion of what is being proposed beyond where it was recommended by the Eno EDD group. Craig Benedict said that the westem portion was not within the original Eno Economic Development boundary. When the Durham interlocal agreement was brought forward, it was found that there was an urban growth boundary outside of the Eno and it was suggested to bring forth land use plan amendments to backfill the urban growth boundary. Commissioner Jacobs said that last week when the Board considered the advertisement for this public hearing, he specifically asked if this exactly followed what the Eno EDD Work Group recommended and Craig Benedict said yes. He said that this is, in fact, not true, but it is an amplification to match what Durham put on the map of Orange County. It is not what the EDD work group recommended to the Board of County Commissioners. Craig Benedict said that aspects within that Eno Economic Development zone, especially around Whispering Pines,were within the district. That part is correct. There were areas outside of that, and if he was not as clear,then he apologizes. Commissioner Jacobs said that he started on the Planning Board in 1985 and this is one of the most poorly presented proposals that he has seen. There was a small area plan in which the Board of County Commissioners had no presentation and members of the public had to bring it up at the community meeting. There is still no copy. The maps are very confusing. There was not one word mentioned by staff about environmentat impacts. There was not one word mentioned by staff about rural character impacts. There was barely a mention of neighborhood impacts. He said that this is a County where these are the values (applause). He does support economic development and he has worked on virtually all of the small area plans, but to rush to do something without doing it thoroughly and openly is a mistake. He suggested getting some written responses from Durham about what happens when the water tine crosses individual properties. All of the issues of annexation need to be in writing. He wants to be honest with people that they will be in the City of Durham at some point. Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a lot going on here and the maps are confusing. He thinks that it is important to look at the entire scope of what is reasonable to serve regarding water and sewer. He is not suggesting rushing this, but the infrastructure needs to be in place to allow for reasonable and considerate development of this property over the next 20-30 years. He thinks that it will be short-sighted not to move forward at this point. Commissioner Jacobs said that he wants to take a particular exception to the way in which staff is proposing the impact on Stoney Creek. He said that the thought that this should be higher intensity industrial is preposterous. He does not know why Orange County would be so insensitive to the environment. Craig Benedict said that no matter what land use or zoning category that is applied to the lands in and around creeks, they will adhere to the highest standards applicable. Those impacts will be monitored equally no matter what type of use. The reason the EDE-2 is suggested is that because it does have I-85 frontage and is near an intersection and isolated by railroad tracks to the south. Also, the uses across from the mobile home park are industrial in nature. He said that the staff will continue to take comments from the County Commissioners and the public and work with the Planning Board to come up with recommendations. In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict said that one of the higher intensity areas in the Stoney Creek Basin plan is similar to areas where there is an existing truck stop and additional retail opportunities. It is a mix of land uses and not just residential or non- residential. , Commissioner Jacobs said that it would have been helpful to have a small area plan on the website or in the packet. Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs'comments about the Stoney Creek area. She said that she does believe that had the task force had the opportunity to look at that area in particular, there would be no recommendations to include this part. She does think that the task force agreed to what is proposed here otherwise, but not this particular area of Stoney Creek. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is very confusing to her and she does not feel comfortable making a decision. She thinks that this should be reworked. She would not be ready by April 17"'. Chair Pelissier said that the Board could change this to another date. Brian Crawford said that the Planning Board would like an opportunity to extend this item. The Planning Board will need three or four meetings to really work this through. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to defer this item to be heard again at the Quarterly Public Hearing in May and direct staff to address the concems that have been raised and bring them back to public hearing. If staff chooses to have another public information meeting, the materials can be presented then. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Yuhasz) Chair Pelissier pointed out that a motion was missing on Item 1. This motion was added to the end of Item 1. 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments -To review a government-initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas to rezone approximately 232 acres from Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R-1) to Office-Institutional (O-I). The properties are located south of Interstate 85/40,west of West Ten Road, north of Bowman Road, and east of Ben Wilson Road. Craig Benedict said that this has to do with zoning changes and no land use changes. Zoning Atlas Amendment Buckhorn-Mebane Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) UDO/ZONING 2012-05 Quarterly Public Hearing February 27, 2012 Item C.3 Proposed Action: Rezone 232 acres to Office/Institutional Current zoning: • AR (Agricultural Residential) in western portion • R-1 (Rural Residential) in eastern portion Future Land Use Map • Commercial — Industrial Transition Activity Node Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) • Area proposed for rezoning is within the County's Primary Service Area Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan • Consistent with intent of plan which calls for Mixed Use and Economic Development in this area • A project is not proposed at this time — Pre-zoning the area for potential economic development projects to reduce the overall time frame of the approval process — Development standards and requirements contained in the Unified Development Ordinance stilt apply Office/lnstitutional Permitted Uses • Section 5.2 of UDO—Table of Permitted Uses — Currently 34 permitted uses — 10 Speciat Uses (Class A or B) Examples of Permitted Uses in O/I • Child Care Facility • Library • Dance, Art& Music Schools • Universities, Colleges, and Institutes • Offices and Personal Services • Storage and Warehousing (Inside a Building) • Wholesale Trade • Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings • Animal Hospital and Veterinarians • Health Services Under 10,000 sq. ft. • Hospitals • Multiple Family Dweiling • Community Center ' • Research Facility Public Notification • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks — Mailed notices to affected property owners — Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties — Posted 11 signs in strategic areas of the affected area Recommendation • Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas. • 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 April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Craig Benedict said that no projects are proposed at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT Wayne Doby said that if the County is going to change the zoning, he would prefer that it go to either commercial or industrial. He asked if it would make sense to bring it all the way out to West Ten Road. Craig Benedict said that staff could discuss this further. Charles Bowman said that he has 33 acres and asked about the tax status. Craig Benedict said that when properry is rezoned the tax status does not automatically change. The tax administrator has put a rough draft together in writing about this issue. Tom Damell said that he has four pieces of property on Buckhom Road and has owned them for about 30 years. Since the 30 years, he has been told that it is going to be commercial. Everyone he knows on that road wants to sell their property for commercial. He said that there is no O or I within ten miles of this area. He wants to see high-density commercial. He said that he could not market his property unless it was zoned commercial. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to 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 April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting and adjoum the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments-To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to amend regulations pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities. Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation. February 27, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: C4 PUBLIC HEARING UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) -TEXT AMENDMENT(S) TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES SECTIONS OF UDO INVOLVED: • Section 5.3 Tab/e of Permifted Uses by modifying tower heights approved under Class A and B Special Use Permits, • Section 5.10 Telecommunication Facilities by incorporating tower height modifications as well as re-organizing existing text. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES: • Towers over 75 feet but under 200 feet in height processed as Class B Special Use Permit • Towers 200 feet and higher would be processed as a Class A Special Use Permit. • Towers can be approved administratively, under specific standards and in specific situations, up to 200 feet in height-current Ordinance limits it to 150 feet • Changes in allowable heights (i.e. Class A and B Special Use Permits)were recommended to coincide with lighting requirements enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and foster additional tower development opportunities in an effort to address communication needs in the County. • Changes to allowable heights under administrative approvals based on recommended changes to Class B Special Use permit height thresholds • Moves existing language around by grouping similar standards in central sections. - Example: Standards for the Annual Telecommunication Meeting were in 4 different sections. They are alt now in a central section. • Eliminates redundancy by deleting regulations that are repeated in multiple sections. - Example: Permit review standards were listed in 3 difference sections. They are now listed in 1 central section. WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO: • Alter/modify submittal requirements • Alter/modify pre-application standards (i.e. balloon test, notification of surrounding property owners, etc.) • Alter/modify inspection requirements for towers both during and after construction • Eliminate/modify required fees, including consulting escrow fee RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the request, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments. 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 May 1, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Clarifying questions were answered by staff. Commissioner Jacobs said that the tower height related to bird fatalities. He suggested that it would be nice to track that in the document somehow. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 5 and avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. He asked about the environmental assessment. Michael Harvey made reference to pages 25-27 where there are provisions about environmental assessments. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County requires that developments identify significant natural areas and have a plan to protect them or avoid them. He would like this reflected. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC regular meeting and adjoum the public hearing until May 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Yuhasz asked to amend the motion to include Commissioner Jacobs' concerns about the natural areas. VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: UNANIMOUS 5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to add a new Section 6.20 that will pertain to public sewer connection requirements. Planning staff Kevin Lindley gave background on this material. In general, this is a new section, Section 6.20. About 25 years ago, the County invested in a small sewer system in Efland for the general purpose of improving public health by helping out with some failing septic systems. The County is currently constructing a sewer system as an extension to that original system to serve the same purpose and fulfill a promise that was made to the citizens in that area. There is relatively high density and poor soil, so this system will provide help to this area. This will also help with the Efland Small Area Plan in that it will assist with the economic development. This new section describes how no one will be paying the County back for this system. Any new development in areas where sewer system is available will be required to connect to the system. However, people with functioning septic systems can continue to use their system. If a property owner's system fails, then they would be required to connect to this system. The recommendation is to receive public comment and to refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners on April 17th. Commissioner McKee said that he understands that property owners with a previously approved repair area would not be able to use that if their system failed and would have to connect to this system. It was answered yes. Commissioner McKee said that this concerns him. Frank Clifton said that all of the citizens of Orange County are subsidizing the users of this system now and the �evenues do not even cover the costs of operating the system. This is the standard to require people to connect to this system if their systems fail. Ultimately, the County will be turning this system over to the City of Mebane and their policies will take precedence. Commissioner Jacobs said that he shares Commissioner McKee's concerns. He thought that an alternative was that there was a compromise for people to be able to use their repair area and not have to hook on. He thinks that C1 is a good compromise because it allows for some reasonable continuation. Commissioner Yuhasz said that there are a number of parcels that are served by sewer that are very large. He asked if there was any consideration given to maximum distance. Kevin Lindley said that this is more of a concern for a pumping system and this is not as much of a concern with this system. Frank Clifton said that there may be some provisions that make sense. Pete Hollenbeck said that he does not think that anyone in Efland who would say that this makes sense to have to hool�onto a system when there is an approved repair area. He said that no one will think this is a good idea. Commissioner McKee asked that there be an amendment that a viable repair area be acceptable for a septic system that fails. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments; with the addition that it be returned to the Planning Board with the suggestion that the Planning Board discuss and consider an additional item #2 using an approved repair as a possible alternative, and also to consider distances. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Jacobs said that when the Planning Board considers this, then maybe it could consider whether this is ad infinitum or whether there would be a time limit beyond which property owners would have to hook up. Frank Clifton suggested having the time timit be until ownership is transferred to the City of Mebane. Brian Crawford asked that the motion be extended because April 17�'will not be enough time to consider this. Craig Benedict pointed out that the cost of connecting to the public sewer system is probably comparable to creating a repair area. It may be financial viable and preferable to tie into the system versus encumbering the land, etc. Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion. Commissioner Foushee agreed. Commissioner McKee informally asked the Planning Board to consider the comments that were made about the repair area. John Roberts said that once a motion has been made and seconded, then it has to have a vote. VOTE: All Nay A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC no sooner than April 17, 2012; and adjourn the public hearing until the BOCC considers this item again in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments-To review government- initiated amendments to the'text of the UDO to revise the Table of Permitted Uses for EDB-1 (Section 5.2) to make the district more retail-oriented and to revise Section 5.1.4 to reduce the list of Cdnditional Use District exclusions within the land use classifications targeted for non-residential development. Planner Shannon Berry made a PowerPoint presentation. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments UDO/ZONING 2012-01 Quarterly Public Hearing February 27, 2012 Item C.6 Sections Proaosed for Amendment ❑ Section 5.1.4—Conditional Uses ❑ Section 5.2.2—Table of Permitted Uses-Economic Development Districts (EDB-1 District Only) Pur ose To create additional economic development options in the areas of the County designated for higher intensity development Proposed Chanaes to Section 5.1.4 ❑ Reduce the List of Conditional Use Exclusions for the following Land Use Classifications: ■ Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node ■ Economic Development Transition Activity Node Conditional Use Exclusions -Current ❑ 32 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use ❑ Countywide - no exceptions Conditional Use Exclusions - Proposed ❑ 14 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use in two land use classifications: ■ Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node ■ Economic Development Transition Activity Node ■ Original list of 32 'Exclusions' remains in effect for all other land use classifications • 32 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use • 14 uses not permitted as a Conditional Use Proposed Chanqes to Section 5.2.2 ❑ Changes to EDB-1 Zoning District Only ❑ Add uses to permitted list for EDB-1 Zoning District, including, but not limited to: ■ Financiallnstitutions ■ Restaurants ■ Retail Establishments ��. , ■ MedicalOffices ■ Multi-Family Dwellings (as part of mixed-use development) Proposed Chanqes to Section 5.2.2 ❑ Remove uses from list of permitted uses in EDB-1 Zoning District, including, but not limited to: ■ Dwelling, Single-Family ■ Dwelling, Two-Family ■ Dwelling, Mobile Home Recommendation ❑ Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). ❑ Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendments. ❑ Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. ❑ Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Questions and Public Comment Larry Wright made reference to page 17 and the issue of restaurant drive-ins. He said that the issue of drive-in facilities was brought before the Board of County Commissioners. He asked if this ever came back to the County Commissioners. He said that if this is left at the bottom of page 17, then it impties that the County Commissioners have acted on it. Shannon Berry said that it does not imply that the County Commissioners acted on it. It went to the Economic Development Commission and it did not get brought forward. Commissioner Jacobs said that the only place it is banned is in the Hillsborough EDD, and Hillsborough ignores it. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it could be approved as a conditional use and not as a use by right. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC no sooner than April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government- � initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise several Sections pertaining to stormwater. These amendments are required by the State of North Carolina to meet the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake New Development Rules. Stormwater Resource Officer Terry Hackett made a PowerPoint presentation. Unified Development Ordinance Proposed Text Amendments Stormwater Requirements for New Development (UDO/Zoning 2012-08) February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing Item C.7 Purpose Modify stormwater development standards to meet the state reauired Falls Lake and Jordan Lake New Development stormwater rules. Background ➢ Both Falls Lake and Jordan Lake considered polluted due to excessive nutrient input ➢ Nutrients include Nitrogen and Phosphorous ➢ Stormwater runoff is one of the major sources ➢ The State designated both lakes/watersheds as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) ➢ State legislature �equired new rule making, mandating nutrient reductions entering lakes Jordan Lake Rules became effective...August 11, 2009 Falls Lake Rules became effective...January 15, 2011 ➢ Both rules require new development to meet nutrient limits in stormwater runoff Significant Changes ➢ Section 6.14.5 Applicability Based on land disturbance ➢ Section 6.14.6 Review Criteria Includes peak flow, volume control and nutrient requirements ➢ Section 6.14.7 Nutrient loading limits • Very restrictive for Falls and UNHA of Jordan Offset payments • A portion of the nutrient load can be offset • Must meet on-site requirements first Implications ➢ For Development: ➢ Longer review time ' ➢ Increased design and construction cost ➢ More land needed to construct stormwater controls ➢ Individual residential lots may require formal plan, calculations, and controls Implications ➢ For Staff: - More projects requiring review - Increased review time per project - Post-construction inspections and tracking ➢ Currently analyzing staff resource needs Recommendation 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as detailed in the abstract and attachments. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendments. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Yuhasz asked what happens if the County does not do this. Terry Hackett said that he does not know. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 14, 1-C and that the new development is part of a larger common plan. He asked if this referred to a new subdivision or an existing subdivision. He asked if new development would apply to those existing lots in an old subdivision. Terry Hackett said that it applies to new subdivisions. Terry Hackett answered clarifying questions of Commissioner Yuhasz and Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner McKee made reference to page 18 regarding the restrictions. He said that this is in place to ensure that a future owner would not keep the best management practices in place. He asked about enforceable restrictions and what kind of penalties there would be. Terry Hackett said that it would be on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner McKee said that the requirement for Falls Lake is not attainable. This is his opinion. Craig Benedict said that it will be problematic for higher intensity development. There is some discussion of transfer of nutrient rights where developers that want to develop intensely in some of the economic development zones may have to trade the nutrient percentages into an area. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer the matter to the Pianning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 8. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise Section 6.12.5 to incorporate recent modifications to State law concerning placement of political signs within the right- of-way of the State highway system. Michael Harvey presented this item. Andrea Rohrbacher asked if this would affect the November election. Michael Harvey said yes. This is just catching up with State law. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise Section 2.24 to incorporate recently passed State legislation that modified the statute of limitations for the appeal of local government decisions. Michael Harvey presented this item. He said that the State has changed the appeal deadline, and the deadline is now 60 days for issues related to the Zoning Atlas, 365 days for issues involving the UDO, and 1,035 (3 years)for issues related to an alleged defect in the UDO. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. The following item is not reviewed by the Planning Board. It is heard at public hearing only by the Board of County Commissioners: 10.Telecommunication Plan Map -To review government-initiated amendments to modify the adopted Master Telecommunications Plan Map (MTP) by adding 4 additional sites. Glenn Bowles showed the Telecommunication Plan Map modifications. At the February 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing, the boards reviewed the initial MTP map and then in May the BOCC approved the initial map. This is a modification of that map. The map that was approved last year was all the red and green areas (red being existing towers and green being proposed). The light green circle around each area is a two-mile buffer. There are four additional sites— two of which are County-owned sites (Blackwood Farms and the park across the street from the Chapel Hill Service Center). Site B-12 is owned by OWASA and is also the American Stone Quarry property. The Scott property is in the northwest part of the County. He asked the County Commissioners to accept this map. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Site P-10, the Blackwood property and said that there was a discussion about a ten-acre parcel that was going to have a celt tower, and he thinks that the County ended up buying that site. He wants to make sure that this is the same site he is thinking about. Craig Benedict said that he is not familiar with whether this is that site or not. He will research this. Commissioner Hemminger said that the County did purchase the ten acres. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is interested in the Board of County Commissioners being involved in reviewing and approving placement of towers on county properties. Commissioner Jacobs was given assurance that the natural area inventory was included in site placement criteria for all cell towers. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to see a map of all private towers and also an inventory of which of those sites have available space. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to close the public hearing and forward any comments to the March 22"d meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Pelissier asked that the public hearing be adjourned until March 22"d instead of closing it. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the public hearing until March 22"a VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the quarterly public hearing at 10:52 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board