Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20050228and representatives from the farming community involved in this project. This project has Bane to the Agricultural Preservation Board and the Planning Board. There are three examples included in the materials of farm-related businesses -Reba and Roses (retail garden center), Wizard's Cauldron (industrial use in agricultural/residential area), and Maple View Ice Cream. These businesses are assets to the County. Tina Moon said that one of the first key things they tried to do with this project was to clarify what a bona fide farm is. She made reference to page one of the matrix (attachment 4) and pointed out representative examples of a bona fide farm and representative examples of accessory uses related or incidental to a bona fide farm on page two. They anticipate that the bulk of the new uses that will be seen will fit on the left side of the continuum. She pointed out the middle and end boxes now speak to commercial or industrial type uses, whether or not they are in an existing commercial district. This is an important issue. One of the mast challenging aspects is defining the threshold of where farming activity becomes commercial in character and may need to be in a commercial zone, and how to make it consistent with the land use policies and residential districts. After considerable research of other successful jurisdictions, staff would like to introduce as anew planning construct for Orange County the idea of conditional district rezoning. This would allow the agricultural-related businesses to occur in the residentially zoned districts in a way that would be consistent with the land use ordinance. Craig Benedict stepped forward to the maps and painted out a possible option for conditional district rezoning. He provided examples for changing R1 to Community Commercial and the possibility of an agricultural service district. Craig Benedict explained that what we do not have is conditional district rezoning. He said that rezoning is legislative and followed the defined review process which would take 6 - 12 months. In summary, Craig explained that staff is looking for a request to proceed along these concepts, developing text amendments to the zoning code that would allow for this different type of method. Some amendments for public hearing could be prepared as early as May. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the matrix and said that there are some pages under zoning district where it says residential, rural activity node, commerciallindustrial, and new ar revised district needed. If it says residential, it says AR, R1, RB, but it does not say new or revised district needed. She asked what this means. Tina Moon gave an example of a country store use and said that this is a new proposed use. It would not be allowed in a residential district currently, but it would have to go through the rezoning process to became an agricultural service district. This is why it is listed as new district needed, AS, agricultural services, ar the agricultural services additional district. Commissioner Gordon asked several other clarifying questions that were answered by Tina Moon. Commissioner Halkiotis commended the group, but said that he thinks there is an element missing. He made reference to the three examples (Reba and Rases, Wizard's Cauldron, and Maple View Farm} and said that all of them have come before the Board at one time or another and County Commissioners had to get involved for the enterprises to ultimately achieve an opportunity to go ahead and carry out their business. He thinks that Reba and Rases is one of the finest agriculturally-based enterprises in the world. He remembers when Churton Grove was just being built, that people were complaining about Reba and Roses and the piles of mulch because their children were on Reba and Roses' property and it posed a danger. He said that the children should stay on their own property and respect the rights of other people. He said that The Wizard's Cauldron had a hard time because everyone was afraid that the operation would destroy the watershed. All of the oils brought in were organically based and there were no chemical additives. This owner had to cross the border to Caswell County. Regarding an area where you could at least talk about permitting a community kind of system that would be design constructed and regulated by a local entity (OWASA or Hillsborough or Orange County}. This would make the rural activity nodes mean something and separate the uses from residential areas. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to "small scale rural ventures" and asked what was meant by off-season use of farm equipment. Craig Benedict said that this refers to grading operations during the off-season and snow removal. Commissioner Halkiotis spoke about a farmer from Maryland that was setting up a playground for urbanites and city dwellers, until the planning department found out and shut it down. He said that this is a creative idea and there are some opportunities here. Noah Ranells commented that this has been educational for those involved in the process and staff is trying to do a good job. He wanted to avoid making the process complicated. He also mentioned looking at the process used by neighboring counties. Ted Triebel agreed with Noah Ranells in concept and stated that the Little River district wanted the process to be streamlined. Public Comment; Barry Katz said that he recognizes that about 1 % of Orange County's economy is from agriculture. It is not distributed equally among the County, and he believes that the areas that have mast of it would benefit most from the support of these kinds of efforts. He said that it would be nice to emphasize the support of those farmers who are comparatively poor to give them an opportunity. He made reference to attachment 4 on page 16 and said that everything from medium scale rural ventures to services, processing, and industrial seems that it requires the construction of a building. This requires a fair amount of investment and the necessary capital would be difficult far poor farmers to obtain. He said that many businesses fail, and he asked if the farmer could sell the building to someone else. Also, if the neighborhood character changes, the farmer might want to change the items for sale in the buildings to meet the needs of the people in the neighborhood. He asked if there was any entity that would monitor what goes on in these buildings. He said that all of these things will affect the possibilities of a farmer going out to borrow money from a loan entity. He is also concerned about the susceptibility of the County Commissioners to the kind of pressure that could be put on them by individuals who are facing this as a legislative decision rather than as a decision that goes through the normal process. Chair Carey said that there will be other opportunities for the public to comment on any proposal that goes forward. He suggested that Craig Benedict not forward this proposal to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro yet because there are several revisions needed. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Noah Ranells' comment and said that he would like to see this in priority order and see if certain things can be moved forward. Some more problematic things could be held up while revisions are made. He would also like to look at whether the large scale rural venture should start out as a class A permit as apposed to going to the Board of Adjustment. He would like to see the pros and cons of this. He agrees that this should came back as soon as passible. He said that if the County Commissioners act on a TDR consultant, the group should be able to look at this and comment on how this might work on a TDR scheme. Commissioner Gordon said that the next time this comes back, she would like the public to be able to comment on the concepts before it is moved forward. It should be a public hearing item ar a regular meeting item. Chair Carey asked the staff to plan on having this at the May public hearing. 2. Transportation Issues project in getting the EDD going here. The Planning Board pointed out that there is quite a bit of pedestrian traffic in this area, and that pedestrian and bicycle improvements should be included also. This would be more important as the new middle school and soccer fields come online. Regarding the park and ride lot in the Buckhorn Economic Development District, she said that she is not sure if this should be a TI P project. There may be other funds available for this. Other projects include bicycle lanes on Dairyland RoadlOrange Grove RoadlBuckhorn Road. Another possible project is the Efland-Cedar Grove Road straightening to make a more direct connection to the I-85 interchange. There has been an increase in traffic here. In two years, the traffic increased 110°~. This was recommended by the Economic Development Transportation Task Force. Commissioner Jacobs said that Efland-Cedar Grove Road has become the western bypass for Hillsborough for anyone who lives in the northern part of Orange County. He is a little concerned about the homes that might be affected, but he would like to move it up in the priority list to start looking at it. This is a highly used area. He would like to move it as high as second in the priority list. Commissioner Gordon said that since Orange County supports environmentally friendly alternatives to roads, she does not want to move all the bicycle projects to the bottom of the priority list. That would happen if we take the current list and switch all of the road projects to the top of the list, as being suggested. If the park and ride lot is problematic, it could be put at the bottom. She would like to see some bicycle lanes higher in the priority list. Commissioner Jacobs suggested exchanging the Buckhorn park and ride lot with the Efland-Cedar Grove Road straightening on the blue sheet. The Board agreed, but Commissioner Gordon again raised the concern about having all of the bicycle lanes at the bottom of the priority list. Karen Lincoln made reference to the other blue sheet, which is a draft resolution. She hopes to have a final resolution on March 15t". Commissioner Gordon asked for an additional resolution for the MPO, since it was missing from the packet. Chair Carey asked about the understanding an Elizabeth Brady Road. Commissioner Gordon said that the EDD work group and the Commission for the Environment stated conflicig positions on Elizabeth Brady Road, so these comments should be reconciled. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks there are at least two County Commissioners that want the intro-Hillsborough projects an the TIP. He thinks that Elizabeth Brady Road is going to be on Hillsborough's list and not on Orange County's list. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he is sorry this opportunity was missed at the last joint meeting to discuss this issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to add to the priority list to straighten out Eno Mountain Road and extend Orange Grove Road from South Churton Street to US 70-A. Commissioner Gordon is against this without talking to Hillsborough first, since these projects are in Hillsborough's jurisdiction. VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordan) Commissioner Jacobs agrees that there should be some discussion with Hillsborough. Commissioner Gordon said that she is not opposed to these projects, but she is opposed to putting something forward in another jurisdiction without consulting them first. b. transportation issues in Orange County, and as appropriate, advise the BOCC. Karen Lincoln made reference to the pink sheet. She said that this idea has been of interest for several years. She explained each of the options for the makeup of the board, as listed an the pink sheet. She also read the examples of possible charges of the board. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon that the makeup of the board be two County Commissioners, one to two from the Commission for the Environment, one to two from the Economic Development Commission, one to two from the Transportation Services Board, one to two from the Planning Board, and two at-large. If there are not two people from each board, then there could be more at-large appointments to make a board of 12 members. The charge could be brought back as a proposal later. She suggested calling it the Orange County Transportation Advisory Board. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having one member from each township and one member from the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission, Commission for the Environment, and Transportation Services Board. He would like to call it the Orange County Unified Transportation Advisory Board. He would also like to add someone who is interested especially in bicycle transportation, pedestrian access, and transit. This would be a 14-member board. Commissioner Halkiotis does not support specifying the number of Commissioners until there is a discussion about why there should be one or two on an advisory board and what the roles of the County Commissioners would be on the boards. Brian Dobyns commented on the diversity of opinions of the boards. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to have a 14-member board with one member from each township, one from the Planning Board, one from the Economic Development Commission, one from the Commission for the Environment, one from the Transportation Services Board, one who would be interested in bicycle transportation, one who would be interested in pedestrian access, one who would be interested in transit, and one County Commissioner as a liaison. VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Halkiotis) 3. Update on the Rural Character and Farmland Protection Work Group -Presentation by the Planning Board Chair on the activities and products of the Planning Board-initiated, Rural Character and Farmland Protection Work Group. Jay Bryan said that the Planning Board last year set up this work group that was made up of five Planning Board representatives, asurveyor, arepresentative from the Ag Preservation Board, and some members from County departments to look at how to protect rural character and farmland. The work group met eight times and provided a report to the Planning Board. The Planning Board reviewed it on two occasions with no specific consensus. At the last meeting, they agreed to meet with the Agricultural Board on April 6t" and get more input about the report. The recommendations were fairly general. Far example, "establish appropriate guidelines for rural residential clustered development outside water and sewer areas, identify areas where rural residential clustering will protect resources, develop standards for rural clustered developments," etc. Commissioner Gordon asked for a copy of the report. Craig Benedict said that the report has not been completely reviewed by the Planning Board, so it was not included in the packet. Noah Ranells invited the County Commissioners to the joint meeting on April 6t" at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Gordon said that she would try to come to this meeting. 4. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update -Presentation on status of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element update, specifically, advisory board public outreach follow-up activities and next steps for formal public hearings. Tom Altieri said that staff is asking for authorization to proceed with the schedule as outlined in the agenda abstract. In summary, the proposal includes two public hearings - an initial public APPROVED 411 212 0 0 5 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT UUORK SESSION February 28, 2005 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a Work Session on Monday, February 28, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill, S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Ted Triebel, Noah Ranells, Sandra Quinn, and Brian Dobyns PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Hunter Schofield and members Renee Price, Nicole Graysmith, Jeffrey Schmitt, Timothy Webb, and Jay Bryan NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He said that this meeting was advertised as a joint work session, but there may be people in the audience that would like to comment on some of the items of the agenda. He asked if the County Commissioners would like to open the meeting up to members of the public that might like to speak. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the public should be allowed to speak. Commissioner Jacobs said that there are two County Commissioners that are not feeling well, so he agreed, but it is important to keep to the three minutes or less per speaker. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. UPDATE ITEMS 1. Rural Enterprises Project- Presentation of progress report on Rural Enterprises project and introduction of condifional district rezoning as a new planning construct to allow farm-related businesses in the rural parts of the County. Economic Development Director Dianne Reid said that the purpose of this project is to provide more income-producing options for local farmers, because they are struggling. This issue came forward at the Ag Summit and several farmers mentioned that planning regulations were making it difficult for them to pursue options. Since that time, there have been many staff Maple View Farms, it was the hope that all of the inspections could be done at one time so that Mr. Nutter would not have to bring in the electrician many times. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he wants to make County government more user-friendly for people undertaking these activities. He wants to see more of these activities take place. He said that the code enforcers need to be brought along in this process so that they understand the opportunities. He said that he talked to Economic Development Director Dianne Reid this morning about setting up a meeting of the committee to start looking at this issue. Jahn Link made reference to page 16 and the amount of time it will take to petition for these kinds of ventures. He asked how the staff would engage with the business person/farmer and explain why it takes 9-12 months to do veterinarian services versus 1-2 months to do a farm supply service. It will be a challenge to meet with them as soon as possible and let them know what to expect in terms of time. Dianne Reid said that they hope to continue the collaboration with Cooperative Extension, Soil and Water, and the agents that typically know of an idea before it is far along in development. John Link said that he does not understand why it would take a year for veterinarian services. Craig Benedict said that right now there are a lot of categories that the uses do not fit into. He said that Dianne Reid is an advocate of small businesses and she will help to explain why and will help them through the process. Commissioner Gordon said that it is valuable to come up with a scheme to keep farmers farming. It is important to have other sources of income. Her question is the areas where these uses would be appropriate. Her concern is when large-scale commercial and industrial ventures are allowed into areas that are suburbanizing. She asked for the rationale of how these uses could go into the R1 residential areas where they are surburbanizing and how the uses could go into the rural buffer without adverse impacts on residential areas. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the email from Bernadette Pelissier, and she read an excerpt from it as follows: "1) How would allowing conditional district zoning in the rural buffer be compatible with the increasing suburbanization in these areas? How would you ensure that businesses would have adequate septic systems not prone to failure? 2} I would hope that conditional district zoning would not be permitted in the Cane Creek and University Lake watershed areas. 3} Given the increased residential development throughout the county and the goals of land preservation {Lands Legacy Program), how would you ensure that conditional district zoning will be compatible with these uses? Would it be better to identify in advance areas that would be most amenable to farm-related businesses?" Commissioner Gordon asked that these questions be answered before this proposal moves forward. Craig Benedict said that any changes to the rural buffer that would not be consistent with the joint planning area land use plan that is in place now would have to be processed through a joint approval process. Commissioner Gordon asked that this proposal be sent to Chapel Hill and Carrboro officials. Craig Benedict said that if there are critical watershed areas that are designated for not having commercial uses, this could be part of the rezoning criteria. Regarding septic systems, there is a concern. They are trying to balance this, but there are constraints. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks this is on the right track. He does not view this proposal with alarm, but he thinks there is a sixth category. He thinks there should be a services category and a processing and industrial category. A veterinarian who had boarding capacity would be under processing and industrial, because it would not be wanted in a residential area. A retail garden center fits in a residential area. He made reference to transferable development rights and said that you could look at the industrial uses in rural activity nodes and address some of the septic concerns by moving some of the heavier uses to a. State Transportation Improvement Priority List -Consideration of needed transportation improvements for inclusion in StatelMetropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Craig Benedict said that there are three categories: projects that are prioritized within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Orange County MPO, projects outside of that MPO, and issues that are ongoing. Karen Lincoln said that the purpose of this item is to start discussions for determining Orange County's priority list for the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program. This is a 7-year program that schedules and funds transportation projects in the State and is updated every two years. This year's update is a one-year period because last July the Board of Transportation decided to change the years of the TIP from even-numbered years to odd- numbered years. She has been working with three advisory boards to get some input on this process -Economic Development Commission, Commission for the Environment, and the Planning Board. The comments from these boards are in the agenda packet. Also in the packets is what was submitted for the 2006-2012 priority list. NCDOT has not yet released the draft 2006-2012 TIP for public comment. The pedestrian bridge on Orange Grove Road going aver I-40 was recommended and supported by all of the advisory boards. This was the first priority in the last submittal. Homestead Road improvements were the second priority. The improvements to South Churton Street were moved to number three. The bicycle projects were next in the previous list. The Old NC $6 bicycle lanes were fourth, followed by NC 86 improvements north of Hillsborough, with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass and extending the lane for traffic turning east onto US 70 Bypass from northbound Churton Street. The US 70 Bypass widening was also in the last list. She added two projects, which were suggested by the Planning Board. The first was Eno Mountain and Maya Street realignment. This was also recommended by the EDD Transportation Work Group and the Joint Orange Grove Road Transportation Work Group. It is still in the TIP as an unfunded project. If the Board is interested in this project, there will have to be collaboration with Hillsborough. The second project was the extension of Orange Grove Road east to US 70 Business. This was also recommended by the EDD Transportation Work Group and the Access Management Awareness Project and Report far Orange Grave Road. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be extremely important to work with Hillsborough in setting priorities for projects within Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with the way the priorities were changed. He thinks the Elizabeth Brady Road extension will have to be dealt with. He would like to invite people to come and argue the issue. Hillsborough is going to want the County to embrace this priority. Commissioner Gordon said that now that the Hillsborough Town Board is different, there might be some change in priorities and they might endorse the two projects. However, it is her understanding that they have not yet developed their list of priorities. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the joint meeting with Hillsborough recently on February 17t" and wondered why this issue was not discussed at that time. He said that something is getting lost in transition because the County Commissioners seem to remember what the groups came up with as a recommendation to the respective boards, but it gets lost when it comes to Hillsborough. He asked for a list to be generated on issues that need to be discussed jointly. He is tired of studying things. Karen Lincoln asked if it was the desire to include Elizabeth Brady Road in the priority list and the Board said no, not at this time. Karen Lincoln made reference to the blue sheet entitled, "Orange County Transportation Priority List for Areas Within the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization for Consideration of Funding in the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program." The first item is Buckhorn Road widening. The Economic Development Commission stressed the importance of this hearing on May 23rd to introduce draft land use element text and zoning amendments and to begin receiving formal input from citizens on the update; and a second public hearing an November 21 S` to provide additional opportunity for citizen comment on the zoning plan and amendments. During June-September, the Planning staff will be working with the Planning Board to review the draft text and the zoning amendments. There is a special Planning Board meeting scheduled in October to receive Planning Board recommendations prior to the public hearing. There will be additional time far Planning Board comment at the December 7`" meeting before the Board of County Commissioners would consider adapting the land use element text and/or the zoning amendments. Commissioner Gordon said that she understood from the Board of Health that they did not feel that there was enough time to comment. This may be true for all of the boards. She asked how they could provide additional comments. Tom Altieri said that they have completed the meetings with these advisory boards. Craig Benedict explained the process in more detail. Commissioner Gordan thinks that the advisory boards would like more time to provide their comments, and that allowing them to bring their comments to a public hearing was not sufficient. She suggested telling the boards that they can continue to submit comments until April 19t" Commissioner Foushee asked if the comments from the listening sessions would be made available. Craig Benedict responded explaining the process. Jahn Link said that December 13t" is the last meeting of the year, and this is a big item and perhaps a big item such as the Comprehensive Plan should not be presented at the last meeting. Chair Carey suggested that the Board approve the part of the schedule up to April 19t". The Board agreed. D. OTHER ITEMS E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board