Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20051121APPROVED 1 211 312 0 0 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSIPLANNING BOARD JOINT DINNER MEETING Government Services Center November 21, 2005 5:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a dinner meetinglwork session on Monday, November 21, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Brian Dobyns, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pellissier, Renee Price, Ted Triebel, Jeffrey Schmitt, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Craufurd Goodwin, Sandra Quinn, Sam Lasris, Hunter Schofield PLANNING STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Tom Altieri, Robert Davis, and Perdita Holtz NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE 1. Welcome Moses Carey, Board of County Commissioners Chair Jay Bryan, Planning Board Chair Chair Carey welcomed both boards to this annual joint dinner meeting of the Orange County Planning Baard and the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan thanked the Commissioners far inviting the Planning Board far this joint meeting. 2. Introductions of Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board Members Introductions were made by all. 3. 2006 Planning Board Goals and Tasks (Attachment 1) a. Planning Board Tasks b. Planning Board Goals c. From a Planning Board Goal to a BOCC Endorsed Task Jay Bryan asked for comments from the Planning Board members or planning staff Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board works on their agenda for the coming year for the Commissioners' retreat in January and in 2005 the Planning Board had identified some individual projects and ones that are in the pipeline. Jay Bryan said that they chase to do the process differently this year and they broke down their process into goals and tasks. He said that in the past items that were under the category of tasks now would have been under the broad category of goals and he said that at some point in the year they would be addressing all of the tasks and goals. He said that there is interest on their board about affordable housing issues and they have talked about it as a board and have met with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board about looking at issues of mutual concern from a planning board perspective. However, he stated that the planning board is not trying to duplicate anything that AHAB or any other board is currently doing, they just want to share mutual goals and ideas. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the first three items under the heading goals were ranked in any kind of priority order and Jay Bryan said no. Jay Bryan said that Renee Price and Craufurd Goodwin are not here tonight but they live in the ETJ (Extra-territorial Jurisdiction) outside of Hillsborough and they had concerns about some zonings in this area. These two planning board members had suggested that whoever represented Orange County residents in this area should be looking at special use permits (SUP's), etc. Mr. Bryan said that he lives in the NTA (Northern Transition Area) outside of Carrboro and he said that the Board of Aldermen had created an advisory board sa that those who did live in this area could comment on issues affecting their area and this could be a model for other areas of the county. Brian Dobyns said that as a member of the Elfland Mebane Task Force, he and others have shared concerns about the ETJ and other similar areas. Commissioner Jacobs said what does item #2 mean, watersheds. Michelle Kempinski said she suggested this goal to be added because she wanted to know areas of watershed planning and what are the concerns of the boards and the citizens. Jay Bryan said that they had received a presentation from planning staff about doing planning based on watershed issues and they had recently discussed this item. Planning staff member Tom Altieri said that the planning department has begun to collect data based on watersheds as opposed to townships. And planning staff has seen as part of the land use element update, more of a trend of moving away from a township model to a watershed model. He said that the U.S. census provides a tremendous amount of information for the township model but not for the watershed model. Ted Triebel said that his interpretation of what they are talking about is about watershed demands on all of Orange County and other areas that demand water from Orange County and its headwaters. He said that this is bigger than Orange County itself. He said that it would be advantageous to start a dialogue about this issue. Commissioner Gordon said that she hoped that as they look at watersheds that they also look at groundwater planning and she said that the Commission for the Environment had adopted a water resources goal. She would like to see the planning board broaden the watershed item to include water resources, which would include groundwater. Commissioner Jacobs said that he and John Link were at a presentation at TJCOG on watersheds and he said that the ward conservation never appeared but it was mare based on economic development. He said it would have been nice to have information about what watersheds and water resources. Ted Triebel said that when they talk density in the comprehensive plan they should include water as a separate resource because he personally does not know the demands on the county's watersheds and groundwater supplies and he wanted to know haw water resources factor into their public hearings an density. Renee Price arrived at 6:15 pm. John Link said that it depends on what kind of water they have and the smaller municipalities do not know what the tang-range demands will be an their water supply and what to project because they do not have the resources such as OWASA. Ted Tribel asked if the Orange County Economic Development Commission were going out and trying to bring in certain types of businesses with water conservation and practices in mind. John Link said that the County is not pursuing any type of big water users or processors. Chair Carey said that when they had discussions with the Town of Hillsborough and Orange - Alamance Water recently, the idea came up about a proposed water summit to try and get a handle on the central area of the county. Michelle Kempinski said that they should look at the watersheds as a critical water resource and there were a lot of questions to be asked in making planning decisions Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification of item #3 under 2006 Planning Board Goals- "Enhance communication with other Advisory Boards to integrate strategic planning efforts." Commissioner Foushee said that she had attended a joint meeting of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (ARAB) and the Planning Board recently and she wanted to know if the planning board was going to do this with other boards. Jay Bryan said that is an issue that they would like to discuss tonight. Craig Benedict said that planning staff is sensitive to the fact that if other boards have an interest in planning issues and if there is a subject that is important to the planning board they would like to make this a coordinated resource. Craig Benedict said that they are suggesting that if the planning board comes up with ideas then the planning staff will help coordinate with other advisory boards. Chair Carey said that could be a way to determine if there are going to be impacts to other boards when ideas spring up from the planning board. He said if things percolate up then they should proceed with a joint meeting with another board to discuss mutual interests before it comes to the Board of County Commissioners. Brian Dobyns said that is what they meant with item #3 (enhance communication with other advisory boards to integrate strategic planning efforts) because if they as a planning board had more familiarity of topics of concern from other boards, then this could be mutually beneficial to all. But he said right now that there is not enough information provided about the other boards, such as their agenda and minutes and he would like to be able to review this information from other boards. Commissioner Gordon said with respect to the Commission for the Environment that the planning board should look at their State of the Environment report because this gives a good overview of this board. Commissioner Jacobs said all of the boards and commissions should have minutes of their meetings and they could have board staffs to email them out. Geof Gledhill said in reviewing comprehensive planning matters, the county looks to the planning board but that it may be worthwhile far the planning board to then look at other boards before making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for the full impact of any decisions made. Chair Carey asked if there were other ways to integrate the different boards. Craig Benedict said that item #1 under 2006 Planning Board Goals - "Inclusion of the Orange County planning board in the Extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and Transition area development and planning recommendations," references the Commissioners' planning board appointments to Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and the Carrboro Planning boards. He said that once these individuals are appointed, they have nat been brought back to the fold to learn such things as what does the Board of County Commissioners want them to do on these boards and what is their role. He recommended a possible training session with a jurisdiction's planning board members that are appointed to the various planning boards. Craig Benedict said he has touched base with the County's appointees but infrequently and he thinks that their role could be more defined. He said that the County does have a courtesy review agreement with the Town of Hillsborough but it is a fast turnaround. Craig Benedict said if there was some interest on the planning board for him to pursue this then he would have staff begin the process. Commissioner Gordon said the structure of boards in the other entities have Orange County members on them to give their particular board input on the county and she said that Craig Benedict is proposing some interaction that they do not have now. She is not sure how this would work. Chair Carey said that this is something they should consider and appointees now don't have expectations and the Board of County Commissioners need to have expectations of these appointees. He said that there is going to be more of this if we want them to have an impact on the boards that they are appointed to serve on. Commissioner Jacobs said that they had asked for their Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation board representative to report back to them periodically through email but for the planning boards, they would have to be more aggressive. He wanted to know if the Commissioners wanted the baard appointees to keep in touch as they go along or to just call Craig Benedict or the planning board chair to let them know what is coming down the pike. Jay Bryan said they could do a survey of the Board of County Commissioners appointees and ask them what they feel their role is and da they think they are effective or not. Craig Benedict said that they could put some ideas together for the planning board to review before they send out to appointees. And as development occurs on the fringe, it would be good for these appointees to have some direction. Michelle Kempinski asked if it would be cumbersome to add other boards and commissions' goals for the next year onto the county's website. Jeffrey Schmitt asked if other boards submit their yearly goals at the Commissioner's annual retreat and Chair Carey responded that each board and commission is given a form to complete stating their upcoming goals for the coming fiscal year and also their accomplishments during the past year but that they don't get all board responses. Chair Carey said if there are 8-10 boards/commissions that the planning board is more interested in then they can charge staff people to send their agendas to the planning board. Brian Dobyns asked where are the minutes of these other boards and Chair Carey said if there are only 8-10 boards, then staff can have them emailed to the planning board, as mentioned before. Brian Dobyns said if they could be in a pdf format, they could be posted to the website. Chair Carey said that they could look into this. Jay Bryan said that they have covered items one through three on the agenda and now they will move on to item four. 4. Role of Orange County Advisory Boards in Development of Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 2) Tam Altieri referenced attachment 2 and said that the concept of camprehensive plan element preparation roles goes back a year when staff began receiving questions about the plan. He said that staff turned to the zoning atlas and there are sections that address the specifics but these have not been updated. He said that the zoning ordinance was not amended to show how this would impact the planning board Tom Altieri said that Craig Benedict drafted a memo to all advisory baard chairs and liaisons in May 2005 in reference to the land use plan elements and their roles. In June 2005, the planning board asked for more clarification of players in the camprehensive plan and this led to attachment 2. Tom Altieri reviewed the roles of each of the entities on attachment two including the role the Board of County Commissioners would play, the element project manager, the comprehensive plan consistency coordinator, the lead advisory board role and the advisory board liaison role. Jay Bryan asked if this had came before the Board of County Commissioners before and Chair Carey said no. Tam Altieri said that the zoning ordinance has been confusing for many. Jay Bryan said that he felt that this attachment was helpful in the clarification of the planning board's role and since there is a lot of interest and energy in these other elements, they wanted to utilize the services of the planning board but they are aware of their parameters Chair Carey asked if this was a staff generated document and was answered yes. Craig Benedict said this was distributed in the spring to the other boards and commissions about who would be the lead agency and what was occurring during the land use element. He said these questions came up and he said that different elements would have different boards involved. Craig Benedict said that this has been reviewed by other department heads and John Link and is to hopefully be used as a guideline as to how they coordinate between departments in the comprehensive plan element. Chair Carey asked about lead advisory boards vs. departments. Craig Benedict said that the Comprehensive Plan Consistency Coordinator (CPCC) is just a liaison and is not interchangeable with the lead advisory board's role. He said that the focus of the memo to the other advisory boards was that as the county moves forward with developing the comprehensive plan, they would have a format as to which department would take the lead role. Craig Benedict said that they do same of this already with other boards John Link said as the Board of County Commissioners is looking at short-term priorities, some are related to the comprehensive plan but as you look at priorities on other boards such as the ERCD or Housing, the trick is far the planning board and Commissioners to develop a matrix as to when you may want to start something. He said that there is a lot of activity and you have to sequence these activities Commissioner Gordon said that she needs to understand the issue of dissatisfaction of their role from the planning board. Is the issue one of dissatisfaction with their role ar is it uncertainty concerning what their role should be. Commissioner Gordon said that you would need to have a planning board liaison to visit all of these other boards and that is a lot of work. She asked what the planning board wants. Jay Bryan said there was some confusion and dissatisfaction around the land use element process and at one point one of their members wanted to clarify what authority the planning board had to influence the land use element. And the overall issues as to how these elements were going to be worked on and how will this work for the other elements. Brian Dobyns said that he was unhappy with the land use element and he said that they had not done what the zoning ordinance said far them to do. He asked what was their role if not to do what is in the zoning ordinance and this could be because this was not identified when the zoning ordinance was changed. Commissioner Gordon said that in terms of the land use element, the planning board is the lead advisory board and the other boards have done little yet to develop their element. She said she does not see any other advisory board changing the role of the planning board as the lead board on the land use element. Jeffrey Schmitt asked haw far do they ga beyond the tasks that are listed under the word "planning". Ted Treibel said that they have discussed how better they can serve the Board of County Commissioners and under 2006 Planning Board Tasks/BOCC Goals, item # 7, "the integration of sustainable development principles, including economic development, into planning and zoning issues, " he said that he did not think they were linking planning with economic development and he wants to know haw can they all be mutually inclusive. Renee Price said she was confused as to who would be overseeing the comprehensive plan. She said that the zoning ordinance said that the planning board has the authority over the comprehensive plan. Geof Gledhill said the North Carolina General Statutes in creating planning far local governments calls for all land use elements to be done pursuant to a comprehensive plan. He said that the statute does not contemplate a comprehensive plan as Orange County is doing theirs and this may be causing some of the confusion. He said that Orange County has taken the notion of a comprehensive plan and developed it into something that incorporates many areas and elements and he said that Orange County has strayed positively from what most local governments do with the comprehensive plan. Chair Carey said that in the process, the Commissioners have created these different advisory boards that report to the Board of County Commissioners and that they have had discussions about how do they work with boards that are working simultaneously on the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Gordon said that she remembers the previous comprehensive plan and the terms "comprehensive plan" and "land-use plan" were used almost interchangeably. Commissioner Gordon said that what has happened over the years is that there are these elements that are well defined with boards and staff associated with them. She does not think that the planning board has last anything, but that the process has gotten sa much bigger. She said that now it may take 2-3 years to do all of these comprehensive plan elements and the way it is now is that the planning board is to advise the Commissioners an the land use element. Renee Price wanted to know who would have the lead role an the comprehensive plan and Commissioner Gordon said that would be the Board of County Commissioners. Geof Gledhill said that the comprehensive plan does not exist as an entity and is only a description. Renee Price said that this is not written down and Chair Carey said it is written up in each of these element plans. Craig Benedict said that they have evolved into different elements with more advisory boards and staff and this was not anticipated in 1981. He said that all items go back to the planning board if it has a regulatory aspect to it and that linkage needs to remain. Brian Dobyns said that in previous goals, the planning board had a review rate and he wanted to know if this the same role for the other advisory boards and are they just reviewing this or crafting this. Commissioner Gordon said that the best description of what she and Geof Gledhill said is that the comprehensive plan does not exist as an entity but is a sum of the elements. The Board of County Commissioners will get all of the elements in the end and the planning board will be responsible for the land use element and if any other regulatory issues come out of the other boards, they will have to come through the planning board Commissioner Gordon said she does not believe that the planning board has had anything taken away from them. Renee Price suggested that this needs to be put in writing as to what the planning board is responsible for. Chair Carey said that the information before them this evening is the first time the Board of Commissioners have seen this and they will need to take time to review and discuss. Commissioner Jacobs said that as the others were discussing, he has looked on -line at the various advisory boards and very few of them have their agendas andlor minutes on -line. He asked the Manager how do they get minutes and agendas of the various boards/commissions in the public realm. Then we can try to focus them to get them to the planning board. Commissioner Gordon asked if the planning board could give her the BOCC goals that they were specifying. Michelle Kempinski said that there are multiple lists of land use element goals. She said this will be important as to which they direction they should go and which ones to follow. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board of County Commissioners adopted their last goals in 1999. 5. Board of County Commissioners Comments-NONE 6. Other Business-NONE 7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr. Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board APPROVED 2/21/2006 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 21, 2005 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 21, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey and Commissioners Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, and Alice M. Gordon COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt {All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Brian Dobyns, Michelle Kempinski, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price-Saunders, Ted Triebel, and Jeffrey Schmitt PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Sandra Quinn, Hunter Schofield, Nicole Graysmith 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. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Closing of a Public Right-of-Way Property owners on SR 1571, Pleasant Green Community Center Road, have petitioned the N.C Department of Transportation to abandon a 0.27-mile portion of the road from the State Maintained System. Planner Karen Lincoln summarized this item. She said that this public hearing is to hear all interested parties with respect to closing this section of road. This would be the portion of road from Cole Mill Road to approximately the Pleasant Green Community Center. At the September 20t" meeting, the Board agreed to forward a petition to NCDOT to remove this portion of the road from the state-maintained system. The petition was signed by all property owners that owned property adjacent to the road. On October 3`d, the Board endorsed two petitions -one to formally endorse removing this portion of the road and another declaring the intent to close the road and call for the public hearing. In accordance to North Carolina General Statute Chapter 153A-241, the road has been posted in four locations for at least three weeks prior to this meeting. A notice of the public hearing was also advertised in the Chapel Hill Herald and The News of Orange for three consecutive weeks. If, after the public hearing, the Board is satisfied that closing the road is not contrary to the public interest and that no individual awning property in the vicinity of the road would be deprived of reasonable access to the property, the Board could go ahead and take action. The lavender sheet is the order closing the road. Public Comment: Brad Clark said that he spoke at the meeting in September, but he would reiterate his points. He has owned the property on the west side of Pleasant Green Community House Road since 1998. The road adjoining his property was in terrible shape and there were appliances, furniture, deer carcasses, garbage, and there was very poor drainage. He met with a representative from NCDOT and an engineer from the State came and looked at the road and made the assessment that the crossover pipe under the road was inadequate and would have to be replaced with a much larger pipe. The drainage was improved and he made a "gentleman's agreement" with them that if they would do the ditching out that he would try and keep it cleaned up as long as he owned the property and lived there. It has been hard to keep the road clean. None of the residents have a clear view of the road because it is very densely wooded. With the increased cast of tipping fees, the public has made this road a satellite county dumping point. He has hauled the junk away and disposed of it at his own expense. He thinks the best solution is to close the road. He has also seen people parked on the road drinking alcohol and other people parked there for various reasons. Ed Punt, who had signed up to speak, said that Brad Clark said everything that he wanted to say. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the "Order closing a 0.27-mile road right-of-way on SR 1571 (Pleasant Green Community Center Road) between SR 1569 (Cole Mill Road) and Pleasant Green Community Center." ORDER CLOSING A 0.27-MILE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SR 1571 (PLEASANT GREEN COMMUNITY CENTER ROAD) BETWEEN SR 1569 (COLE MILL ROAD) AND PLEASANT GREEN COMMUNITY CENTER WHEREAS, petitioners Donald B. and Lynda F. Sanders, L. Thomas Bullock, W. C. and Vannie Cater, Vannie Carter for Pleasant Green Community House, Silvia Heyden, and William B. Clark have petitioned the North Carolina State Department of Transportation Division of Highways to abandon a 0.27-mile segment of Secondary Road 1571, Pleasant Green Community Center Road, identified on the map that is Exhibit A incorporated herein by reference, from the State Maintained System; and WHEREAS, Mr. William B. Clark and Mr. Ed Punt have appeared before the Orange County Commissioners requesting that Orange County close the right-of-way identified by Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on October 3, 2005, adopted a resolution declaring its intent to close the right-of-way identified in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation, at its meeting on November 3, 2005, approved the abandonment from the State Maintained System of the 0.27-mile right-of-way on SR 1571; and WHEREAS, it appears that no individual, firm, or corporation owns property in the vicinity of said right-of-way without a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his, her, or its property; and WHEREAS, the Board finds as fact from the evidence presented at the public hearing that (1) it is not contrary to the public interest for the abandoned right-of-way to be closed, and (2) no individual owning property in the vicinity of the abandoned right-of-way or in the area in which it is located would thereby be deprived of a reasonable means of ingress or egress to his or her property; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the road and right-of-way located on SR 1571, Pleasant Green Community Center Road, between SR 1569, Cale Mill Road, and the Pleasant Green Community House (Center) identified on the map that is Exhibit A be closed. The Chair of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County is hereby authorized to sign this order on behalf of Orange County and the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is authorized to attest this order and to affix to it the County seal. This, the 21 ~ day of November 2005 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Update: Policy Options for Reduced Residential Land Use Density in Watersheds This is the first of a three-part public hearing process and is to present four policy options for residential land use density to address identified growth challenges in the areas of air and water quality, water resources, environmental protection, open space preservation, traffic control, and efficient provision of public services. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri reviewed some background information. He explained the Land Use Element, which is a policy guide for directing pattern and density of future development. It is one of six elements that will be completed that comprises the Comprehensive Plan. The other elements include the Natural and Cultural Systems Element, Transportation Element, Housing Element, Economic Development Element, and Services and Facilities Element. The County is updating the Land Use Element because it is required by ordinance to periodically update this, there is new population data, there are air quality issues to be addressed, and there are sustainability issues. Staff will continue to develop the draft land use element text update for the second public hearing on February 27, 2006. The draft will be available to the public two weeks prior to the public hearing. Staff will be sending a first class mail notice to any property owner affected or within 500 feet of an area to be affected by the future land use map amendments or the zoning map amendments. Planning Director Craig Benedict spoke about the land use density options available. He showed a map of present densities in the County. Presently, there are about 30,000 units in the urban sections of the County and about 20,000 in the rural sections. There are approximately 200,000 undeveloped acres in the rural sections of the County. Build out projections in the urban areas, including Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and sections of Mebane and rural sections of the County show that the rural area units could outnumber the urban area units by three to one. These projections are based on existing zoning. He then explained acolor-coded map with density regulations. There are four options available if the County cannot sustain 130,000 new units. The options have a decrease in density. He summarized each option as described in Attachment 3. Option 1 is a medium-low density plan, option 2 is a low densityllow vehicle miles traveled plan, option 3 is a low density/land equity plan, and option 4 is a lower density plan (5-acre density except that the first 5 lots may be 2-acre density}. He then explained minimum lot size and different scenarios available for subdivisions. He said that they found out during the outreach sessions that people are noticing that population and traffic are increasing, which is affecting air quality, water quality, and groundwater quantity. Under the existing maximum density plan, the number of units created at build out would become unmanageable. Commissioner Gordon asked about the 13 growth challenges and said that the County Commissioners approved some principles that incorporated the challenges.. She wanders why they are still talking about the 13 challenges. Craig Benedict said that this was just to show the evolution of the principles. The 13 have been categorized into the principles. Commissioner Jacobs communicated Commissioner Halkiotis' regrets for not being here because he is out of town on family business. John Link said that Craig Benedict and the staff have tried to demonstrate that there are several ways of achieving a density of three acres and any particular subdivision would not have exactly the same acreage per lot. It is only an average. Jeff Schmitt asked, over the past three years, how many major subdivisions have came to fruition in the County and how many lots are "in inventory" that are available to build on. Craig Benedict said that there have been four or five major subdivisions over the last three years. Over the last year and a half to two years, there have been zero subdivisions that have came through the process. There are same major subdivisions in the pipeline. There have been 2,000 new major subdivision lots that have been approved since 1987, and of that, over half of those are undeveloped. Renee Price asked about the quality of life ceiling and asked how this reflects the latest water resources study. Craig Benedict said that some of the recommendations for lowering density are consistent with the water resources report done by the U. S. Geologic Survey in 1996 that said that at least atwo-acre density would be necessary to create a rechargeable area. This was based on "wet weather" data and the recent drought shows that this may have been too conservative. Public Comment: Jim Johnson said that he is looking at the $0 acres next to the Orange County Speedway to open a ga-cart track. They would also like to add motocross. Since the racetrack is already open, he said that it just makes sense to have these side by side. He would like consideration for a rezoning of this tract of land. He said that it would take a long time far the land use plan to be finished. He asked for an amendment to the present land use plan for this land. He said that motocross is one of the fastest growing sports in the country. He would like to see the County do something different and bald and modify the land use plan and rezone this land. He has done this in other counties. Donald Cax spoke about the County water resource situation. He said that Orange County is a headwaters county because there is almost no water that flows into Orange County and almost all of the streams flow into public water supply reservoirs. The stream flows are low and Orange County gets a little less rainfall and precipitation than counties to the east and to the west. He said that climatologists are indicating that the southeast United States will became warmer and drier in the coming century. This further increases stress on surface and groundwater supplies. He believes that if lots less than the three to five-acre minimums are allowed, well water resources may be, at some paint in time, insufficient to supply a house. He suggested that, if the lot sizes remain the same, that a warning be incorporated in each deed that on-site water availability may be insufficient for the needs of an average family and would be highly unlikely that public water supplies would ever be available to that lot. He would personally like to see policy option 4 selected. Chris Dreps works for the Upper Neuse River Basin Association. He said that he was there to focus on water resource preservation. He said that there was a big problem in this basin because they depend on very sensitive water resources to support ever-growing populations. Under current regulations, there will not be one single water supply in the Falls Lake Watershed of the eight water supplies with a clean water supply. This includes Lake Ben Johnson, Little River, and Flat River. The Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan recommends several management strategies. They have worked for many years to put these together. They expect that a zoning approach or an innovative performance standard for managing new site development could protect the long-term water quality. Options 2-4 meet the recommendations for Lake Ben Johnson and Little River. Options 2 and 4 meet the recommendations for Flat River. He said that the performance standard approach would be a more flexible approach. He thinks all of the options are an improvement for water quality considerations. He said that they are happy to provide any technical support to the County. Richard Roberts said that water would be the mast important problem from now on. With the options presented, he liked number 4. Also, he thinks that all townships should be treated the same and should have the same amount of impervious surface per lot and that all stream buffers should be the same size. Melinda Ruley lives off of Pleasant Green Road. She spoke in favor of making the changes for lower density. She lives in a part of the County where one-acre lots are permissible and there are many subdivisions around her with one-acre lots. She said that this has resulted in an overwhelming increase in traffic. She encouraged the Board to implement the changes in density. Don Wollum said that he supports the need for the wise planning review process. He applauds the efforts. He supports option 2, which he views as a rural protection zone, particularly west of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and in the northern part of the County. He said that this option also has a clear path for growth. He said that there could be some of the blue density pattern closer to the towns for viability of the towns. Steve Yuhasz said that his remarks did not bear directly on density, so he wanted to be the last to speak. Allan Rosen said that he is a 14-year resident of Orange County and for the past four years, he has served on the County Commissioners' Affordable Housing Advisory Board. He is currently the chairperson. In February, the Planning Department reviewed this information for them and asked for written comments of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, which the County Commissioners recently received. He hopes the Board will carefully consider these comments. He said that there are two specific issues that he is concerned about. First, he hopes that the County Commissioners will not make any final or binding decisions regarding the selection of a residential density option until the impacts and implications of such zoning changes are considered with respect to the entire land use plan, particularly the urbanizing areas and the rural activity nodes. He does not think the best decision regarding the residential density options can be made until the work required to update the County's entire comprehensive plan is more fully underway. The second point is that he believes that the planning for the other constituent elements of the comprehensive plan should begin right away in a parallel fashion and not laterally. He encouraged the County Commissioners to make a full commitment to comprehensive planning before making a decision on the sub-element, residential land use density. He also encouraged the County Commissioners to carefully plan for the allocation of the appropriate financials, staff, and possibly consulting resources as well as the role of the advisory boards, so that the process of updating the comprehensive plan can yield superior results that are widely supported. Todd Dickinson said that he was very impressed by this plan. He agrees that they have to slow down the sprawl. Orange County has the lead in North Carolina to slow sprawl. He would like to move ahead on one of the lower densities of the three options. He prefers option 3 or 4. He thinks the idea of encapsulating road buffers into any development is important to slow down the clogging of roads and highways. Ben Lloyd asked if any of the proposals pertain to commercial development. Craig Benedict said that the urbanizing areas are dedicated far economic development. There are approximately 4,000 acres undeveloped that have been designated for residential, higher densities, and economic development. Ben Lloyd asked how many acres are in each of the proposals that would exceed two acres. He asked if affordable housing had been factored into the proposals, and whether the increased acreage requirements would prevent residents from ever owning a home and if Orange County would turn into a county for the affluent. He also wonders how the proposals compare with the surrounding counties. Steve Yuhasz said that he represents several landowners along NC 57, the area of the Orange County Speedway. This area has been designated in the land use plan as residential since the plan's inception. At the time the zoning took place, the land use plan was not changed to reflect what the actual uses are out there now. He asked that the County Commissioners, the Planning staff, and the Planning Board consider designating this area for same kind of non- residential use within the land use plan update. He said that the owners that were present would like to express their support for this. Robert Nichols said that he has heard a lot of concern and opinions about what should happen. The main thing he has heard is water. He said that maybe the County should build reservoirs to store water. Craig Benedict said that the Board should hold the public hearing open, but adjourn this meeting until February 27t". This will allow for additional public input. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to bald this public hearing item open by adjourning until the February 27, 2006 public hearing on the Land Use Element Text. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. grange County Zoning ordinance Text Amendments a. Family, Group, and Rehabilitative Care Amendments Consideration of amendments to bring the Zoning Ordinance in line with the State standard for each of these facilities including classification of the facilities, clearer definitions, approval procedures, and lacational criteria. Planning Supervisor Robert Davis said that these text amendments are an effort to bring the ordinance closer to the State definitions. There may be same additional changes coming forth on the mental health portion of the rules. The three categories are family care, group care facilities, and rehabilitative care facilities. This falls into the category of residential uses for adult day care, Hospice facilities, assisted living facilities, group homes for the developmentally disabled, maternity homes, etc. These uses are allowed in all residential districts in the County. Recently, there have been some definition changes at the State level with regard to mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse facilities and services. Through the definition changes, there are now some facilities that are classified as being residential family care homes as a use by right. They are proposing to allow the service code classifications (on page 3). The State does require that the lead management agency, the Local Management Entity, determine whether or not a facility is required. This is only for the mental health categary. There must be a letter of support for the facilities. A lot of different agencies will have to be involved in this and zoning is just the land use portion of this. The rules are constantly changing at the State level. He said that he probably would not put the codes in the ordinance itself, except to maybe use it as a reference in the office to determine the categories. John Link said that he would urge being cautious prior to changing codes until there is a clear understanding of what is going to happen in mental health and other facilities. He could see that some codes might be created that would prevent some kind of facility from being served by the revenue stream. He said that they should do only what they have to do by some kind of federal regulations. Commissioner Gordon said that she feels a great need far the big picture in trying to adjust the regulations. She made reference to pages 12 and 13 and that definitions are being amended. She is not sure what the State is requiring of the County. She asked for a better overview of what is required. Robert Davis answered several clarifying questions for Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that this be presented to the Planning Board and that Judy Truitt and Nancy Castan attend the meeting where this is presented. Commissioner Gordan said that this was the best effort to respond to a changing situation, but she would like to know the options. She would like a better explanation of what is being required and what the range of responses might be. Jay Bryan asked for another way to present the categary because it is hard to grasp. He does not have a good understanding of how the permitting is done now in the County. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board far a recommendation and returned na sooner than January 24, 2006. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Child Day Care Amendments Consideration of amendments to amend the child day care provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to establish consistency with State standards and terminology for day care providers, users of day care facilities, and the general public. Glen Bowles presented this item. He said that these definitions were created back in the 1980's and have not evolved. The State's definitions have evolved and are continuing to evolve. He showed a map of licensed facilities in the County. Several people have made suggestions. Specifically, Lanier DeGrella, Technical Assistance Director of Child Care Services Association wrote an email. He would like to make this email part of the record. He said that mast of the changes proposed have to da with definitions. The exceptions are on page 8 and the proposed changes are in italics. He read the changes. A Family Day Care Home would be one or two children. The next category is a Day Care Home with between 3 and 12 children, which would be reviewed by staff with a site plan. If there were more than 12 children, it would be a Day Care Facility and would require a Class B Special Use Permit. The only real change is the definitions. The Planning Department has definitions that do not quite fit. He said that they would welcome any opinions from the Board and others. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the letter from the Technical Assistance Director of Child Care Services and said that she refers to an attached document, which was not included. Glen Bowles said that the document was the ordinance and he has made the changes that she painted out. He will share these with the Board and the Planning Board. Commissioner Gordon said that she finds this unsettling and that they do not have the final document that will be referred to the Planning Board. She is not able to make helpful comments yet. John Link said that the directors of these organizations need to sign off on this to make sure these changes are what they expect. This would be Sue Russell, Director of Child Care Services; Michelle Rivest, Director of Smart Start; and Nancy Coston, Director of Social Services. He wants to make sure the language is correct and that it is a very straightforward process. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation and returned no sooner than January 24, 2006. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board