Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-25-2013 APPROVED 4/9/2013 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 25, 2013 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 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services, 113 Mayo Street, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board members Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Alan Campbell, Maxecine Mitchell, Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, and Herman Staats PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina, Larry Wright, Andrea Rohrbacher and Lisa Stuckey Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM. He made reference to the items at everyone's places. There was a copy of a PowerPoint and a copy of a Senate bill. He also asked for the Board to add an informational item on mental health regarding Cardinal Innovations. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to add an item on mental health at the end of the Quarterly Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs then asked for a motion to remove item C-2 regarding the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to remove item C-2 regarding the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance from the public hearing agenda and to refer it to the County Attorney and the attorneys for the schools and the municipalities. The attorneys are to return with a coordinated approach to refining the ordinance for future consideration by the respective boards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS Chair Jacobs welcomed everyone. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater management standards. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid requiring project applicants to submit multiple, professionally prepared plans for a single development project. Staff presented a Powerpoint below: AGENDA ITEM:C-1 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT— SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS BACKGROUND: • On April 17, 2012 the BOCC approved mandated State stormwater management and nutrient reduction rules/strategies. • Need clearer standards in our site plan review/approval procedures section. • Correct inconsistencies regarding when formal, professionally prepared, site plan is required versus a plot plan prepared by applicant. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES: 1. Eliminate existing conflicts. 2. Require professionally prepared site plans for projects exceeding established stormwater land disturbance thresholds. 3. Incorporate appropriate references to these land disturbance thresholds. 4. Add language requiring stormwater management plans for minor and major subdivisions. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES: • Changes to Section 2.4.1: — UDO requires a `professionally prepared site plan' in the University Lake Watershed Overlay District. — As proposed all watersheds with a 6% impervious surface limit have same standard (i.e. Upper Eno Critical, Cane Creek Protected and Critical, Little River Protected). — If approved, projects in these watershed overlay districts will require professional site plan SITE PLAN VERSUS PLOT PLAN: What is the difference between a professionally prepared site plan and a plot plan? Site Plan • Completed by a surveyor (i.e. professional) • Based on actual legal description of property (plat, deed, etc.) • More detailed information provided (i.e. structure location, impervious surface, etc.) Plot Plan • Scaled drawing done by property owner/contractor • Typically based on Orange County GIS Map data • Relies on applicant/contractor to provide detail on proposal IMPACTS: Pros • More accurate depiction of property including environmental features (i.e. streams for stream buffers). • More accurate drawing of property and proposed development. Cons • Added cost. • Added time for permit submittal. ORC COMMENTS: • Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) met to review this item on January 9, 2013. • Made several recommendations to address identified concerns. • Modifications incorporated by staff. • ORC expressed need for guidance from BOCC on proposed modifications to Section 2.4.1. OPTIONS — Section 2.4.1: — Option A: Leave as is — no change. (i.e. Only properties in the University Lake Watershed impacted). — Option B: Amend section as suggested requiring all watershed overlay districts with a 6% impervious surface limit be treated the same (i.e. professional site plan). — Option C: Eliminate requirement all together and require professionally prepared site plans only when stormwater thresholds are exceeded. STAFF COMMENTS: • Proposed amendments make existing regulations easier to follow/understand what is required. • Proposal provides appropriate references to stormwater standards. • Contradictions are eliminated. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the proposed amendments. 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 May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner McKee asked about a possible scenario. He said that if a four-lot subdivision was approved this past year and two of the lots were built upon and did not have to meet this requirement, then next year the other two lots were built upon, he asked if the other two lots would have to absorb the entire disturbed area or just for their lots and Michael Harvey said that it would be just for their lot. This is handled on a lot-by-lot basis. Commissioner Rich asked about the additional cost for surveying and Michael Harvey said $500-1,000. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 12 and Section 2.4.1 and said that she would not consider option `c' because she would not wish to change the protection for University Lake Watershed. Michael Harvey indicated the proposed amendment would not impact existing development regulations enforced in the University Lake Watershed Overlay district. The proposal would only potentially eliminate the requirement for the submittal of a professionally prepared site plan based solely on a parcels location within the district and link its submittal to existing stormwater management thresholds instead. Michal Harvey asked if there was any preference for option `a' or V. Chair Jacobs said that he was deferring his opinion until he heard the questions from the Planning Board. Maxine Mitchell said that she would reserve her comments until this came back to the Planning Board. Commissioner McKee said that his preference would be option `a'. He is concerned about people that would be trying to build homes for family members, etc. He also does not want to increase costs to landowners. Chair Jacobs made reference to the Haw River watershed and said that this has been identified as something that the County needs to address. He said that he would like for the Planning Board to consider options `a' and V. He would also like to solicit options from OWASA, Hillsborough, and Mebane. Commissioner Pelissier said that she prefers option V. Commissioner Gordon said that she would not want to change the University Lake Watershed Overlay District. Commissioner Dorosin said that it seems that this proposal is about creating consistency within the ordinance. Commissioner Rich asked that the Planning Board get feedback from OWASA. She is leaning toward option `c'. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until May 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify or remove regulations related to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO). The purpose of this amendment is to ensure regulations are consistent with recent case law made by the N.C. Supreme Court. 2. This item was removed from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. 3. 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to make changes to the section regarding the Planning Board's Rules of Procedure. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the regulations are consistent with County policies and processes. Perdita Holtz introduced this item. This amendment is related to the Planning Board's Rules of Procedure, since this section needs to be updated in order to be consistent with current County processes and procedures. The recommendation is to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 9, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until April 9, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the April 9, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until April 9, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. Additional item - CARDINAL INNOVATIONS Chair Jacobs made reference to the item that was added at the beginning of the meeting. He asked the County Attorney to summarize the relationship between Orange County, OPC, and Cardinal Innovations. John Roberts said that in March or April last year, Orange County was one of 15 counties that approved a joint resolution creating Cardinal Innovations, which is a successor entity to Piedmont Behavioral Health. Later last year Orange County entered into an interlocal agreement with other counties and approved the current setup, which is the governing board of Cardinal Innovations has representatives from local governments, behavioral health entities, and local community oversight boards. Orange County's oversight board consists of Orange County, Person County, and Chatham County. Orange County has no direct say in how mental health services are provided in the County. Chair Jacobs said that OPC was a mental health entity and it was adequate, but the state mandated that there had to be a larger entity, which moved it beyond the County's purview. Commissioner Dorosin said that he was appointed to the local oversight board. The board had its first meeting in late summer and there have been several issues of concern of the local board. He said that initially every member of the local oversight board was asked to sign a conflict of interest and confidentiality agreement. There are also concerns about the bylaws. He said that the joint resolution contains very clear language in his opinion that the local oversight board can write its own bylaws. Since that time, there has been a policy change based on the concerns. He said that the governing board is treated more like a private corporate board. He said that he was told that he could not serve on the board due to a conflict of interest regarding some litigation work from his day job. At this time, the local oversight board does not have a representative on the governing board. He plans on attending the governing board meeting because it is a public meeting. He hopes to raise the issue of being able to participate without signing these documents. Commissioner Dorosin said that more recently, Judy Truitt has resigned as local director and the interim director is serving as the regional director and the local executive director. However, the joint resolution states that the local board would participate in the selection of the director. This has not happened and the new person has been hired already without input from the board. He said that this issue has been a distraction for this board. Discussion ensued on the composition of the governing board. Commissioner Gordon asked what could be done about this. John Roberts said that Alamance and Caswell Counties are currently involved in litigation with Cardinal over service issues. He said that a county can withdraw from Cardinal as long as there is continuation of services. Chair Jacobs asked about the joint approach. John Roberts said that the other attorneys would meet with Orange County. A quick meeting will not be hard to set up. He said that he could send a letter to Health and Human Services. John Roberts said that this is a case of declaratory judgment. Commissioner McKee said that he supports having the Attorney pursue these options. Chair Jacobs said that there should probably be some type of public statement related to the concerns. He suggested bringing this to the legislative breakfast as a concern. Commissioner Price suggested speaking with Representative Verla Insko as soon as possible about this because she has been involved in mental health for years. Chair Jacobs suggested having Commissioner Dorosin and the attorney write the cover letter. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board