Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-09-2013 APPROVED 11/5/2013 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING September 9, 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, September 9, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) 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, Maxecine Mitchell, Johnny Randall, Lisa Stuckey, Stephanie O'Rouke, Paul Guthrie, and Herman Staats PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tony Blake, Andrea Rohrbacher, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, James Lea and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs and Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. Chair Jacobs reviewed the following handouts at the table: - PowerPoint for item C1 —Zoning Atlas Amendment - White sheet for item C1 —Zoning Atlas Amendment - Map for C1 and C2 - Zoning Atlas Amendment— requested by Commissioner Rich - PowerPoint for item C2—Zoning Atlas Amendment - PowerPoint for item C4 - Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan - PowerPoint for item C5— Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan - Green PowerPoint for item E1 —Agricultural Support Enterprises Chair Jacobs explained that due to the lack of a quorum with the Planning Board the meeting would start with item E1. E. BOCC WORK SESSION 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises —To review materials related to "Agricultural Support Enterprises" and provide direction/input to staff on specific issues. Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Agricultural Support Enterprises Purpose of Work Session BOCC work session on May 14, 2013 - Touched on the fact an alternative review process had been proposed in the pre- 2010 work • Need input/direction on review process for projects that require a BOCC public hearing - Re-zonings and Class A Special Use Permits Review Process Options • Keep the existing quarterly public hearing process for all projects • Revise the existing process only for ASE-related projects • Revise the existing process for all project Slides 4-8 -Review Process flowcharts - as seen in pages 5-9 of the abstract BOCC Discussion Points • Should a change in the existing public hearing process from a quarterly hearing to a more frequent hearing be pursued? - If so, for ASE projects only or for all projects? - Also, how frequently? (2x/month, monthly, every other month) • Is there a desire to change the existing policy of the BOCC approving the legal ad? - Would trim -3 weeks from current process. - Amendment Outline Forms now used for County-initiated items. Perdita Holtz outlined the current review process and compared the 3 options detailed in the flowcharts on abstract pages 5-9. She said the primary difference between options 1 and 2 is the variation in the timing of the Planning Board recommendation. She noted that option 3 has 2 public hearings, but it is not favored by staff due to the potential for a longer time frame and higher cost for publications. She reviewed the discussion points for the Board. Chair Jacobs announced that quorum was reached at 7:22. He asked that Perdita Holtz continue this discussion at the end of the meeting, in order to return to the original public hearing agenda. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chair Jacobs called the public hearing to order. He noted that Pete Hallenbeck would preside over the meeting. The following Planning Board members were present: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, Maxecine Mitchell, Lisa Stuckey, Stephanie O'Rouke, Paul Guthrie, and Herman Staats. 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment-To review a property owner-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a 2.67 acre parcel of property located at 3604 Southern Drive (PIN 9844-86-5155) from Rural Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (1-1) to Light Industrial (1-1). Michael Harvey reviewed a series of maps pertaining to the requested zoning atlas amendment. He reviewed the following background information: BACKGROUND PIN - 9844-86-5155. • Size of Parcel -2.67 acres. • Future Land Use Element Map Designation — Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node • Growth Management System Designation -- Urban. • Existing Conditions -- The property is developed and utilized to support a metal sheet fabrication operation. • Access -- The property has direct access onto Southern Drive. REQUEST: • Property is split zoned residential and industrial. • Necessary infrastructure (i.e. septic, parking) on residentially zoned portion of property. • Applicant concerned over long-term ability to continue operation with necessary components on `residentially' zoned property. • Applicant requests entire property be zoned 1-1 (Light Industrial) so `use' would be considered conforming. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION: • Per approved Comprehensive Plan area `appropriate for retail and other commercial uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial uses'. • County did not eliminate all residential zoning in the area when land use category created/adopted so individuals could still make use of property. • Area is intended to support non-residential development including industrial (i.e. manufacturing). STAFF ASSESSMENT: • The application is complete. • The property is of sufficient size. • Rezoning consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management System Map, and adopted Efland Mebane Small Area Plan, • Represents logical extension of existing 1-1 district. • Applicant's issue is not unique. • Staff has previously identified similar problems on other properties throughout the County. • Staff will be bringing a comprehensive solution for consideration by the BOCC in the fall. • Staff did not want applicant to wait for staff's review to be complete and encouraged the submittal of rezoning request. RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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 November 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Michael Harvey said this is not an uncommon issue, and it is due to past zoning practices that restricted commercial zoning to a small square around industrial buildings, while leaving all other areas as residential space. He said staff will be bringing forward more parcels in the future as attempts are made to fix the zoning issues on those lots as well. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the commercial/industrial transition slide and the fact that residential zoning is not eliminated. Michael Harvey said there is residential zoning in the area. He said the purpose of the activity node is to encourage and create more retail and manufacturing opportunities by the extension of the land use category; however residential land use was not eliminated as part of this. He noted that Ronald Keizer and any other non-residential land owner in the area will be held to the existing land use buffer standards, as listed in article 6. Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure he understands the map and zoning designations on the future land use map. Michael Harvey said the map does not designate zoning; it designates land use category. He said this category is meant to encourage retail and manufacturing, however there is underlying rural residential zoning in the area. He said this rural/residential zoning is not invalidated, and it is still protected in the UDO. He noted that future use and focus for this area will be additional non-residential application of land use. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the zoning of this area. He said the designations and zoning are confusing. Michael Harvey said, as the comprehensive plan points out, certain areas of the County have been identified as targets to encourage specific types of land use. Commissioner Dorosin said a plan has been developed to encourage certain land use, but this did not include zoning changes to encourage that development. Michael Harvey said this is correct; these areas were not pre-zoned. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan is to re-zone these areas, or if this will happen in a piecemeal fashion like the Board is seeing tonight. Michael Harvey said the plan is that this will happen as the market demands it. Commissioner Dorosin said he is just trying to understand the context. Frank Clifton said there is an assumption by some landowners that re-zoning means values and property taxes will go up. He said this is not necessarily true. Commissioner Dorosin said this map is misleading for a person who is not well versed in this issue. Frank Clifton said the map Commissioner Dorosin is referring to is a planning map for future use, versus a zoning map of current designations. Planning Board member Johnny Randall arrived at 7:37. Commissioner Rich asked how the zoning change will affect the protected watershed area. Michael Harvey said the overlay will not be altered. He said Ronald Keizer and his business will be held to the same standards regarding impervious surface limits and stream buffer protections. Commissioner Price said the packet did not seem to indicate any major changes in the business activity on the property. Michael Harvey said there will be no major changes on this request. He noted the second item is a different request for a different issue. Chair Jacobs said he would like to follow up on Commissioner Dorosin's question. He said one difference between this economic development district and the Hillsborough one is that the others have fewer and larger parcels. He noted that this area is full of smaller residential lots. This makes it challenging to do a blanket re-zoning. Pete Hallenbeck asked for any comments from the planning board, and he introduced the applicant, Ronald Keizer. PUBLIC COMMENT Ronald Keizer, owner of USA Dutch, said he left some brochures regarding his company. He said he would like to expand his business, and he hopes he will be allowed to do this. He said he will be happy to answer questions Chair Jacobs asked if any member of the Board had comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to: 1. 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 November 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review a property owner-initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 2 parcels of property, totaling approximately 16 acres in land area, from Rural Residential (R-1) to Light Industrial (1-1). The parcels are undeveloped and without an assigned street address but are located east and south of the USA Dutch property at 3604 Southern Drive. Planning Board member Lisa Stuckey left at 7:43 pm. Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides: ZONING ATLAS (MAP) AMENDMENT BACKGROUND • PIN(S) — 9844-87-7368 and 9844-86-7573. • Size of Parcel(s) —Total is approximately 16 acres. • Future Land Use Element Map Designation — Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node • Growth Management System Designation -- Urban. • Existing Conditions — Properties are undeveloped with varying topography and vegetation. • Access -- The smaller property has direct access onto Southern Drive. REQUEST: • Applicant (Keizer) owns adjacent metal fabrication business at 3604 Southern Drive. • Applicant looking to expand existing operation. • Wishes to have both parcels rezoned to allow for expansion. FUTURE LAND USE MAP: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION: • Per approved Comprehensive Plan area `appropriate for retail and other commercial uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial uses'. • County did not eliminate all residential zoning in the area when land use category created/adopted so individuals could still make use of property. • Area is intended to support non-residential development including industrial (i.e. manufacturing). STAFF ASSESSMENT: • The application is complete. • The property is of sufficient size. • Rezoning consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management System Map, and adopted Efland Mebane Small Area Plan, • Represents logical extension of existing 1-1 district. • Existing vegetation near interstate and around existing stream will have to be preserved. • The applicant will have to plant additional vegetation to satisfy land use buffer requirement of 100 feet per Section 6.8.6 (F) of UDO. • Sheet metal fabrication is a permitted use of property in the 1-1 zoning district. • Expansion would be reviewed/acted upon by staff with the submission of a site plan per Section 2.5 of the UDO. RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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 November 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Michael Harvey noted that the abstract includes a statement from the current property owner, Daniel McDonald, who indicates that Ronald Keizer has an option on purchasing the property. He said this is contingent on the re-zoning approval. Michael Harvey said Ronald Keizer has been made aware of the buffer requirements for this property. Commissioner Price said she is pleased that a local business wants to expand. She asked if the expansion would mean an increased intensity in the use, or if it would remain the same. Michael Harvey said the re-zoning needs to be acted on regardless of whether or not it is consistent with the code. He said he believes there will be an expansion and amplification of the existing use. He also believes the existing land use criteria and standards will mitigate any impacts. He said he has not seen the site plan, so he is hesitant to give a definite answer. Commissioner McKee said the last item simply aligned what was on the ground with what is on paper. He said this item is placing before the Board the very thing that the County has wanted, which is more job and business opportunities in Orange County. He said this request is in an area where the land use has already been designated as appropriate. He said there are still opportunities to ask questions and work out agreements as this moves forward. He said he is in favor of this. Chair Jacobs asked if there is water and sewer available. Craig Benedict said there is no public water and sewer in the area. He said part of the current design to flip the sewer flow will bring gravity sewer past this parcel. He said this would happen in a year and a half to two years Chair Jacobs asked if owners with a sewer line running in front of their property are required to hook in. Craig Benedict said the UDO gives distance requirements that do require owners to connect on. He said that Orange Alamance water systems has some facilities in this area, and work is being done to insure that future development can handle both potable water and fire suppression needs for these new industries. Commissioner Rich asked if residents would be required to hook up to the sewer lines. Craig Benedict said commercial owners, expansions to a business, or a new home built within the designated distance will be required to hook up. Commissioner Rich noted that part of the zoning change request was due to a need to fix the septic system, and then the owner will be required to hook up to sewer in a couple of years. Craig Benedict said that if the owner fixes the septic, he will be allowed to remain with the new or repaired system until it fails. Frank Clifton said this is a project Steve Brantley has worked on with the owner. Pete Hallenbeck asked if there were any comments from the Planning Board. Pete Hallenbeck said he is pleased to hear about the option for a local supplier of chassis. He is also please to hear about the potential water availability for fire suppression. Chair Jacobs asked about the number of current and future employees. Applicant Ronald Kaiser said he currently has 26 employees. He said business is growing. He said there were 18 employees in 2009, and the company did $1.8 million in sales. He said he expects to do $4.2 million in sales this year. He said the company set a goal of being a 5 million dollar company. He said this goal has almost been met, and his desire is to set a new goal that allows the company to keep up with its growing customers. James Bryan, Staff Attorney, said this decision will be based on the reasonableness and consistency with the land plan and the public benefit but not the benefits of this particular business. Chair Jacobs said he is excited about the potential for this expansion. He said he is somewhat confused about the answer given about the requirement for sewer hookup. He said he wanted to provide this answer to Ronald Keiser as part of his planning. Craig Benedict said this is a timing issue. He said if the expansion happens at a later date when sewer is available, the owner can hook with the public sewer. He said Ronald Keiser can repair his existing septic. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to: 1. 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 November 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to add a new Section 2.24 entitled Governmental Uses, renumber existing Section 2.24 and subsequent sections accordingly, and modify the `government' land use category within Section 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses— Economic Development District to add the term `uses'. References to renumbered sections occur throughout the UDO and are proposed to be updated. Michael Harvey reviewed the attachments to the abstract. He said the potential development of a fire department substation off Neville Road has caused some concern for local residents. He said staff was directed to initiate a text amendment to require a neighborhood information meeting prior to the approval of any site plans proposing the development of government use. He said this requires the applicant to hold this meeting so that property owners within 500 feet can attend the meeting to gather information and offer feedback. He said the applicant has to respond to concerns or suggestions offered at the meeting, and the public must be informed by certified mail of the date and time of the meeting. He noted that this amendment does not alter the current review process for government uses. He said this does not require the Board to hold additional public hearings with respect to the decision to purchase or act on the purchase of property. He said this also does not require County agencies that engage in long range planning project planning to duplicate efforts by holding informational meetings about projects that have already been reviewed and discussed at the public level. He gave the example of a recent park planning project. He said if this is adopted any time a government use is defined, the table of permitted uses will be developed, neighborhood meetings will held, and planning staff will encourage the applicant to address as many concerns as he/she sees fit. He noted that the purpose of this is to insure that local residents are aware of what is happening in the vicinity with regard to government facilities. He said Ordinance Review Committee comments were positive with a few noted changes and input from other departments. He reviewed the staff recommendations as outlined in the abstract. Pete Hallenbeck asked for questions Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to point out the background on the first page, which outlines the fact that a permitted use only requires staff review and action. She said neither the County nor the applicant is required to notify adjacent property owners. She said this is a fire station, which is for the public good. She said that neighbors still had concerns, and she feels that neighborhood meetings and outreach are a good idea. Commissioner Pelissier asked why staff selected that a meeting would not be required unless the expansion was 50% or larger. Michael Harvey said staff tried to use existing standards from the UDO regarding what constitutes expansion. He said staff did not want smaller expansions to have to undergo a formal site plan review process for just a couple of parking spaces. He said that larger re- development of a site changes the nature of the project and demands a planning review. He also wanted to treat the parks the same way. Commissioner Pelissier asked if facilities include parking spaces or just building. Michael Harvey said it includes both. Chair Jacobs said he feels the neighbors in the area of the White Cross substation were taken aback that something had appeared in their neighborhood without any awareness of the process or the impact. He said this is a good way to address that concern. He feels it is important to know and have a say about what is going on in your neighborhood, while balancing the fact that government use has a certain priority. He noted that the White Cross Fire Station is holding a neighborhood information meeting tomorrow night. He said this is a good precedent moving forward. Commissioner McKee said some of the neighbors that he talked to were not upset over the fire station, but were simply upset about the lack of notification. Commissioner Price clarified that if this goes into effect then a volunteer fire department would have to hold an information meeting. She asked if state law supersedes this. Michael Harvey said he is not aware of anything in state law that gives a fire department preferential treatment from compliance with local land use regulations. Commissioner Price said she thought that state law said that the fire stations are permitted by right. Michael Harvey said this does not change the permitted by right status, but it adds a layer of requirement to that status by requiring this hearing is held. Commissioner Price said a volunteer department could have a public meeting and hearing, but proposed development plans will still go forward. Michael Harvey said yes; however the hope is that the applicant chooses to address as many of the concerns as possible. Pete Hallenbeck asked if the County attorney could look into this and have that information available at the next Planning Board meeting. Paul Guthrie asked for the definition of governmental usage. Michael Harvey said it is noted in attachment 1 of the abstract that the County recognizes that there are state and federal offices that will be exempt because of the nature of their use. Pete Hallenbeck suggested that the UDO has the definition of government use, and this can be looked at during the next meeting. Michael Harvey said there is not a definition of the land use, but there is a list of permitted uses in the table, and this can be discussed in the Planning Board meeting. Pete Hallenbeck said the fire department was scrambling to put in substations because of the insurance situation, and manners suffered. He said it speaks well that the station is now having a meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to: 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the November 5, 2013 BOCC Regular Meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan - To review a proposed access management plan for the Eno EDD (Economic Development District). The proposed access management plan involves approximately 550 acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County). Abigaile Pittman reviewed the purpose as follows: To hold a public hearing on the Draft Eno EDD Access Management Plan for establishing transportation connectivity as the study area develops in the future. She reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides: BACKGROUND • Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan adopted in 2008, amended in 2009. • Plan recommended an access management plan for US 70 and Old Highway 10 to provide better transportation systems and capacities as development proceeds in the area. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 2009? • Land Use Plan Map amendments. • Pre-zoning of land. • Utility service agreement with Durham. • Public water & sewer master plan. • Cross-county bus route planning. • Striping of 2-ft. bike lanes on Old NC 10. • I-85/US 70 interchange concept plan. • Project for 1-85 widening and US 70 interchange in State plans. Eno EDD-Access Management Plan Study Area (map) Importance of a formally adopted access management plan: • Enhancing Interconnectivity and access as properties are developed for non-residential land uses; • Developer/property owner compliance in providing transportation infrastructure consistent with the Plan; • Enhanced collaboration with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization; and • Procurement of federal and state funding for projects. • The Plan examines the US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors and recommends access management criteria and a concept map. WHAT DOES THE ENO EDD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN DO? The plan examines the US 70 and Old NC 10 corridors and recommends access management criteria and a concept map. WHY EXAMINE THESE CORRIDORS? • The improvement of the functionality of these corridors to both serve the area's traffic along these routes is of high local and strategic importance as future development proceeds in the Eno EDD. THE PLAN EXAMINES EXISTING CONDITIONS: • Zoning and land use o EDE-1; EDE-2; R-1; R-2; MTC • Environmental Considerations o Topography; Floodplains; Wetlands • Future Land Use Plan designations o Economic Development Activity Node 0 10-Year Transition o Resource Protection Area THE PLAN EXAMINES EXISTING CONDITIONS: • Existing Transportation Conditions • Functional classification of roads • Medians • Traffic signals • Traffic counts • Traffic level of service (LOS) • High frequency crash locations • I-85/US 70 interchange redesign concept • Rail • Pedestrians and bicycles • Transit (bus, park-and-rides, etc.) THE PLAN REVIEWS ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES • An Access Management Concept Map was prepared to guide the design of site access and internal circulations routes for properties in the area. • Written access management criteria were developed to guide interpretation and implementation of the Map. • Public Outreach A Public Informational Meeting/Open House was held on September 4, 2013 from 4:30-6:30 p.m. at the Shared Visions Retreat Center (historic Murphey School). Legal ads for this public hearing were published in the Herald Sun on Aug. 28 & Sept. 4, 2013. The Eno EDD AMP was also made available on the Planning Dept.'s website at http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialPromects.asp Recommendations The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard and the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the 11-19-2013 BOCC meeting. 2. Adjourn the public hearing until 11-19-2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's and Planning Board's recommendations, and any submitted comments. Abigaile Pittman said implementation of the plan will require coordination between the NCDOT, the County, the City of Durham, developers and property owners. She said the public outreach meeting had revealed some community concerns regarding truck traffic and speed limits along Highway 10 and the potential impacts to residential neighborhoods. Chair Jacobs said some of the concerns regarding highway 10 relate to rural character. He said there is a plan for Saint Mary's Road, which is a scenic corridor. He suggested a review of those criteria, which address some of the issues that people have raised regarding highway 10. He said this could be used as a blueprint. Commissioner Gordon asked about the functional specifications on pages 19 and 20 of the abstract. She asked for clarification on the road classification system and how it meshes with these two pages. Abigaile Pittman said arterial collector and local categories are broad categories, but NCDOT has some subcategories. She said the categories are taken directly from NCDOT's website. She said she is aware that NCDOT is currently undertaking a review of the entire functional classification program. She said this will be well under way by December. She said comments from local jurisdictions regarding classification changes will be welcomed. She suggested that NC 10 and the continuation onto Old Hillsborough are not consistent yet. She said NCDOT should examine this. Commissioner Gordon said that the current classification is being used with subcategories. She clarified that changes will be dealt with as they come. She said the classifications take a long time. Abigaile Pittman said there is an opportunity to participate in the process through comments. Commissioner Price asked about signal lights. She asked what the next phase is for the intersections. Abigaile Pittman said the map identifies existing signal intersections, and she has not indentified any future signal lights. She said this may change as development proceeds. Commissioner Price said she was referring to connectivity. She asked if the road would be widened if it is not made a scenic road. Abigaile Pittman said there is no known proposal to widen Old Highway 10. She said there is a proposal to straighten some of the curves in the future. Commissioner Price said she was just trying to figure out where the circled areas are connected to the plan. Abigaile Pittman said this is just the existing road system. Commissioner McKee said there are two rail crossings that complicate any possible widening. Planning Board Member Johnny Randall asked how much bicycle traffic exists on highway 10. He asked if there are bike lanes. Abigaile Pittman said there is a striped lane for bikes but no official bike lanes. Commissioner McKee said a 2 foot addition is simply a paved shoulder and not a bike lane. This adds a little separation. He said the widening of 86 North includes a 4 foot paved shoulder wherever possible. He said a true bike lane is 5 feet wide. PUBLIC COMMENT: Gina Andrews lives in the study area. She has spoken to 88 people in the neighboring area, and 85 of those people signed a petition. She said she took the maps provided at the Murphy school. She read the petition, which expressed opposition to the Eno EDD Small Area Plan due to potential destruction of surrounding wooded areas, and degradation of the local environment due to noise and other pollution. She asked for a rejection of this plan. She said that Old NC 10 welcomes people to Orange County and is favored by cyclists due to the beauty and safety of the area. She feels there is another plan that could work for this area. Commissioner Gordon asked if the petition is against the Eno Economic Development Access Management Plan or the small area plan. Gina Andrews said it is against the access management plan. Jon Arvik said he came to ask for help. He said Chair Jacobs comment regarding classification of Old NC 10 as a scenic area provided hope for the help. He said he moved here 7 years ago for the rural neighborhood, clean air, quiet, and claims on the County website. He said neighbors are still great, but the difficulty is air contamination and heavy truck traffic with noise. He said his history is in environmental science and airborne particulates and their health effects. He said Weldon Ridge is in close proximity to NC 10 and there is heavy traffic going at high speeds, spewing diesel exhaust, which is a human carcinogen. He said he moved here voluntarily, but he did not want to see these trucks going down these smaller roads. He said his concern is the health of his neighbors. Joseph Henderson lives at 5316 Old Hillsborough Road. He said he hopes everyone can come to an agreement to develop and maintain the landscape, while creating jobs and business opportunities. He says there is only one piece of paper, and he said there should be 3 that can be discussed. He said Old NC 10 is a beautiful drive and a wonderful place for bicyclists and joggers. He said commercial traffic should be limited to Highway 70. He said he has seen the new lines for access to 70 and this is a waste of money. He said this eliminates only 2 minutes of driving and is a waste of time and resources. Paul Guthrie said the transportation map includes the location of potential rail stop. He said there needs to be significant discussion on the location of this. He said this decision involves issues outside of the current discussion. Commissioner McKee asked what the speed limit is in this area. He noted that Pleasant Green Road on the north side of Highway 70 has an extended area of 45 miles per hour. He noted that the Board does not have the authority to regulate speed limit or what traffic can use the roads. He said the speed limits need enforcement in this area. Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons he likes going to football games at Duke is because there is not a lot of traffic, and he uses Old 10 as a shortcut. He said he does enjoy this drive and the sense of being in the country. He empathizes with the residents' comments. He said it could be part of the motion that the Planning Staff should share how the Saint Mary's scenic corridor works and how this might be applied to NC 10. He said DOT can be asked to reduce the speed limits, but speed limit is usually only reduced if there are high rates of accidents in the area. Chair Jacobs followed up on Commissioner Gordon's question regarding the petition against the access management plan. He said there was an underlying decision made by a previous Board that changed the land use plan, but that is not what is before the Board at this time. He said that is a topic for a later discussion. Commissioner Price said she travels in that area and she feels that an increase in the use intensity would mean more traffic and higher speeds. She said she has seen so many of the accident shrine markers on that road. She said something does need to be done. She said the same is true of Saint Mary's Road. She said DOT can intervene. Commissioner Rich referred to Chair Jacobs mention that the petition was for the wrong discussion, and she asked if the petitioner was in agreement with this statement. Chair Jacobs said the underlying issue from the petition is that the land use has changed. David Walbert said he signed the petition with full knowledge that it was not about the issue before the Board tonight. He said there was no petition to be signed 5 years ago. He said he found out about the plan in 2008 with only 2 days notice. He spoke at that meeting. He said that Chair Jacobs made the same comment at that meeting regarding a map that was drawn in 1980. He said it seems at every point in this process the Board is referring back to something that already happened. He said he would ask that the Planning Board and the Commissioners take into account the concerns expressed in that petition regarding the character and the fact that there is a residential neighborhood involved. Commissioner Price said the petition is about something else, but he management plan does affect the residents' way of life and quality of life. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to: 1. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard and the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the 11-19-2013 BOCC meeting. 2. Direct staff to review the standards applied to the Saint Mary's Road scenic corridor to see if and how these standards may be applied to Old Highway 10. 3. Adjourn the public hearing until 11-19-2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's and Planning Board's recommendations, and any submitted comments. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on what is supposed to come back to the Board with regard to the Access Management Plan. He said there is not really a plan yet. Abigaile Pittman said this is a plan that offers criteria and a map Commissioner Dorosin said the abstract says this says it is a draft plan Abigail Pittman said this draft plan offers criteria and a map on future access and connectivity through the EDD. She said the highlights review existing conditions and how staff arrived here today. She said this is not a plan that examines any one development proposal, but it is a policy guideline with criteria to guide future development actions. Commissioner Dorosin said he feels that he needs a more specific plan of what this means. He said this is only a criticism of his own lack of understanding. He referred to the signal intersections map. He said a plan, to him, states a list of what will be done. He asked what the Board would be approving when this comes back in two months. Tom Altieri said what will be coming back will be the entire plan. He said this is pages 6— 38 of the agenda packet. He said the map that Commissioner Dorosin refers to is within that plan. He said this could also be referred to as an access management plan for the area. He said this map is really a conceptual plan that provides the County the opportunity for future development. He said this will give the County future opportunity to get signals added, and to require easements for service roads to maintain the integrity of the existing roadway. Commissioner Dorosin said he is still not satisfied that there are enough details. Commissioner Gordon said she has no objection to getting more information on the Saint Mary's scenic byway. She said scenic byways just prescribe what kind of signs can be put up. She is not sure that a designation of Highway10 as a scenic byway will address the concerns expressed by the public. She said the main concern of residents is keeping commercial traffic off Old 10. Chair Jacobs said Saint Mary's scenic corridor has standards that were developed 15-20 years ago. He said these standards encompass much more than just signs, including setbacks and other provisions. Commissioner Gordon said it matters whether the term used is scenic byway or scenic corridor. She was referring to a state scenic byway. Chair Jacob said the term is scenic corridor. Commissioner Pelissier said that this item is confusing to the Board as well as the public, because it is really just a plan for a plan. She said this has to be done in order to develop details later on when there are requests for lights, bike lanes or other items. She said transportation planning is so complicated due to the all the different organizations involved on a federal, state, urban planning and rural level. She clarified that this plan is simply a placeholder to put ideas there for future implementation. Craig Benedict said this type of plan is needed to get funding for projects from DOT. He said it will help make any future development more manageable. He said this is a step in the process to manage growth. He said he understands the Board's comments regarding the comparison to the scenic corridor. Chair Jacobs emphasized that an access management plan also limits access. VOTE: 5 ayes, 2 nays (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price) Commissioner Dorosin said the idea of a plan that doesn't really have to be followed is not satisfying. He said he appreciates the complexity of transportation planning, but he feels it is more useful to put more time in at the front end. Commissioner Price said more work needs to be done to outline how this transportation plan will fit in with the proposed land use. She said this plan has been sitting on paper for decades, and she feels it should be re-visited before anything is put in stone. Commissioner Rich said her understanding is that this plan is not set in stone but is meant to give direction moving forward toward a solid plan. Commissioner Price said once it is voted it seems to become a reference point. Pete Hallenbeck said it would be helpful to have the Planning Board make a map with the addresses of all of the people who signed the petition. He said this would help everyone see where the affected people are located. 5. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan —To review future land uses proposed for areas of County jurisdiction located within the Town's Urban Service Boundary. This is the next step towards completion of a joint Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan. Tom Altieri reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan Quarterly Public Hearing September 9, 2013 Item C.5 Purpose Hold a public hearing on draft Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan History of Joint Planning with Hillsborough Hillsborough/OC Urban Transition Area Task Force (2004): • Acknowledgement that the Town's Primary Service Area for public water/sewer, as defined by Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement, was a much larger area than it had the ability to serve. • Principles of Agreement and Map, one of which called for a Joint Strategic Growth Plan (SGP). Hillsborough/OC SGP Phase 1(2006): • Consultant prepared SGP Report. • SGP Report called for preparation of Inter-local Agreement. History of Joint Planning with Hillsborough (Cont.) Phase B- Hillsborough-Orange Inter-local Land Management Agreement(2009): • Called for adoption of Joint Land Use Plan (JLUP); • Established Urban Services Area, Hillsborough Urbanizing Area, and Orange County Urbanizing Area; • Identified areas for Town's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) swap; • Provides for JLUP adoption, administration, and amendment processes. Inter-local Agreement (2009) MAP Why Joint Planning? • Implement Inter-local Agreement. • Clear and consistent guidance for land use/zoning decisions. • Achieve coordinated growth patterns. • Distinguish between areas to have urban characteristics from rural. Adopted by Town March 2013 MAP Prior to Town Adoption BOCC letter to Town providing comments (Oct. 2012)— Part of Town's outreach and public hearing process (2012—early-2013). Town Planning Board (Nov. 2012) —Addresses BOCC comments as part of its recommendations. BOCC Work Session (Jan. 20131— Review of Town Planning Board recommendations and how they addressed BOCC input. BOCC/Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Joint Meeting (Feb. 2013)— Update on Town process and next joint planning steps. Following Town Adoption of FLUP Consistent with the Inter-local Agreement (2009), following Town adoption, the BOCC is to consider endorsing the Plan (map and descriptions of classifications, pp. 9-12) Orange County Public Hearing Monday, September 9, 2013 Town and County Jurisdictions MAP County/Town Open House Held August 27, 2013 at the Town Barn (101 E. Orange Street). • Held to help inform public of process and next steps • 20 people attended • 1 walk-in at Planning Department • Response to Plan has been very positive • Request to protect residential properties along fringe of Urban Service Area What's Next? Flowchart Questions and Public Comment Recommendation The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Refer the Plan to the Planning Board requesting it return its recommendation for the November 5, 2013 BOCC meeting; and 2. Adjourn the hearing until November 5, 2013 to receive and accept Planning Board's recommendation. Tom Altieri, referring to Slide 8, said comments from the Public Hearing included concerns regarding limitations on high density residential development on the north side of town. There were concerns about additional traffic on Churton Street. He said there were also some issues differentiating colors on the land use plan. He said the County had some specific requests to change the town classification of some properties near Old NC 86 and 1-40. He said these requests were included in the County Planning Board recommendation that was adopted in March. He reviewed the flowchart found on page 15 of the abstract. He said, following endorsement by the Board in November, staff will take the next step to process amendments to the comprehensive plan in order to implement this joint land use plan. He said this step cannot be taken until the County Commissioners and the Town Board are on the same page. Commissioner Gordon referred to the maps on pages 13 and 14. She asked for an explanation of the map on page 14. Tom Altieri said the map on page 14 is the map that the town of Hillsborough adopted in March. He said this make takes the incorporated and ETJ areas and shows them in gray. He said this is identical to the map on page 9, except one shows land uses within the town incorporated areas. Commissioner Gordon asked about the relationship between the maps on pages 13 and 14. She referred to proposed ETJ areas to be deleted and said that the map on page 14 has areas labeled as ETJ that she thought were supposed to be County area. Tom Altieri said this ETJ swap part of the process has not been reached yet. He said there must first be a formal request from the town. Commissioner Gordon clarified that all parts of the swap will all be done at once. Tom Altieri said yes. Commissioner Gordon asked how that will work in this process. Tom Altieri said the Town's request must be received first, and then staff will come back to the Board with an amendment outline form. He said this form will outline the process for the swap. He said he does not have more details now. Commissioner Gordon asked if page 9 is the future land use plan adopted by the town. Tom Altieri said this is correct. Commissioner Gordon said this does not look the same as the one on page 14. Tom Altieri said the map on page 9 shows the land uses within the town of Hillsborough incorporated area and the present ETJ. He said the map on page 14 shows those areas in gray. Commissioner Gordon said these maps do not look the same. She said there are areas that are different. Tom Altieri said the town of Hillsborough did not adopt future land uses in the area that will be given up to the west. Commissioner Gordon said it looks like the town has adopted future land uses in the area being taken in. She said the map on page 14 still has the ETJ area as part of the municipal area. She asked staff to come up with a timeline to show how these swaps will happen at the same time and what kind of land use will be put in these areas. Tom Altieri said this will be done. He said this is proceeding prior to that because the inter-local agreement was done in 2009, and there is a need to move forward toward implementation. Commissioner Gordon said she hopes these issues will be worked out so that things will mesh. She said there needs to be a plan for the part of the ETJ that is being given up. Tom Altieri said this public hearing is for the County's endorsement of what the Town has already adopted. He said once this is accomplished staff will be able to proceed with bringing forward a process on how swaps will occur and what the land uses will be. He said these areas will most likely be agricultural/residential. Commissioner Price said this is a plan. She said things have changed already and annexation laws have changed. She said there are areas that could or may not be annexed, and these are all future possibilities. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map on page 13 and asked about the urban services boundaries. Tom Altieri said this is the map that is part of the inter-local agreement that has already been adopted, and the magenta line defines the urban service areas of the town. Commissioner Dorosin stated that the map on page 14 is just a snapshot. He clarified that this is not permanent. Tom Altieri agreed and said this map expresses a vision. Chair Jacobs requested a list of both immediate and future steps contemplated to make the maps and land use visions of the town and County coincide. He said this would address Commissioner Gordon's concerns. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to: 1. Refer the Plan to the Planning Board requesting it return its recommendation for the November 5, 2013 BOCC meeting; and 2. Direct Staff to provide a list of both immediate and future steps contemplated in order to make the maps and land use visions of the town and County coincide. 3. Adjourn the hearing until November 5, 2013 to receive and accept Planning Board's recommendation. Chair Jacobs said it took a long time to get Hillsborough to the table to talk about joint planning. He said former elected officials had an overblown idea of how Hillsborough was going to grow. He said this was a breakthrough to sit down and discuss a joint plan. He said some of the intended but not articulated consequences of the plan are that it recognizes the rural buffer to the south of Hillsborough. It also de-facto creates rural buffers to the west of Hillsborough in the upper Eno and to the east, separating Durham from Hillsborough. He said this includes an Orange Grove access management plan that would have been very informative for people in the Eno River EDD. He said this is the kind of plan that the County eventually needs to have with Mebane. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the public hearing at 9:44. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. BOCC WORK SESSION: 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises (Continued) Perdita Holtz resumed her presentation with discussion points, looking at pages 1-4 of the abstract. She asked for direction on whether changes should be written into the existing public hearing process for Agriculture Support Enterprises. Chair Jacobs asked what the other 80 pages of the abstract contain. Perdita Holtz said these additional pages contain the UDO text amendments that are expected to move forward next month. She said the approval process must happen first. Commissioner Rich said the presentation left off on page 9. She said she agrees with the staff opinion that option 3 is not preferred due to extra time, and cost. She is trying to understand the difference between the other options and what makes the most sense. Perdita Holtz said the difference between options 1 and 2 is the timing of the Planning Board recommendation, and the difference in the number of Public Hearing dates available for development projects throughout the year. She said there is currently a quarterly process for Public Hearings. She said previous agriculture support work advocated that re-zonings and special use permits for Agriculture Support uses should be allowed on any BOCC regular meeting agenda under the public hearings section. She said this is being brought forward to see if the Board is interested in this. She said there is now a UDO, and in order to incorporate all of the previous work into the UDO a decision must be made regarding changes to the development approval process. Commissioner Rich asked if allowing the public hearings at regular meetings would make the process move faster. Perdita Holtz said it would probably not make the process move faster, as it is already a favorable approval time. She said it would make a monthly cycle for applicants to be heard earlier. Commissioner Rich asked what this means for staff time. Perdita Holtz said staff time is expected to remain the same. Commissioner Gordon clarified that the discussion tonight is simply about the Board commenting on the public hearing process and not the substance of Agricultural Enterprises. Perdita Holtz said yes. Commissioner Gordon said there are a lot of reasons why the public hearing process is done the way it is done today. She said there were major land use questions that would come up at these four quarterly public hearings. She said this meant that the public only had to keep track of these four hearings in order to follow an issue being discussed. She said the current process also prevented these things from being loaded onto regular Board meeting agendas. She said you could hear an item at a separate hearing from the approval and this was important. It gives the public time to weigh in with the Planning Board and the Commissioners after the public hearing. She said she can see tweaks to the process, but she does not want to see the Planning Board cut out of making recommendations after the public has been heard. She thinks it is also important for the BOCC to approve notices. She said all of this policy is in the interest of transparency, and she supports the current process. She urged the Board not to change this process in any major way. Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees with the need for a transparent process. She also thinks it is time to look at the quarterly public hearings because she is aware that there are things that are not working. She noted that there are often meetings with a delayed start due to lack of quorum. She noted that if the hearings were held at Commissioners' meeting, then Planning Board members would not have to be there, but could come if desired. She said the meetings would be recorded and available for Planning Board members to access. She said if a meeting is held and the Board does not vote on the same night, then that gives transparency. She said the recording process also makes it more transparent. She said she feels that if this change is made, it should not be just for Agriculture Support. She said she would like to have the Planning Board recommendation after the public hearing. Commissioner Dorosin said he likes process 2. He said he does not like the current quarterly public hearing model. He said these items could come up in a meeting. He said anything that expedites the process is advantageous. He favors the Planning Board recommendation in advance of the public hearing. He feels this is a model that works. He said a Planning Board member can present at the public hearing and additional input can be asked for since the voting will not be the same night. He thinks the process can be streamlined and option 2 makes the most sense. Commissioner Price said her issue with number 2 is that the Planning Board does not get comments from the public before making a recommendation. Commissioner Dorosin said he views the Planning Board as the Board's experts and the public comments come to the Commissioners, and these comments don't need to be filtered by the Planning Board. Commissioner Rich noted that the Planning Board meetings are open to the public. She said that if the comments of the public don't mesh with the recommendations of the Planning Board the issue can always be referred back to them. She said she does not like the process of quarterly public hearings, and she does not think that it works. She does not know why these cannot be put into regular meetings. She feels that the process would be quicker. Commissioner Price said during her time on the board, there would be public hearings during Planning Board meetings. She said information went on the record, and then it was passed to the Commissioners. She said this created a back and forth process that prolonged things. She would like to see this fixed. Commissioner McKee said he would not support voting on an issue the same night the public hears about it; however he does agree that the process needs to be changed. He said he does not understand the justification of a legal ad having to come back to the Board for approval. He said the County has a very competent staff that is capable of putting out a legitimate ad without need of Board approval. He said there are some tweaks that can happen to move this process along further. He said there is the perception in the community that this process is used to slow down and obstruct the process. Chair Jacobs said he has heard the majority of the Board say that the process needs to be shortened. He said there are differences of opinion regarding the necessity of the quarterly hearings and whether these still function as designed. He said there is some sentiment is to have the planning items at regular board meetings, but there are differing opinions on where the Planning Board fits in. He said the Board has discussed having all meetings on Granicus, so this is an irrelevant point. He said if there will not be quarterly hearings, there should be 4 more regular Commissioner meetings. He said he would never want to cut the Planning Board out of hearing the public prior to making a recommendation. He said decisions on recommendations are often influenced and shaped by public hearing input. He said the Board would have more control over public hearing items if the items came up at regular meetings, because the Chair and Vice-chair would have more time to review them. He said he was blind-sided by this topic, and he does not like that it came up this way. He said a process where Commissioners have more control over what comes before them would be more satisfactory. His suggestion is that staff takes the feedback from the Commissioners and comes back with an amalgam of something similar to one of the current proposals. He said this would need to fit into the calendar and fit with the need to be transparent. He said the Planning Board should be involved. Perdita Holtz said she has heard that the Board does not want a different process for Agriculture Support Enterprises. She said that if this is the case the process amendments will be divorced from Agriculture Support Enterprises, and this will be its own item moving forward. Frank Clifton said there are no other governments in the state of North Carolina that are more transparent than Orange County He said that the current process costs applicants time and money to even be part of the process, regardless of the outcome. He said landowners come forward with a request that is a no brainer but that person still has to wait 3 to 5 months for a decision. He said the other thing to keep in mind is that the development activity has lessened greatly, but the wait time has stayed the same due to the process. Commissioner Price said it is also difficult for people when the public hearings fall near a holiday. Chair Jacob said this is just another argument for more flexibility. Commissioner Gordon said she hopes the pendulum doesn't swing in the direction of having public hearings every meeting. She is glad that the Board would not make decisions on the same night, as this keeps things transparent. She said that this issue should be considered carefully. She said she does feel that the Board should approve the notice, as it tells the Board what is coming up and keeps the notices transparent. She said it is not always evident from the draft public notice what the item means, and the commissioners can correct that when they approve the notice She said that if there is concern about a quorum, the planning board could be at the meeting but without a required quorum, and the recommendation could come afterward. Chair Jacobs suggested a built in schedule where every third meeting or second meeting a public hearing would be scheduled. He suggested that the Board consider whether public hearings should occur earlier in the agenda. He said this would better allow the Planning Board and members of the public to participate. Commissioner Gordon would urge that the Board not always have the public hearing in one part of the County. A motion was made Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:20. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt, Deputy Clerk