Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-25-2013 APPROVED 2/18/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS / PLANNING BOARD DINNER MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2013 5:30pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a dinner meeting on Monday, November 25, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Earl McKee and Mark Dorosin COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, and Planning Board members, Lisa Stuckey, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, Johnny Randall, Stephanie O'Rourke, and James Lea Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. Chair Jacobs noted that Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Dorosin could not attend tonight, and Commissioner Gordon would be late. 1) Opening Remarks 2) Comprehensive Plan, UDO Implementation Bridge, Other Areas of Interest (see Attachment) a. Planning Board Prioritization (Pete Hallenbeck/Craig Benedict) b. Staff Capacity Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck said the board is coming out of the UDO tunnel after being focused on stage one and stage two. He said the board has been working on some deferred issues in the implementation bridge and bucket list, and some of these items are listed in the packet. He said the board is also being driven by a lot of state law changes. He noted that cell towers were a big topic two years ago, and now changes have been made, and three towers have been planned for the County. Pete Hallenbeck referred to the discussions on home occupations and noted that three quarters of the planning board does something at home that is related to work. He said emergency access is on the list, to make sure fire apparatus can get in where needed. He said, two years ago the former chair brought up the need to get ahead of the adult entertainment business, and work is being done on that. Chair Jacobs brought up a couple of items that have come up and are of particular interest to the Commissioners. He said Agricultural Enterprises was discussed at the recent Assembly of Governments (AOG) meeting. He said there were varying opinions regarding an 1 expedited process for accessory agricultural uses and whether this was appropriate in the rural buffer. He said some of the discussion was about making sure the planning board and the agricultural board had an opportunity to weigh in on these ordinances. He said he subsequently received an email from the planning department, which everyone has looked at. Chair Jacobs asked if there was any information that the Planning Board wished to communicate to the towns. He noted some of the concerns about depleting water or sewer. He said there are several things that needed more explanation, and he suggested this might be covered at the quarterly public hearing in February. He said another issue is the Eno Economic Development District (EDD). He said the Board of County Commissioners just passed a resolution that addressed the concerns people felt about N.C. Highway 10. He said the Board plans to send a letter to the petitioners who oppose the EDD, explaining that the concerns about Old NC 10 are being addressed. Chair Jacobs said rural clustering was discussed at the retreat last year. He said it is difficult to achieve any kind of density in rural Orange County, whether it is in the rural buffer or not. He said discussions centered on ways to have density where there are activity nodes. He said there is no mechanism for considering alternative systems other than water and sewer or well and septic tanks. He said Orange County has been resistant to putting any type of treatment plant anywhere. Chair Jacobs said he hopes to have a conversation about affordable housing in the mixed use and economic development districts. He said this is an area where some affordable units could be negotiated. Chair Jacobs opened the floor for additional comments. Commissioner Rich said there was a robust conversation at the AOG meeting regarding what goes on in the rural buffer areas, so clearly this is a topic of concern. She is glad the County is engaging Chapel Hill and Carrboro Maxecine Mitchell arrived at 5:52 pm. Paul Guthrie said he spent much of his career managing state agency funding of water and sewer projects in the early days of the clean water act. He said one of the biggest problems occurred in a county that had a high number of septic tanks, many of which were not in operation. He said the challenge was figuring out how to retrofit that county for some sort of sewage and water supply. He said Orange County is not to that level of density, but this needs to be considered as the density and population increases. Chair Jacobs said the land use plan that was adopted in 1981 pretty much defines where water and sewer will go, and the County has done a good job of identifying these areas. He said this does not mean that you cannot have a rural village. He noted the high amount of protected watershed in the majority of the County, which is problematic for water and sewer. Craig Benedict said the 2040 plan from the Metropolitan Transportation MPO projects more than 63,000 people moving into rural Orange County over a 30 year period. He said this equates to 930 houses per year. He said this is a challenge and these projections need to be examined. He said there is high demand due to the job growth in the Triangle. He said if the models say these people are coming then the land use regulations need to be in line with that. Chair Jacobs said he feels that the numbers from the MPO are drastically over- estimated. He does not want to plan for growth that won't actually happen and is not wanted. He said there will always be unanticipated situations that happen, such as droughts or recessions, that change the planner's trajectories. He said it is good to look at the numbers, but it is necessary to vet the projections before planning for them. Commissioner Pelissier said she does not want the land use plan driven solely by compilation projections that go out 30-50 years. She said it does not make sense to just look at rural Orange County. She said there should be consideration of all municipalities and what they 2 are doing that is pertinent to the transit plan. She said this is a moving target, and the projections cannot be used as the final end point for a land use plan. Tony Blake asked if these same numbers were used to justify the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) transit plan and tax. He questioned why those kinds of numbers would be used with the transportation organizations, but Craig Benedict's numbers would not be used to plan. Commissioner Pelissier said the issue is whether it is rural or urban. She said the transit has to be more urban. Tony Blake said the numbers in the TTA plan were those same numbers. He said his confusion lies with the idea that these are not real numbers. Paul Guthrie said he is less concerned about population numbers and more concerned that there is a built in board strategy for things that would have to be done for a water quality or water supply problem. He said this would provide options. He said one example would be a package plant in a small area to take care of waste. He asked if this would fit into the solution, or if it is one-time expense that will have to be shut down at some point. He said this thought process needs to be a part of planning and Board policy with growth and development. Commissioner Price said she agreed with Craig Benedict from a planning perspective. She said it is better to over project than under project. She said the population has tripled since 1990, and the County needs to be prepared and flexible. She said the area is trying to attract business and people, and people will come. She noted that Chapel Hill is increasing its density and urbanization. She said Hillsborough is trying to keep its reigns on a small population in a small historic town. She feels the Board should be prepared. Chair Jacobs said there is a water and sewer boundary agreement that provides for extensions in case of a catastrophic failure. He said OWASA has done this before, and Orange County does have areas of influence where it would be in charge of a package treatment plant or an extension. He said the other aspect to planning for growth, is the presumption that there are natural limits of growth. He said if you are talking about groundwater, open space, and groundwater in reservoirs, Orange County is not going to be able to accommodate 63,000 more people unless these residents are in the urban areas. He said the question is how this could be accomplished and still keep Orange County's quality of life. He said the presumption is typically given to accommodating the growth, as opposed to the presumption of what baseline can be supported. He would like to see both considered. Tony Blake said the rural buffer was in place prior to 1-40 being put into place. He asked if there has been any talk about changing some of the designations along this corridor. Chair Jacobs said he has not heard any significant discussion of this. He has heard some elected officials in Chapel Hill discuss the possibility of extending Chapel Hill into parts of the rural buffer where it would promote development. Tony Blake said Carolina North will more than double the present campus area at UNC. He said that will presumably drive a desire for people to move into this area. He asked if anyone has taken a hard look at what is sustainable and possible. Craig Benedict said the projection also predicts 50,000 new employees in the Triangle, and that number will be split among the three counties. He said the cities must be considered first, to see what they can accommodate. He said this question could not be answered right away, so a straight line projection was used. He said the new update to the plan will account for the growth in the cities when determining what may happen in the rural buffer. He said the question is, if the growth could come this way, how it will fit Orange County. He said Orange County does not have an inventory of existing buildings for the potential new employees, so these buildings will have to be new construction. He said the question is whether this is a realistic number. Craig Benedict referred to the map and noted that it represents the growth management system and the designation of what is urban and rural. He said the area for economic 3 development is limited. He said the 50,000 new employees would mean doubling the employment base of the County. He said the board is working through the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan to do a ground up analysis of what would be the County's share. He said Chapel Hill and Carrboro are being asked to share what could happen in those municipalities, and then the rural piece will be added in. Lisa Stuckey said she has heard many discussions over the years about shutting down development and maintaining the village quality of life, but this did not work because people have property rights. Tony Blake said he has been watching the Chatham Park plans, and that is bound to impact density as well, especially in the southern part of the County. Commissioner Price said this will affect not only the rural buffer but other rural areas as well. She said the water situation needs to be looked at. She said if the County can't get new farmers, the older retired farmers will eventually sell out to developers. She said there is nothing in place to prevent this. She said there is a way to determine the groundwater capacity, but there is not an affordable way to tell the effect down the road. She said there are counties where zoning is based on water but there is no way to do this here, and there is no way to put a moratorium on homes. Commissioner Pelissier said this could be done. She said when she was on the Commission for the Environment, there was a study done on re-charge rates in different parts of the County. She said there have been counties that zone based on these re-charge rates, to avoid running into the problem of a lack of sufficient water. She assumes there is some study of this going on in the County. Craig Benedict said the US Geological Survey did this. He said it has been studied, but it is generalized by zones. He said there is a wide variance of depths within a zone. He said if zoning could be done by lot, it might work, but much of this is done by generalization. He said there have also been two droughts since the last plan, and this would manipulate the numbers. He said the bottom line is determining how growth can be accommodated based on the urban or rural environment. He said the rural village idea used to be a hot topic but more recently, the focus has been on creating those rural activity nodes, such as the Cedar Grove and White Cross areas. He said the focus is on efficient rural intensity development. Chair Jacobs said much of this conversation happened in abbreviated form at the AOG meeting. He said, even when the rural buffer zone was established, people talked about zoning based on carrying capacity. He said it would be so complex to do every parcel that no one has ever seriously undertaken it. Craig Benedict said many of the topics have been touched on, and he is going to run through some of the other items. Craig Benedict said in the next stage of the UDO it is time to look at the Economic Development District (EDD) zones to determine if the areas are more prime for light industrial, retail or mixed use. He said people who come to put businesses here want to have some idea of what is happening. He said the EDD zones, like the Efland Buckhorn area, can be looked at to determine where high power lines and railroad tracks may lend itself to a light industrial manufacturing area for example. He said these districts could be fine tuned by having a permitted by right process for the things the County wants to encourage. Craig Benedict said the County could come up with a research development applied manufacturing category. He said Mebane would have the same category whether they annexed or not, so the same permitted use table would be used. He said this is a structured zoning system that is targeted toward certain uses. Commissioner Gordon arrived at 6:22 pm. 4 Craig Benedict said the QPH process is being re-examined in the New Year, with consideration of wrapping these into regular meetings. He noted the earlier mention of the adult entertainment business. He said the current regulations would allow it in certain areas. He said it cannot be prohibited outright, but there must be a process to show how it can be allowed in appropriate places. Craig Benedict said when the Planning Department goes out on tours with Economic Development the concern is how the area looks. He said there are sometimes beautiful fields that may serve as a future industrial park, but there are eyesores or nuisances across the road. He said the County does not have the power of the municipalities to regulate nuisances. Commissioner Rich asked what would justify something as a nuisance. Craig Benedict said people who do not cut grass or who leave furniture in yards would classify. He said this is not really a zoning thing. He said these EDD zones are urban-like zones and there should have urban-like standards to protect them. He said the department will work with the attorney's office to determine what is legally achievable. He said there is a sharp demarcation between urban and rural, but there are standards that encourage a good image in non-residential and mixed use, with no control over what is across the street on the farm. He said junk cars are one issue, and the number of these is almost insurmountable. Craig Benedict recognized his staff, who have worked on all of these projects. Chair Jacobs referred to the discussion of the EDDs. He expressed his hope that there could be a focus on the Highway 70 corridor. He noted that there is existing infrastructure, and it provides a good place to have higher density. He said those are places where things could be on a different scale, and there could be higher density residential development. Maxecine Mitchell said her concern in the planning process is that there are low income families who can't afford to live in Orange County. She asked the Board of County Commissioners to look at affordable housing in these rural buffer zones. She said people are constantly calling to find out options for low income housing, and many do not have cars or a method of transportation. She said these challenges need to be considered when planning. Chair Jacobs said there had been discussion about mixed use in the EDDs where water and sewer would allow for density. He said the idea is that there aren't any standards for seeking affordable housing, and this is something that needs to be worked on. Maxecine Mitchell said developers are looking for high end high density with no affordable housing. She said most in Chapel Hill will opt out and pay a fee. Chair Jacobs said the Board has not had that conversation yet. He said the Community Land Trust has worked with Hillsborough on some units at Waterstone. He said Hillsborough has no particular policy, and neither does Mebane. He said the point is well taken, and a policy needs to be determined beyond Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said the Board is looking at an east west bus as part of the Triangle Transit plan. He said the Board of County Commissioners is trying to move this forward, but these are just conversations at this point. Tony Blake said the places where people get on the bus must be walkable in order to increase ridership. He said he is interested in creating places that are walkable and friendly to people riding the transit system. Commissioner Pelissier said the point about residents without cars is well taken. She said, with regard to the transit plan, there is a requirement that there be plans for affordable housing near transit. She said the challenge faced by the Board is that this would need to be in Chapel Hill, and the Board cannot tell the Town what to do, though the Commissioners have asked Chapel Hill to begin working on this. Commissioner Pelissier said there was an agreement, at the AOG meeting, to ask the managers of the County municipalities, to come up with a mechanism for a countywide group to look at affordable housing. She said the challenge is to make it affordable, but within a 5 municipality with access to transit. She said this issue is on the forefront, as all of the municipalities have done some work, and it is time to bring that together Tony Blake said there is no way to require a developer to build or maintain affordable housing. John Roberts said there are ways to do that, though he cannot quote them now. He said there are legal mechanisms. Tony Blake said he thought there was a lawsuit that prohibited trading of units for affordability. John Roberts said he has not read this. Maxecine Mitchell said it seems that there is a drift away from addressing affordable housing. She said there is a need to intentionally think about how to bring this back into the planning conversation and create action on the part of all of the local governments. She said if the density is changed, the high end developers will come running. She asked if anyone out there is just building affordable housing in Orange County, other than Habitat. Tony Blake said this is what he sees as the problem in Chapel Hill. He said affordable housing is being bought up, renovated, and then rent is raised, which forces low income families out. Maxecine Mitchell said she would like to see a plan to include long term designation of affordable housing. Chair Jacobs noted that much of the County affordable housing works this way, and the Land Trust is permanent. Commissioner Price said affordable housing historically becomes public housing in urban areas. She said states have done this too, but she has mostly seen it in the municipalities Commissioner Gordon apologized that she was unavoidably detained. She said transit is an important piece of this conversation. She said one challenge is determining what you can do to have successful rural transportation. She said you do have to have good access to transit for it to be successful, and there should be walkable communities nearby. She said one piece of the puzzle is getting people to their jobs. She said as the routes are discussed, it will be important to see that the half cent sales tax in the rural areas is spent effectively. Paul Guthrie said he sent a letter to the OUTboard to summarize his observations on the TTA presentation on the Chapel Hill light rail. He said he also mentioned that it would be appropriate for OUTboard to engage in discussion about what an adequate rural transportation plan over the long haul would look like for Orange County. He said this should feed the light rail system and provide transportation that the citizens of this County need. He feels there will be a dialogue in OUTBoard on this issue, and he feels this element fits neatly into the housing issue conversation. Chair Jacobs said there was a joint meeting with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and there was discussion about mobile homes as a class of affordable units. He said there are an abundance of these in the County, and the question is how to deal with the mobile home parks in the municipalities, as these seem to have a limited life expectancy now. He said there have been past discussions about land banking where there is water and sewer to allow people to move their mobile homes to a parcel that they do not have to own. Chair Jacobs said it might be a good conversation for the Planning Board to have with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board. Craig Benedict said there have been some crossover meetings in the past. He suggested that the Planning Board and other boards look at their intersecting goals again to determine commonalities. Attachment: 6 Activities/Projects Identified by the Planning Board and Planning Staff for 2014: 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises: UDO text amendments scheduled for February 2014 QPH 2. Public Hearing Process: UDO text amendments to consider changes to the existing public hearing process (scheduled for February 2014 QPH) 3. Efland Overlay Districts: UDO Text, Zoning Atlas, and Comprehensive Plan Amendments to add two new overlay zoning districts in the Efland area and specify design standards for the areas. (This item was denied by the BOCC in February 2013 but is scheduled to be reconsidered at the February 2014 QPH). 4. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Interlocal Agreement Implementation: Hillsborough-Orange County ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) Swaps (early 2014) 5. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Interlocal Agreement Implementation: Comprehensive Plan and UDO amendments to implement the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan (scheduled for February 2014 QPH) 6. New and/or Revised Zoning District: UDO text amendment to adopt a new general use zoning district and/or "fine tune" existing ED zoning to match locational attributes for targeted research and development industry and applied light manufacturing. 7. Rural Buffer Clustering: Address clustering in the Rural Buffer to allow smaller lot sizes while maintaining a minimum density of 2 units per acre 8. Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative changes at the State level 9. Streamline Regulations: Continue to streamline regulations where possible 10. 2014 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2014 BOCC retreat Emerging Issues Identified by the Planning Board and Planning Staff for 2014: 1. Rural Enterprises: Continue to expand rural enterprises by completing work on "Agricultural Support Enterprises" and Home Occupation standards. Determine need to address water& sewage disposal issues in the Rural Activity Nodes to encourage development in these nodes. 2. Streamlining: Streamline the project approval/public hearing process by revising the existing quarterly public hearing process. 3. Emergency Access: Work with appropriate staff/departments to better ensure properties can be reached by emergency personnel (e.g., driveway width and clearance, bridge weight limit signage and sufficiency to allow a fire truck to pass, gate width, and curve radii sufficient for emergency vehicles). 4. Mass Gathering/Special Events: Revisions to UDO regarding mass gathering and special events (must wait until after Emergency Services/Attorney's Office enacts a Mass Gathering Ordinance) 5. Pre-zoning for Economic Development Projects: Continue to "prezone" areas where possible to focus growth in appropriate areas with consistent land uses, thereby improving the review and approval process. 7 6. Adult Entertainment: County should adopt an adult entertainment ordinance that is consistent with State and Federal laws. 7. Nuisance Ordinance: Consider a nuisance ordinance for Economic Development, Commercial, and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes and areas adjacent to these land use classifications to "protect" these areas slated for economic development projects. 8. Transportation Issues: Need for better public transit in rural areas, including senior citizen mobility, and "transit oriented development." 9. Affordable Housing: On-going need for affordable housing opportunities in the county. 3) Closing Remarks The meeting was adjourned at 6:44 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board 8 APPROVED 1/23/2014 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 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, November 25, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Office, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Earl McKee COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert 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, Lisa Stuckey, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea Rohrbacher, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, James Lea, Stephanie O'Rouke Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck had no opening remarks B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to change the existing standards for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions associated with home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special events organized or affiliated with a governmental or non-profit agency. The amendments also seek to find a balance between the trends for small home based businesses and the typical character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods. Ashley Moncado introduced this item and reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Home Occupation Standards Quarterly Public Hearing November 25, 2013 Item C1 Purpose To hold a public hearing on a Planning Board and Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment regarding existing home occupation standards contained within the UDO. The amendment also involves the renumbering and reformatting of Sections 2.22, 5.4.3, and 5.5.3. Background • UDO Implementation Bridge report — Prepared in 2011 with the adoption of the UDO • Planning Board's Areas of Interest — January 9, 2013 Planning Board meeting • Board of County Commissioners — February 21, 2013 BOCC Retreat — May 14, 2013 BOCC Work Session Existing Home Occupation Standards • Identified Concerns and Issues — Standards are too limiting regarding: • Permitted number of employees • Square footage allowances • Permitted daily trip counts — Standards do not address permitting events • Orange County Open Studio Tour — Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art studios Strive to create a reasonable balance between supporting home based businesses and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods - Home Occupations/Neighbors *Proposed uses exceeding home occupation regulations may apply for a conditional use permit or relocate to a commercial zoning district Planning Board • July 10 Planning Board Meeting — Presentation of current standards and other local jurisdictions' standards • September 4 Planning Board Meeting — Review of draft language and Section 419, Live/Work Units • October 2 Ordinance Review Committee — Presentation and review of draft amendments • October 16 Staff Meeting with the Planning Board Chair — Review of the Planning Board's recommendations • November 2 Ordinance Review Committee — Presentation and review of amendments Proposed Amendments • Proposed Revisions to: — Section 2.22, Home Occupations — Section 5.4.3, Special Events — Section 5.5.3, Home Occupations — Article 10, Definitions • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format with explanatory footnotes as needed • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections Proposed Amendments • Development of Two Home Occupation Categories — Minor — Major • Minor Home Occupations — Staff review and approval — Permitted in all residential zoning districts — Increase in square footage threshold for residential dwelling units — Increase in square footage for accessory structures — Increase in number of onsite employees — Allow for an increase in the daily number of clients, customers, and students — Revised definition Proposed Amendments • Major Home Occupations — Require a Class B Special Use Permit — Only permitted in the AR (Agricultural Residential) and R-1 (Rural Residential) zoning districts — Must be located on a parcel at least five acres in size — Square footage threshold for residential dwelling units and number of onsite employees determined by the approved Special Use Permit — Size of accessory structures based on acreage — Allow for daily number of clients, customers, and students — Require a private road maintenance agreement or driveway permit — Proposed definition — Proposed Amendments • All Home Occupations — Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap — Modification in measuring the weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the home occupation — Address reviewing and permitting of special events • Revisions to Section 5.4.3, Special Events — Allow for events planned, conducted, and affiliated with a non profit or government organization to be exempt from the Special Event and Class B SUP review process Addressing Concerns and Issues Existing Standards Concern: Current standards are too limiting regarding: - Permitted number of employees - Square footage allowances - Permitted daily trip counts Proposed Standards - Allow for increase in number of onsite employees. Allow for increase in square footage allowances for residential dwelling units and accessory structures Removal of the daily trip maximum and delivery cap Modification in the permitted weight of vehicles used in conjunction with the home occupation Existing Standards Concern: Current standards do not address the permitting of special events including the Orange County Open Studio Tour Proposed Standards - Allow for the review and permitting of events through Section 5.4.3, Special Events - Allow for the exemption of nonprofit or government organized events from the special event and Class B Special Use Permit review process Existing Standards Concern: Standards may be restricting the art community and operation of individual art studios Proposed Standards Provide the capacity to support and accommodate individual art studios - Development of a larger (major) home occupation category - Increase in square footage allowances, number of onsite employees, daily trip counts, visitors, and deliveries, - Address the permitting of special events Public Notification Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO - Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks Joint Planning Area Partners Proposed amendments provided on November 7, 2013 - No comments have been received. Recommendation • To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 23, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Ashley Moncado said the two different categories are defined as follows: Minor- Smaller scale home-based business operations in the residential neighborhood setting on smaller lots Major- Larger home-based business operations in the rural/residential setting on larger tracts Ashley Moncado said the minor home occupations will allow a square footage increase from 500 to 750 square feet, and accessory structures will be allowed an increase from 1000 square feet to 1500 square feet. She said the permitted non-resident employees will increase from 2 to 3, and the permitted visitors will increase to 3 at one time, not to exceed 6 per day. Ashley Moncado said major home occupations will allow for up to 50 percent of the residential dwelling to be used toward the home occupation and will allow up to 6 non-resident employees on site. She said accessory structures will be permitted up to 2500 square feet on tracts 5 to 10 acres in size, and up to 3000 square feet on tracts 11 acres or more. She said standards for the major home occupations will allow for 8 visitors at one time, not exceeding 15 per day. Ashley Moncado noted that the load capacity standard for vehicles will be changed to a gross vehicle weight, and the revised standards will accommodate the use of standard and larger sized pickup trucks. Andrea Rohrabacher arrived at 7:10 pm. Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck invited questions from the Board. Commissioner Gordon asked where section 419 of the building code is located. Ashley Moncado said the reference to this is located at the end of the amendment form. Commissioner Gordon said she is looking for the actual section. Ashley Moncado said this was not included. (Michael Harvey made copies of the missing document and distributed this to the Commissioners and the Planning Board.) Commissioner Pelissier referred to the standards of evaluation on page 15. She noted the uses not permitted and the wording in section B regarding the standards of evaluation. She asked if it was possible for some of the non-permitted uses to actually meet the standards of evaluation. She cited the example of a plumber who once resided in her neighborhood, but was not disruptive. She asked if standards of evaluation could be used, with no automatic non-permitted uses. Ashley Moncado said this was a topic at the last planning board meeting. She said this language was in the UDO to prevent the possibility of a resident using their property as a main center and having too much storage or warehousing on site, or creating increased traffic count. She said the standards proposed tonight may be able to accommodate those uses and prevent them from being unpermitted. She said this is a topic for further discussion. Commissioner Rich thanked the planning department for the robust conversation. She asked about the statement that prohibits the use of a home base for constructing or building anything. She asked if constructing bookcases for a client in a garage shop would be considered building something in a home based business. Ashley Moncado said she did not believe this was prohibited in the UDO. She said there were concerns for operating a building construction contracting business out of the home. She said if someone came forward wanting to build furniture, this would be allowed if the resident met the regulations and did not exceed outdoor storage space or other standards. Commissioner Price referred to the chart on page 2. She noted that the second blue box, under standards of evaluation says "body shop, hauling, and building." Ashley Moncado said this is just a general comment as part of a summary chart to use in referencing the amendments in attachment 2. Commissioner Price asked if these standards are for the rural buffer or the rural area in general. She said some of the standards are very restrictive and would not matter in a rural area. She questioned whether this might hurt rural people, rather than help them in the effort to open a home business. Ashley Moncado said the major home occupations would not be permitted in the rural buffer, only in the AR and R1 zoning districts. She said the major home occupations language was modeled after language currently used for minor home occupation. She said the standards for landscaping are currently in place with all home occupations in the UDO. Ashley Moncado referred back to the slide showing the balancing act of allowing and promoting the home based business while protecting neighbors and the rural residential character. Commissioner Price said the neighbors in a rural area may be 2 miles down the road. She said this language seems to make life more difficult rather than easier. She asked about the farm tour and whether this would be exempt like the arts tour. Ashley Moncado said the farm tour would be considered agri-tourism, which would allow it to be exempt from the special event process. Commissioner Dorosin asked if plumbing contracting is prohibited, and he asked what this means. He said it seems that the office portion of a home based plumbing business would be within the description of permitted occupations. He asked for clarification on what is prohibited by the contracting language. Michael Harvey said the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent creation of a bone yard in residential districts. He said this happens when you have storage of materials, and employees continually travel back and forth from the home site to pick up materials and vehicles for a job. He said this policy prohibits mass storage of plumbing supplies and equipment. He said he has personally allowed plumbing businesses to have a home office. He said this policy is not being modified with this proposal. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarifications about home daycares. He said there are some people who provide daycare in their home, but it is not a formal business. Michael Harvey said there are several different categories of daycare, and there are different permitting processes associated with those activities depending on the number of children. He said anyone wishing to run a home daycare must fill out a zoning compliance permit with the County planning department. He said a floor plan must be provided to show where the children would be located, and documentation must be provided to show the existence of the necessary outdoor play area of 75 square feet per child. Michael Harvey said planning then coordinates with the health department to insure there is adequate septic to support the activity, and then a permit is issued. He said this is not treated as a home occupation; it is a listed permitted use of property, or a special use. Commissioner Dorosin asked if this would be true for a daycare with three students or less. Michael Harvey said the process would still have to be followed. Chair Jacobs followed up on the question regarding farm tours. He said his interpretation of page 5 is that any non-profit is exempt. Ashley Moncado said this is correct. Chair Jacobs asked about the use of accessory structures and the requirement for these buildings to look like a residential structure. He said that barns do not look like a residential structures and may be located half a mile from the nearest neighbor. He asked if the strict appearance and landscape requirements would apply even to this. Ashley Moncado said, based on this proposal, yes. She said those issues were not previously highlighted as a concern; therefore they were not addressed with the planning board. Commissioner Gordon referred to page 15 -2A and 2. She asked if a home occupation permit is required for a minor home occupation. Ashley Moncado said yes. Commissioner Gordon noted that some occupations are exempt. She asked if an event can be done without a permit. Ashley Moncado said the highlighted item related to a telecommuting business, with no employees or customers coming to the site. She said a resident with an exemption would be able to take part in events through the special events process outlined in section 5.4.3. Commissioner Gordon asked if this means there is no direct tie to having a home occupation permit and having an event. Ashley Moncado said these are two separate things. She said there is currently no language in the UDO that specifies the means for holding an event. She said that language is now being provided, stating the events will be permitted for home occupations through section 5.4.3. She said someone with an exemption from the home occupation process, would still be able to go through and get a special event permit through this process. Commissioner Gordon said there would be no knowledge of whether the person had the parking or necessary requirements. Ashley Moncado said there are size, structure and parking requirements that have to be met as part of the special event review process. Commissioner Gordon asked how non-profits are defined. Ashley Moncado said perhaps language needs to be added to reference non-profit status. She said the goal of non-profit exemptions is to allow community events that highlight the community or provide a service to the County. Commissioner Gordon said language needs to be included to capture the required spirit of the non-profit. Commissioner Price referred to page 16 and asked how the number of daily students and clients will be enforced. Michael Harvey said special use permits will be issued and recorded at the register of deeds office. He said this requires the applicants to sign off on the design parameters. He said this will be a mutual agreement, and the permit can be revoked if it is violated. Commissioner Dorosin said this is complaint driven. Michael Harvey said it is complaint driven, but County staff also does periodic inspections. Chair Jacobs asked if it is possible to differentiate between the 501 c3 and other non- profits. Ashley Moncado said this can be looked into. Commissioner Pelissier asked about the buffers and the required screening of accessory structures, as listed on page 17. She said residences that don't have a business do not have to screen accessory structures. Michael Harvey said that a single family residence does not have to establish a buffer to shield or separate an accessory structure. He said the fact that the property will have non- residential use means a buffer is required to insure that the non-residential use of that structure does not have a negative impact on adjacent property owners. He said staff does not feel that there should be an alteration of the current landscaping and screening requirements, as it serves a purpose and is warranted, given the non-residential use of the structure. Commissioner Rich asked for examples of the minor uses that have been discussed with the planning board. Planning Board member Tony Blake said this list included journalists, accountants, real estate agents, and piano teachers. Pete Hallenbeck said this started with what might be called professional services, such as lawyers, architects, or consulting engineers. He said it came down to the traffic coming into the house. He said clients for these businesses may show up and not come back for several days, versus a home business where there may be 8 appointments a day. He said a lot of the discussions were driven by the impact of what you would see and hear, and how much traffic is generated. Commissioner Price asked how this will affect farm based businesses, for example someone making jam to sell on the roadside. Perdita Holtz said businesses located on a bonafide farm, making a value added product are exempt from zoning regulations. She said if it is not a bonafide farm, such as a person making jam in their home kitchen, environmental health permits would be required. She said this would be a home based business that requires a permit. Commissioner Price asked if this means the person would still be able to sell in front of their home. Perdita Holtz said a home occupation would not be able to sell in front of their house. Commissioner Price referred to the traffic issue. She said her tax accountant works out of his home and has people drop taxes at his house. She said her neighbor generated more traffic from teenage boys and their friends coming and going than the tax collector generates from the business. She said she does not understand how traffic can differentiate. Ashley Moncado said that can be a hard thing to regulate. She said the original numbers were much greater than those being submitted tonight. She said charts were created to show average trips. She said the original numbers proposed gave a number of upwards of 160 trips per day resulting from a major home occupation. She said this is based on a worst case scenario of employees taking lunches, or a parent bringing children back and forth to piano lessons. Ashley Moncado said those traffic counts were why the recommendations were reduced, in order to bring the counts down a little. She said an average single family residential unit will create 4-20 trips per day. She said the recommendations provided tonight go above that range to accommodate for family and business trips. She said the goal is to keep it in the appropriate range for a single family residential home. Commissioner Gordon read the statement about creating a reasonable balance between the home occupations and protecting the character of residential neighborhoods. She referred to page 7 and asked why this says home occupations would be promoted and encouraged. She gave the following alternative wording: "appropriate balance between supporting home based business and protecting the character and enjoyment of residential neighborhoods." Ashley Moncado said the planning board's goal has been to promote home based businesses. She said the one sentence focuses on one side of it; however the goal is to focus on providing opportunities for residents to have a different means to conduct business through their home, but it also important to protect the character of residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Gordon said use of the words promote and encourage, does not sound like a balance. Ashley Moncado said this comes from the original goal. She said that one sentence does not encompass all of this. Commissioner Dorosin said it has been out of balance in the other direction, and now the goal is to balance it by promoting home businesses. He said the pendulum often swings too far the other way when these kinds of corrections are made. Commissioner Rich noted that no one from the public was in attendance. She asked if any input or comment was made at previous meetings or through emails. Tony Blake said staff and board members spoke with neighbors and drew from personal experiences. He feels these businesses are an underappreciated part of the economy. Pete Hallenbeck said there were no comments from the public. He said most of the planning board does some aspect of their work from their home. Tony Blake said he works for a corporation from home office, and he is exempt; however many of his neighbors do work from home businesses. Commissioner Rich said many people today use their home to telecommute. Tony Blake said that situation is exempt. He said the new technology makes this possible. He said margins have been cut because of the economy, and there is a lot of need and demand for this. Commissioner Gordon said she has comments. Pete Hallenbeck asked if there were any other questions before moving on to comments. Commissioner Gordon said that much of this discussion is about the difference between major and minor home occupations and the smaller lots and residential areas versus the larger lots and rural areas. She said there is a lot of discussion about what kind of impact there will be. She said maybe the primary focus for ordinance changes should be made in the major home occupations that involve a special use permit, because special conditions can then be accounted for. She said she has been looking at some of the proposed changes for minor home occupations and the large size of the accessory structures. She said these structures are bigger than some houses. She feels there should be some kind of permitting process before getting into these bigger impacts. She feels the 500-700 square feet for the minor category is fine, but she questions going above 1000 square feet or 2 employees for the minor home occupations. Commissioner Gordon said people on small lots are more affected by what neighbors do. She said the difference between neighbors creating a lot of impact is whether they are making any money. She said if money is being made; but your peace and tranquility is being compromised and your property values go down, then the balance has been exceeded. She feels that it would be better to make increases and changes in the major home occupations versus the minor. She said if you are on 25 acres, the business is in the middle of the property, and there is plenty of area for parking, no one is going to be bothered. She feels the minor home occupation category needs to be kept as is, and the changes should be made only to the major. Commissioner Gordon said it is good to help the artists and photographers who are just doing work at their place. She said this is very different from someone having noise, odors, impact or storage issues that interfere with residential character. Commissioner Dorosin said this needs to be thought of as economic development. He said economic development is not just about luring big businesses to come here. He said it is also about supporting home grown entrepreneurship and individual small business that can grow and become successful. He said the lot size and homeowners association have to allow for the building of a 1500 square foot accessory building. He said the purpose here is to control the impacts, such as noise, odor or impact, and it's not about controlling the building. He said he is encouraged by these changes, and this should be characterized as the economic development engine that it could be. Commissioner Pelissier said she echoes what Commissioner Dorosin said. She said this is a great opportunity for economic development. She feels this shows that development is encouraged and does so in a way that is not disruptive to individual residences. She noted that these accessory structures are required to look like a residential structure. She said the issue is the noise and traffic; it is not about the occupation, but it is about the impact on neighbors. Commissioner Pelissier said she does not want to make the rules so restrictive and she would like to see some more work done on this. She questioned why a home occupation on a major road would need 40 feet of trees or a fence for something that is not an eyesore. She feels there needs to be some more balancing to make it less difficult for some of the home occupations. Chair Jacobs said he agrees more or less with what he has heard so far. He said he has some different feelings about the accessory buildings. He does not care what existing accessory buildings look like, as these are already in place and part of the neighborhood; however he feels that new accessory buildings should be required to meet the proposed standards. He said the screening could be handled with set-backs that are appropriate for residential versus rural areas. He said it is difficult with only AR, but using a setback that would not work well in a smaller residential area would make it easier to avoid screening. He said a setback of 500 feet would obviously not be used on a smaller 1 acre lot, and the noise and light would not really impact neighbors, whereas a setback of 50 feet might allow disturbance. He said this might be a way to address the rural versus suburban areas. Commissioner Price said these she has found some of these proposals to be too restrictive. She said asking a homeowner who is trying to make a living with a home based occupation to put in fences, landscaping and certain trees is a financial challenge. She said this is going overboard. She said small businesses are a big part of the economic development scheme and should be encouraged. She understands the need to save the rural character, but she also wants to be fair to residents in the rural area. Commissioner Price said she also thinks the language could be edited to be a little simpler. Commissioner Rich said she is encouraged by this. She wonders how much of a live document this is. She questioned the steps to modify this if it is put in place and then adjustments need to be made. Ashley Moncado said modifications can be made if neighbors complain, and this would be done using the protocol for proposing a text amendment. Commissioner Rich asked if this would be true in the case of needing to give more leeway. Ashley Moncado said yes, it would be open for examination by staff and the planning board. Commissioner Rich asked if this would come about through public input. Ashley Moncado said yes. Commissioner Gordon said the goal is to create a balance. She said most of the issues could be addressed by making the changes to the major home occupations category and not making changes to the minor occupations. She said this allows things to be tailored through the special use permit process. She said this is not losing too much and it directs the intense development to the larger lots sizes in rural areas. She said this is about putting non-residential uses in residential areas, and the character of the residential areas needs to be considered. Chair Jacobs said he does not disagree with much of what Commissioner Gordon has said; however he questions the existing standards for minor. He said the accessory structure screening is in there now, and he feels this should be more a function of the lot size than a blanket requirement. He is proposing a change to this. Tony Blake said the goal in the original conversation was to align with Chapel Hill. Ashley Moncado said Chapel Hill currently allows 35 percent of the floor area, or 750 square feet, which is in line with the increase. Pete Hallenbeck said the concept of character comes back to what you can see, hear, and smell, as well as the traffic involved. He said those are the things being addressed when balance is discussed. He said the example of teenage traffic activity may be more acceptable to residents because is an occurrence for only a finite amount of time. He said there are many limits being played with in the effort to preserve character, such as size of structures, number of visits and size of trucks. He said there are many opinions, and there have been many discussions. He said the changes to the minor uses were designed to bring the various municipal and rural rules a little closer to the municipality rules. Pete Hallenbeck said the size limits are interesting because there are two different kinds of rural character; one is where you have a farm with the normal and expected traffic and noise, and the other is a big lot residential community where no one wants that farm experience. He said this makes many of these decisions hard. He referred to the plumbing example and said no one had a problem if a plumber simply owned a truck or two at their house. He said there is a point however, where the business would be big enough that it should be moved to an office park like Millstone Drive. Pete Hallenbeck said he likes the idea of changing the goal of the document from promoting business to promoting a balance between business and residential. He said that wording will help people make better decisions for this living document in the future. He said the other thing that everyone is wrestling with is balancing the impact more than restricting certain occupations. He likes the idea of screening and setbacks, and he said perhaps the planning board can look at this. He said perhaps a building that is 500 feet from the property would not need shrubbery. Pete Hallenbeck said he has 1500 square feet of work space over the garage and 1000 square feet in his basement, both used for different types of projects. He shares this as an example of that balancing act of putting a limit on square footage, putting a limit on the activities, or putting a limit on what can be seen, heard, or smelled, as well as the traffic count. Lisa Stuckey thinks it makes more sense to get rid of the language on page 15 regarding the building businesses. She feels the language should focus more on the visual impact of the businesses. She thinks these home businesses should be invisible to neighbors Paul Guthrie said he has had some questions, as reflected in the minutes. He said he has been skeptical, not of the concept, but of the specificity of the language. He said one example is the provision for barriers and buffers, which requires an 80 foot space between activities and neighbors. He said this is over half an acre and, coupled with other issues, puts a real barrier on people who want to operate on their own property. He said ever time he reads this document he sees a new issue, and this tells him this process needs to be carefully considered. He said this can be accommodated with a reasonable degree of judicial flexibility, so as not to impede people's ability to make a living. Paul Guthrie said this is just part of the working life today. He said 50 percent of his neighbors have been involved in a home business of some sort, and he has a daughter who telecommutes from London. He said this is symbolic of the new world we live in, and it must be thought through in coming to a final conclusion on this issue. Maxecine Mitchell said she would like to address Commissioner Rich's question about public input. She said she is an average person, and she may start a home business. She does not want all of these restrictions so that she would potentially have to move out if the business did well. She also does not want to discourage other people from creating a business. Ashley Moncado proposed a revision to the recommendation. She requested this be brought back to the February 18th meeting, in order to allow time to work with the planning board to address the concerns highlighted tonight. Chair Jacobs said this seems more practical. A motion was made by Renee Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich: • To receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 18, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until February 18, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs asked if there is a list of the people who have home occupation permits. He asked if these people can be notified that an ordinance is being considered. He said the public hearing is adjourned, but perhaps these residents could attend the planning board meeting. He said it might be smart to anticipate the comments that could come after changes are made. Michael Harvey said any additional comments would need to be in writing, since the public hearing is closed. Chair Jacobs suggested sending post cards to notify residents of what is happening and directing them to a web address for submission of written comments. He said he recognizes that there may be thousands of these people. Ashley Moncado said staff will have to look at what resources are in place to be able to do this. Commissioner Gordon said she thinks this letter is a good idea. 2. 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent changes in State law with respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the development or modification of telecommunication facilities. Michael Harvey said this item begins on page 39 of the abstract. He said attachment 1 is the comprehensive plan and UDO outline form, and attachment 2 is the actual copy of Session law 2013-185. He reviewed the following Session law criteria from page 39 of the abstract: • Prohibition on requiring information related to the specific need for a proposed telecommunication facility, including the addition of additional wireless coverage or capacity, as part of the application package. • Local governments cannot require `proprietary, confidential, or other business information' to justify the need for a new telecommunication facility. • Limits the fee local governments can collect for a third party consultant to review applications for co-locations. • Mandatory review timelines/deadlines for local governments to act on co-location applications. Michael Harvey said the County has been very lucky in the past few years that AT&T has been willing to provide data indicating existing telecommunications facilities. He said the co-locations fee is now limited to $1,000, and the previous charge was $2500. He said that change has already been incorporated. He said state law also establishes a very specific set of criteria for what constitutes a modification. He said this is important in Orange County, as the County has three tiers of review on telecommunication towers. He said anything over 75 feet is approved by staff in an administrative action; anything over 75 feet and under 199 feet is approved through the class B special use permit process by the board of adjustment; and anything 200 feet or over is reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Commissioners as a class A special use permit. Michael Harvey said this new session law establishes parameters to establish that certain increases in height of an existing telecommunications facility shall not constitute a modification that has to be administratively approved. He called attention to page 58 of the packet, where this language has been incorporated within the provisions of the UDO. He said the County attorney's office has requested the inclusion of additional language in 11-a, b, c and d. He said this will be included to flesh out exact parameters of a modification. Michael Harvey said the key is to ensure that sufficient language is provided to focus on the changing nature of the tower. He said this affects testimony and facts considered when a tower is reviewed and acted on by the County. He gave the example of a tower that is 190 feet tall. He said the tower height can be increased by 10 percent, or not more than 20 feet, and it is considered a minor change that does not go before the Board. He said this is an attempt to avoid having a tower that is 199 feet, reviewed as a class b special use permit, wanting to add to 209 feet, requiring additional compliance standards. He said staff would like to require the Board to review and approve this type of action. Michael Harvey said this ordinance amendment does not alter current review and approval procedures. He said there will still be a class A and class B special use permit process, and a consultant review of all co-locations. He said the review timeline is not being changed. He said the consultants are limited in what they can charge to the County. He said meals and travel cannot be charged, but the County contract never allowed this, so no amendment is necessary here. He said there was no public comment, and many changes from the session law have already been incorporated. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there were constraints to how many times a tower can be modified. Michael Harvey said if the modifications exceed existing permitting authority for the tower, the permit must be modified. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the limits. Michael Harvey reviewed these again. Commissioner Dorosin asked if this means that the tower could be increased in size multiple times. Michael Harvey said this is conceivable, but he noted the other parameters of obtaining approval. He said mandatory setbacks still have to be complied with, and it is unlikely that you can have a consistent increase in tower height while maintaining relevant factors to the permit. He said the other parameter to be incorporated is that the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Commissioner will be basing decisions on the testimony and evidence entered into the record during a hearing. He said any alteration that changes the parameters of that evidence would have to be reviewed and acted upon. He reminded the Board that any tower 200 feet or higher must be illuminated, based on FHA regulations. He said most people don't like to do this, as it is costly and draws attention to the tower. Chair Jacobs noted the motion on page 40. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to: 1. Receive the proposed text amendment(s). 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. 3. 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 January 23, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—To review government- initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent changes in State law with respect to items reviewed and acted upon by the Orange County Board of Adjustment. Michael Harvey referred to page 87 of the packet. He reviewed the attachments and the following session law changes: • Changing the votes necessary for the Board to approve a Special Use Permit application from 4/5th of members to a simple majority, • Clarifying the procedure(s) for requesting and issuing of subpoenas, • Clarifying the appeals timeframe for Board of Adjustment decisions to be submitted to Superior Court, and • Clarifying notification requirements with respect to who is notified of a Board decision. Voting Procedures changed Michael Harvey said the language regarding issuance of subpoenas is now detailed in the code. He said the appeals timeframe allows 30 days from the filing of a decision to the filing of an appeal. He said these changes are intended to create consistency with state law, and there is no modification of the operational characteristics of the Board of Adjustment. He said the voting change for special use permits brings it in line with existing County Commissioner's requirements. Commissioner Gordon referred to page 102, section 10.3 and asked why these are necessary. She read the following section: "It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property." Michael Harvey said the statute no longer permits this. He assumes this is because people found it difficult to prove no reasonable use of the property. He said applicants now simply have to claim that the desired use is being impeded. Commissioner Gordon referred to item 10.3 C. Michael Harvey said this is direct language from the state law. Commissioner Gordon referred to page 10, and conditions of approval. She said the public health safety and general welfare language has been eliminated. Michael Harvey said that language has been removed from the statute. Commissioner Gordon asked if this means the public safety and general welfare could then be not protected. Michael Harvey said he would not go that far. He said the rationalization could no longer be used to justify the imposition of the condition. Tony Blake asked if this state law applies to existing matters. Michael Harvey said thankfully there are no cases before the Board that pre-date this. He said if there were, this rule would apply. He said there is no grandfathering with this session law. Commissioner Price asked if a person could reapply if they had been previously been denied a special use permit on a 2-3 vote. Michael Harvey said the person would have to wait one calendar year. He said there have been no denials in the past year. Commissioner Dorosin asked what the anticipated impact of this will be. Michael Harvey said he foresees no major impact; it just changes the nature of the game. John Roberts said it is not going to have a substantial impact on Orange County, though it does substantially change the ordinance and the statute. Tony Blake asked if this is about the Hwy 751 development. Michael Harvey said he will not speculate on this. He thinks the changes with respect to voting were intended to bring this in line with what the County Commissioners are already doing. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to: 1. Receive the proposed text amendment(s). 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. 3. 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 January 23, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 23, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, and seconded by Renee Price to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board