HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-15-2014 - 6a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 15, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
February 24, 2014 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
March 6, 2014 BOCC Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 February 24, 2014
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
10 Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on February 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Officers,
11 Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
14 Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
18 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Board members Maxecine Mitchell,
20 Johnny Randall, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, Lisa Stuckey, Andrea
22 Rohrbacher and James Lea
23
24 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. He reviewed the following items at
25 the members' places:
26 - Booklet/Blue Sheets/Cream Sheets/PowerPoint— Item C-1 — Class A Special Use
27 Permit
28 - Letter— Item C-3 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
29
30 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS
31
32 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
33 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
34
35 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
36 Planning Board Member Buddy Hartley introduced this item.
37
38 1. Class A Special Use Permit- To review a Class A Special Use Permit application
39 seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling
40 approximately 52 acres in area, off of Redman Road between the railway and Interstate
41 85/40 in Cheeks Township.
42
43 Buddy Hartley: An item involving a special use permit is a quasi-judicial setting, so
44 approval or denial of such permits are based on sworn testimony and evidence from individuals
45 who are speaking before the Board. So, we will ask that all individuals that wish to speak on
46 this be sworn to before the clerk.
47
48 Those who were speaking to this item were then sworn in.
49
50 Michael Harvey: Good evening. I am Michael Harvey of the Orange County Planning
51 Department. I have been duly sworn, and my job here this evening is to present to you a Class
2
1 A special use permit application proposing the development of a solar facility south of Redman
2 Road.
3 What I would first of all like to do this evening is reiterate to the Board what you have
4 before you. The applicant, in this case Strata Solar, has provided you a copy of affidavits that
5 they will be reviewing and entering into evidence this evening, outlining their presentation. As
6 also has been explained, you have three colored pieces before you. The first, a green item, is
7 an email correspondence submitted by the Chair, Chair Jacobs. This email specifically
8 documents the Efland Home for Girls, provides some background information on this particular
9 parcel property. There is a blue piece of paper. This is email correspondence between County
10 planning staff and Strata Solar to an adjacent property owner. Last but certainly not least is a
11 cream yellow piece of paper that's been issued by another adjacent property owner, specifically
12 Redman Rhino, LLC, offering their support for the project.
13 The first thing I would like to do before I begin with the presentation is ask that Board
14 recognize that the abstract, which we have before you this evening, which includes: Attachment
15 1, an application packet; Attachment 2, a property vicinity map; Attachment 3, staff comments
16 concerning this project; and Attachment 4, the notification materials and certification for the
17 mailing, be entered into the record.
18
19 Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 7:08 pm.
20
21 Chair Jacobs: So do you need a motion to that effect?
22
23 Michael Harvey: I just need an acknowledgement.
24
25 Chair Jacobs: We acknowledge that it has been entered into the record. Thank you.
26
27 Michael Harvey: Thank you very much. Without further ado, I know we have a long meeting
28 ahead of us. I'll be as quick as I can.
29
30 Michael Harvey reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
31
32 FEBRUARY 24, 2014
33 AGENDA ITEM: C-1
34 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
35 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
36 DEVELOPMENT OF A
37 SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
38
39 PROPERTY INFORMATION
40 PI N(s): 9844-06-5971 and 9844-17-2687.
41 Size: 52 acres.
42 Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection overlay,
43 and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
44 Future Land Use Map Designation: Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node
45 (CITAN).
46 Growth Management System Designation: Urban.
47
48 SURROUNDING USES: Map
49
50 REQUEST:
51 Erect individual solar array panels on both properties (52 acres).
3
1 Typical array is between 7 and 8 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground
2 clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length.
3 Arrays will be screened by existing vegetation and an 8 foot high chain link security
4 fence, topped with 3 strand barbed wire, shall enclose the perimeter of the array to
5 prevent access.
6
7 REQUEST(Continued):
8 Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
9 Strata Solar technicians to service the panels. In certain areas there will be natural,
10 grass, paths depending on soil.
11 Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot access gate off of Redman Road.
12 An overhead, medium voltage, power line will be installed along the western portion of
13 the property allowing the proposed facility to tie into the power grid via an adjacent Duke
14 Energy substation.
15
16 SITE PLAN: Map
17
18 REQUIRED REVIEW:
19 Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the
20 provisions of Section 2.7 of the UDO.
21 Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application,
22 provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the
23 merits of the proposal.
24 • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO.
25
26 REQUIRED REVIEW (continued):
27 • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony
28 and competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply with
29 the provisions of the Ordinance.
30 Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
31 If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the
32 record the project does not comply, the permit must be issued.
33
34 REVIEW PROCESS:
35 Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and
36 Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the
37 Planning Board recommendation.
38 Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who will make a recommendation
39 on the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
40 public hearing.
41 Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board
42 recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted. BOCC takes
43 action on the proposal.
44
45 STAFF INITIAL REVIEW:
46 • Applicant has submitted all documentation required for the review of a the solar array
47 (Section 5.9.6)
48 • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
49 required by Section 2.7.3)
50 There are policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of the
51 proposal
4
1
2 RECOMMENDATION:
3 1. Receive the application,
4 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
5 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
6 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 8, 2014 BOCC
7 regular meeting.
8 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 8, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning
9 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
10
11 RECOMMENDATION:
12 1. Receive the application,
13 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
14 3. Continue the Public Hearing until March 18, 2014 to allow the applicant and staff to meet
15 with local property owners and respond, in writing, to their concerns.
16 - - - - - - - - - - - -
17 Michael Harvey: This project, and this refers to attachment 2 of your packet, involves two
18 parcels of property owned by Stout Farm, LLC, totaling 52 acres in area. The parcels of
19 property are zoned Rural Residential, Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay, and
20 are located in the MTC overlay—the major transportation corridor overlay district, which is along
21 the interstate. The area in question is located within the Commercial Industrial Transition
22 Activity Node and is designated an Urban area on our Growth Management System designation
23 map. And you have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation before you in the packet you have.
24 In fact you have copies of all PowerPoint presentations that are going to be reviewed this
25 evening, including the one from Strata Solar in that packet.
26
27 This is an expanded view of that last map we just showed you, showing surrounding uses.
28 Again, here are the two parcels of property. This is Redman Crossing Road here. To the north
29 of the railroad tracks, you have residential land uses located in the Ten Year Transition area per
30 our Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. You have property to the east, large tracts,
31 undeveloped property located in a commercial industrial transition activity node. You have a
32 residential property, the Efland Home for Girls, here. It is also located in the commercial
33 industrial transition activity node. You have an existing Duke Energy substation here; the
34 NCDOT weigh station here; an existing commercial operation in the economic development
35 transition activity node; and several undeveloped large parcels of property, also in the economic
36 development transition activity node.
37
38 As I previously indicated, the applicant is erecting individual solar panels on both parcels of
39 property, which Strata Solar is going to be leasing. A typical array is anywhere between 7 and
40 8 feet in height, depending on the slope and angle of the actual array, with approximately 2 to 3
41 ground clearance, and they are going to be approximately 63 feet in length. This is also
42 summarized in our abstract. Arrays are going to be screened by existing vegetation and which
43 will be augmented with additional vegetation as necessary and required by County regulations,
44 also enclosed by an eight foot high chain link security fence, topped with barbed wire that will
45 enclose the perimeter of the property. There will be gravel paths throughout the site in order to
46 permit access to the individual arrays by Strata Solar technicians to service the panels. As
47 stipulated not only in application, but on the site plan, in certain areas there are going to be
48 natural grass paths, depending on the soils. Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24
49 foot wide access gate off of Redman Road. There will be - this site will have an overhead
50 power line connecting to Duke Energy and to the adjacent power— excuse me—the adjacent
51 existing substation, which I identified for you just a few moments ago.
5
1
2 And this is the site plan. What I would like to bring to the Board's attention is as follows: You
3 have approximately 11 to 12 acres of open and landscaped space on the property. The area in
4 this general vicinity has several streams that will be protected by a 60 foot—65 foot stream
5 buffer. That includes these wetland delineated areas, here and here. This shows the MTC
6 transportation corridor buffer that's required to be 100 feet. There is the required mandated 50
7 foot type D land use buffer along this property line. According to the applicant, they are going to
8 maintain either existing foliage or plant new foliage to our existing buffer standard. The height
9 of the trees is actually anticipated to get anywhere from 15 to 20 feet in height before it has to
10 become managed or topped, and that's to insure that they are not going to have shadow
11 created on the actual individual solar panels; but you are looking at a 15 to 20 foot high buffer.
12 This set of panels along this area of the property here is actually set back 150 feet from the
13 identified residence, again the Efland —the former Efland Home for Girls, which is currently
14 being lived in. Here is the access point off of Redman. You will also note on the site plan,
15 planning staff has required the applicant to reserve/identify a potential future road right of way.
16 As this Board will recall, we have an access management strategy in the Efland area to insure
17 perpetual ingress/egress access to several parcels of property, both to the west and the east,
18 that are landlocked. They have shown the required access area that would be running through
19 this property, consistent with that plan. Once again, here is the utility substation, which is where
20 the power—where the facility is going to be tied in to. And this of course here is the existing
21 Rhino manufacturing plant.
22
23 As the planning board Representative Hartley has indicated, this is reviewed under the Class A
24 special use permit process, as identified within section 2-7 of our Unified Development
25 Ordinance. It is held in a quasi-judicial format, meaning that all parties both for and against the
26 application will provide sworn testimony as well competent material evidence on the merits of
27 the proposal. The applicant ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating the projecting
28 complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone opposing the application is required to
29 demonstrate through sworn testimony and competent material and substantial evidence that the
30 project does not comply with the UDO. And I will remind you, as we have identified in our
31 abstract, hearsay and unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony. Last, but certainly
32 not least, if the applicant proves compliance of applicable standards and there is no evidence in
33 the record that the project does not comply, there is a requirement that we issue the permit.
34
35 At this juncture, what I would like to do is call the Board's attention to page 6 of our abstract, just
36 so I can run down staff comments, which are contained in Attachment 3 of your abstract. First
37 being that we have heard from the Sheriff's department that has indicated they have no
38 concerns over this project, and I will go back to the site plan. EMS staff has actually indicated
39 that the Efland Fire Department— not Eno— I apologize for the typo - will serve this site and they
40 will provide emergency services as well. Both Deputy Chief Hallenbeck and Orange County
41 Emergency Services have indicated they have no concerns over the development of the
42 proposed site. As we have identified in this abstract, and as with other solar projects, there is
43 no septic or well systems proposed for the property; so there will be no requirement for
44 environmental health review or permitting. We have met with representatives of the Department
45 of Environment Agriculture Parks and Recreation, who have provided you a memorandum
46 specifically on the Efland School for Girls — indicating in this memorandum, which you will find in
47 Attachment 3, that given the substantial buffer that is being proposed and the setback of the
48 array from the facility, they do not anticipate any negative impact on that historic structure.
49 Orange County Solid Waste has indicated the request, if approved, will not impact their ability to
50 provide services.
51
6
1 We have submitted this to the State Clearing House, as we are obligated to do by our ordinance
2 for environmental review. We have gotten no negative comments back from the State
3 concerning this project. It goes without saying that, if approved, this project will have to go
4 through all local permitting, including: storm water, erosion control, zoning, building and what
5 not. There will be issues identified and addressed at those permitting stages to address various
6 independent issues. One concern that has been brought to our attention, and I would like to
7 address to the Board now and have Strata Solar expand on this answer if they feel necessary.
8 One concern expressed that this will create additional runoff problems in this portion of the
9 property and even here for the manufacturing use. What I would like to remind the Board is, per
10 our ordinance and consistent with State law, Strata Solar is obligated to basically insure and
11 maintain existing runoff that is predevelopment, post development; meaning once all the trees
12 are removed; the solar panels are erected, all the storm water generated from the site has to be
13 maintained and kept on the site consistent with how the property existed before it was touched.
14 The property, based on the contour data on your site plan, actually slopes in this general
15 direction. So, as development occurs, existing storm water patterns will be maintained, and
16 Strata Solar has informed staff you should not see any negative impacts on adjacent property.
17 Having said that, I will just remind the Board one last time, once they go through the storm water
18 process they are going to have to guarantee to the satisfaction of County staff and according to
19 our local regulations: 1. There will be no off site impacts; and 2. They are going to be
20 maintaining the storm water flow as currently exists on the property.
21
22 With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, what I would like to do is turn this over to
23 Strata Solar and let them present their application. I will get into staff's recommendation at the
24 appropriate time, and if you have any initial questions for me, I will be more than happy to
25 answer them.
26
27 Buddy Hartley: Any questions or comments from the Board?Any questions or comments from
28 the planning board?
29
30 Commissioner Price: On the storm water runoff, how much land disturbance will there be?
31
32 Michael Harvey: I'm going to let Strata Solar answer that question, but what I will tell you quite
33 candidly is that there will be sufficient disturbance on this site to require a storm water permit.
34
35 Buddy Hartley: Would the applicant want to make the presentation to the Board?
36
37 Dave Neill: Thank you Chairmen, members of the Commission, members of the Planning
38 Board. My name is Dave Neill. I am an attorney with the law firm of Smith, Moore,
39 Leatherwood, 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2800, Raleigh, NC, and I have the pleasure of
40 appearing before you today on behalf of Strata Solar and the Stout Family Farm, under which
41 we have negotiated a long term ground lease for the —for the site that's been referenced by Mr.
42 Harvey.
43
44 This evening, we lawyers don't get to put on —we don't get to provide the evidence, but we do
45 get to play ringleader or ringmaster and provide those who can provide that evidence that you
46 need to render your decision. Let me give you a preview of the four witnesses that we would
47 bring for your information this evening. First, Louis Iannone, and I'll ask—sneaking up behind
48 me— Louis, immediately at my six o'clock — Project Director and site acquisition for Strata Solar,
49 who will speak about Strata Solar, its background, and its overall plans for this site, to the extent
50 that information has not been already provided by staff. Behind him in second will be Brent
51 Niemann, Public Engineer, with a focus in civil engineering, who is also employed by Strata and
7
1 is the project engineer on this project. He will speak to a number of the detailed engineering
2 questions, including the storm water runoff potential and grading issues that may be of interest
3 to the Board members and the planning board. Also, another engineer, Gabe Cantor, who is
4 the director of engineering at Strata Solar— his background is in mechanical and manufacturing
5 engineering. He has worked with Strata and has designed the electrical systems for Strata over
6 the years, and he will be available to speak to questions that may arise regarding matters
7 related to electrical engineering in particular for a facility such as this. And finally, as I know you
8 will all be excited to hear, a fourth witness, Mr. Rich Kirkland of Kirkland appraisals, and MAI
9 appraiser, licensed here in North Carolina, who will provide information on his findings, that are
10 at your place, relating to his market study and appraisal relating to the lack of offsite impacts
11 from a low impact development of this nature.
12
13 Rather than belabor this any further, we would just like to ask, to the extent it has not already
14 been done, that the application by Strata Solar be entered into the record as our evidence that
15 we will provide foundation for; and also that staff report, to the extent it has not already been, we
16 would endorse it and have it entered into the record, as it does provide a cogent summary of the
17 materials that you will hear later this evening. And with that, I will turn it over to Lois Iannone,
18 Site Acquisition and Project Director for the Stout Farm Project.
19
20 Louis Iannone: Thank you Board members and Planning Board members. Mr. Neill covered
21 quite a bit of my introduction. That's a list of the professionals that will speak. I am Louis
22 Iannone. I am a real estate developer and I work in site acquisition and entitlement for Strata
23 Solar. I've been a developer for 25 years.
24
25 Louis Iannone presented the following PowerPoint slides:
26 - - - - - - - - -
27 Strata Solar Development
28 Stout Farm
29 Solar Electric Power Plant
30 Orange County, NC
31 Public Hearing Presentation
32
33 Strata Representatives
34 Louis Iannone, Site Acquisition & Entitlement
35 Brent Neimann, PE, Civil Engineering
36 Gabe Cantor, PE, Electrical Engineering
37 Rich Kirkland, MAI, Real Estate Appraiser
38 Dave Neill, Land Use Attorney
39
40 Schedule of Presentation
41 Strata Solar
42 Solar Electric Power Plants
43 Similar Visual Impacts
44 Appraisal Analysis
45 Engineers' Affidavits
46 SUP Conditions
47
48 Strata Solar
49 NC is 5th ranked state in solar energy generation
50 Strata is largest solar developer in NC and the sixth largest solar contractor in the nation
51 Operate 50 5-MW farms
8
1 Will construct approx. 50 farms this year
2
3 Job Creation
4 80 professional staff: engineers, project managers, attorneys, accountants, technicians
5 500 — 1,200 construction staff
6 Average 1,000 NC jobs throughout the year
7
8 Fuquay Solar Farm (photo)
9
10 5MW Solar Farm
11 30-50 acres total, 25 ac panel footprint
12 25,000 3'x5' Solar Panels, fixed on aluminum racks, up to 10' high excluding utility poles
13 Use existing land contours; very minimal grading, 100 SF around each inverter pad
14 1% impervious surface
15
16 White Cross Solar Farm (photo)
17 Panels — Polycrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cell Panels; flat-blue color
18 Sun passes through glass, hits high-grade silicon and releases electrons in DC current
19 DC current is captured in a tributary system, converted to AC current and transferred
20 Duke Energy local lines
21 No fuel used, no waste, no emissions
22
23 NC Utility Commission issues Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience for Solar
24 Plant (NC Public Policy to promote renewable energy)
25 Power sold to Duke Power under a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
26 PPA is regulated by NC Utility Commission
27 Project is financed through combination of tax credit investors and PPA revenue
28
29 DENR Erosion Control Permit, DOT Driveway Permit and Local Municipal Electrical
30 Permit
31 Project does not impact municipal services, schools, utilities, etc.
32 Typical project is surrounded by installed or existing buffers which are subject to
33 conditions added by the municipality
34 Easily removed; Salvage Value > Removal Cost
35
36 Stout Solar Farm Area (photo)
37
38 Visually Similar Impacts
39 Single-Family Development
40 Manufacturing Facility
41 Warehouse
42 Public Works/ Public Utilities
43 Schools
44
45 Appraisal Analysis
46 Low Impact Development
47 No noise
48 No Emissions
49 No Odor
50 No Hazardous Materials
51 No Traffic
9
1
2 Appraisal Analysis
3 Much lower in height, traffic, noise, light etc. than most other development
4 "Dark at night."
5 Passive Use Harmonizes with Adjacent Uses
6 Establishes certainty of a long term, low intensity use
7
8 Professional Engineers' Affidavits
9 Will not endanger public health or safety
10 Project will meet all codes
11 Project will generate less traffic than one house.
12 No utilities are required or used.
13
14 Solar Farm Meets SUP Conditions
15 Use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare
16 Use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and the use is a public
17 necessity
18 Location and character of use are in harmony with area and in compliance with
19 Comprehensive Plan
20 - - - - - - - -
21 Brent Nieman, professional engineer, will speak to some civil engineering issues. Gabe Cantor,
22 PE runs all of our engineering, but he will speak principally to electrical engineering issues.
23 Rich Kirkland, MAI on some evaluation issues, and Mr. Neill you've heard. The schedule of the
24 presentation will be that I will tell you a little bit about Strata Solar; describe a solar electric
25 power plant; describe some similar visual — some uses that we feel like are similar visual
26 impacts; the appraisal analysis; and the engineers will speak and then just briefly touch on the
27 S.U.P. conditions.
28
29 North Carolina is the 5th ranked state in solar energy generation and Strata is the largest
30 developer in North Carolina, and we are actually the 6th largest developer in the nation. We
31 have just completed approximately 50, 5 megawatt farms, and this plant will be a template 5
32 megawatt project that we do. And our goal is to construct another 50 this year; so we are
33 operating 50 of these plants at this point. So we do everything from this point— site acquisition,
34 entitlement. We construct the plants. Of course we design it, get all necessary approvals, and
35 then we own and operate the plants for 20 years or more.
36
37 We create quite a bit of jobs. We have 80 professional staff approximately in Chapel Hill. That
38 includes engineers, project managers, attorneys, accountants, technicians; and we employ
39 anywhere from 500 to 1200 construction staff on about a dozen jobs at one - at any given time.
40 It's about a 3 to 4 month construction cycle, so —and about 100 to 200 people on each job, so
41 we can have quite a bit of employees at any point in time. We average about 1,000 employees
42 over the course of a year in North Carolina.
43
44 This is a typical 5 megawatt farm. This is in Wake County, in Fuquay. That's a 40 or 50 acre
45 project with a 25 acre panel footprint - a typical project. A typical 5 megawatt farm is 30 to 50
46 acres with a 25 acre footprint, approximately 25,000 3 x 5 solar panels fixed on aluminum racks,
47 up to ten feet high, excluding a handful of utility poles that we will install to connect to the
48 existing power lines. We basically do not grade. We will clear trees and use existing land
49 contours, very minimal grading, 4 or 5 ten foot square 100 square foot pads inside the plant that
50 have an inverter and a transformer. And then we will re-plant the project, and at the end of the
51 day the project will have approximately 1 percent impervious surface.
10
1 This is a project just completed in Orange County. This is the White Cross Solar Farm. This
2 gives you an idea of—that's just a pretty good perspective of what panels look like and how we
3 follow the existing contours. I feel like that's been very positively received in the County -The
4 White Cross Solar Farm. The panels are polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell panels. As you
5 just saw, they are flat blue in color. Sun hits the panels, hits really what is very similar to
6 computer chip material, and that creates a small amount of DC current. Each one of those
7 panels is like a giant tributary. It's sort of like water coming down a mountain. The DC current
8 accumulates in this tributary system. It's converted to AC current in each one of these inverters
9 and then the transformers convert it to exactly the same power that's in the Duke Energy local
10 lines. This is a completely passive system. There is not fuel; there is no waste; no emissions;
11 no noise; no moving parts; no operator. It's a truly passive renewable energy system.
12
13 We are required to obtain, from the North Carolina utility commission, a certificate of public
14 necessity and convenience for each plant. We've obtained probably 70 of these at this point.
15 And it is the policy— it is the public policy of the state of North Carolina to promote renewable
16 energy. The power is sold to Duke Power under a long term 20 year power purchase
17 agreement contract. That contract is also regulated by the utility commission, and the projects
18 are financed through a combination of tax credit investors and the income from these power
19 purchase agreements. We will of course obtain all necessary DEANR permits, DOT permits
20 and a local electrical permit. We don't usually get a building permit, because we don't really do
21 any construction. The project will not impact municipal services, schools, utilities. A typical
22 project is surrounded by either the installed buffers Mr. Harvey spoke about, or has existing
23 buffers, and those buffers are generally subject to conditions that you all could set. At the end
24 of the 20 or 30 years, if the project is extended, they are easily removed, and the site is put back
25 to —close to - its original condition, and in general, the salvage value exceeds the removal.
26
27 This - I think Mr. Harvey had a better map—shows the location of the project, and it's
28 surrounded by a variety of uses - I believe within the center—in a long range plan area-
29 designated area for commercial development. These are some of the uses around the facility
30 and things that we think create a similar impact- a large scale single family residential
31 development; a manufacturing facility; warehouse; there is a public works facility adjacent to the
32 site; a large school facility. Mr. Kirkland will speak in more detail about this, but solar farms are
33 low impact developments. They create no noise, no emission, no odor, no hazardous materials
34 and almost no traffic—one trip a month to maintain the site. They are much lower in height,
35 traffic, noise, light, etc. than most other development. They are literally dark at night. We don't
36 propose any lighting on this sight. It is a passive use and it generally harmonizes with adjacent
37 uses and it establishes the certainty of a long term, low intensity use. Our engineers will speak
38 to the following issues in general. This project will not endanger the public health or safety. The
39 project will meet all of your codes. The project will generate less than trip per month, and no
40 utilities are required or used.
41
42 In conclusion, these are your general SUP conditions, and we would just like to close by saying
43 that we feel like we are going to present evidence that we meet all three of these conditions.
44 The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare. The use will
45 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and the use is a public necessity. And
46 the location and character of the use is in harmony with the area, and in compliance with your
47 comprehensive plan. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I would be glad to
48 answer them.
49
50 Dave Neill: Mr. Iannone, in the Board's package, under tab one is a document titled, Affidavit of
51 Louis Iannone. Is this your statement?
11
1
2 Louis lannone: Yes
3
4 Dave Neill: Is it truthful?
5
6 Louis lannone: Yes, sir.
7
8 Dave Neill: And does it contain your signature that was given under oath?
9
10 Louis lannone: Yes
11
12 Dave Neill: We would offer the affidavit of Louis lannone into the record.
13 Our next witness is Brent Neiman, civil engineer and project engineer for the project.
14
15 Brent Neimann: Good evening. My name is Brent Neimann. I am a civil engineer with Strata
16 Solar. I have been sworn into the record this evening. I prepared the plan that was submitted
17 with the application. I am very familiar with this type of development. I have been with Strata
18 Solar for about a year and a half. In that year and a half I have worked on approximately a
19 hundred solar farm sites of this size or larger in general. This is the standard size project that we
20 undertake. It is a five megawatt AC facility. This particular site is pretty much covered in
21 vegetation as it exists today. As Mr. Harvey spoke to, we will prepare the necessary approvals.
22 We worked closely with Wesley Poole on our White Cross Farm, and we will prepare the
23 erosion and sedimentation control plans that are consistent with the ordinances. As he spoke
24 to, there are existing streams and wetlands in the southwest corner of the property. In general,
25 the property slopes that direction, including from the northeast towards the southwest. As the
26 other gentleman has spoken to, this is a very low impact development. We don't propose any
27 grading. The only grading we do will be the installation of the access, which we will obtain a
28 NCDOT driveway permit for. And there is a minor amount of grading at the inverter areas to
29 divert surface water away from the facilities- basically just to keep them dry, but that is very
30 minimal activity. In general this is a very pervious project. We have provided a letter to Mr.
31 Harvey as well, from the state of North Carolina DEANR, division of water quality, to that effect.
32 The panels on the racks have approximately one inch gap between each panel, and the racks
33 themselves have anywhere from four inches to eight inches between those racks. Water hits
34 the panels, finds those voids between the panels, hits the ground, and you have surface
35 drainage just like you had before. No change in the surface pattern, so there is no introduction
36 of additional water. We are not moving water to other areas of the site. It hits the ground as it
37 did pre-development and continues on that path. You do have a requirement in your ordinance
38 for a pre and post calculation for the one year 24 hour storm. We will certainly meet those
39 requirements as well.
40
41 A little bit about our construction practices -We utilize logging mats for temporary stabilization of
42 the site. We don't use gravel. The logging mats are placed on site to prevent rutting, or in wet
43 areas, or as construction sites go - during rain events it's going to get muddy. So those are in
44 place to allow access of material, specifically where the staging area is for delivery of material.
45 The staging areas are not nearly large enough to store material. We strategically plan deliveries
46 and installation of material so that the material sits for a very minor amount of time—a day or
47 two — before it is placed into the areas of the site that it will be installed in, and then it is
48 immediately installed. That staging area is temporary only. There will not be any permanent
49 storage of any materials on the site. As they stated, there is no noise associated with this. It is
50 a fixed rack. We drive the post into the ground with a machine similar to what NCDOT uses to
51 drive guardrail posts. Embedment depths range anywhere from three feet to eight feet,
12
1 depending on soil conditions. This site -we can drive the post in approximately 3 to 4 days, so
2 it's a very quick operation. From there, the racking —the underground begins. We do some
3 underground trenching toward the inverters. The only overhead we do is when we interconnect
4 to the utility once we've converted it to AC power and stepped up the voltage. So we have
5 some underground going and the racking begins, and this is a progressive project; so, as one
6 operation has started with the racking and it progresses to another area, in that area we can
7 start to put the modules on the rack. So again, the material is staged and it's put right into use.
8 The typical construction time from for this is anywhere from three to four months. We do have,
9 you know, some clearing to do on this particular site; so it may take us a couple weeks longer to
10 get through those trees. But it's about a four month process on a site like this for us, from the
11 day that we show up to put the driveway in to the day that we stabilize the site. As they
12 discussed, we will be grading this at the end, just to smooth everything out; prepare the bed for
13 seed; and we will seed and straw this. We have typically been using Bermuda grass. That's
14 what we hope to do. If not, it will be some other native grass that we can get to grow, hopefully.
15
16 Mr. Harvey spoke to it. We do have some buffers proposed, and we will evaluate the potential
17 to use the existing trees wherever possible; and if they don't satisfy the buffer requirements or if
18 the species is not right, then we will plant the buffer per— I believe it's a type D land use buffer.
19 So we have discussed this, and we are aware of it. This project generates almost no traffic,
20 following construction. Everything is monitored remotely. Each inverter area —we can see
21 down to the combinations of panels together, what's performing and what's not performing; so
22 the maintenance is basically an as needed. So, it's monitored on the web. We can see when
23 it's making power, when it's not making power, and we can tell which areas of the sites are a
24 problem and do a lot of pre-diagnosis before we come out. Quite often, the most frequent trips
25 for maintenance are actually the vegetation maintenance. So we take full responsibility for that
26 and have that in house as well. We mow the grass. We trim the bushes—whatever is
27 necessary for the farm —fertilize. So that's - it generates far less traffic than any single family
28 home would, because there is no manned activity there on a daily basis. This project doesn't
29 affect traffic obviously, because of that requirement. There is no noise associated with the
30 project. There is no dust. There is no odor. There is no light reflection. The panels are
31 designed to absorb the light, not reflect the light, so there is no glare. I spoke to the storm
32 drainage. We will comply with the Orange County requirements. I believe that the location and
33 character of this use is in harmony with the area in which it's located. It's a very low intensity,
34 low impact development project. We have built many farms in this same type of environment.
35 So, to summarize, it is my professional opinion, based on my experience as an engineer of
36 record on many rural solar farm facilities in North Carolina and my familiarity with the proposal
37 and its design, an establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed solar farm will not
38 be detrimental to endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. It is
39 also my professional opinion, based on the familiarity with this proposal and my review of the
40 applicable provisions of the Orange County UDO, that the proposed solar farm facility meets all
41 of the requirements of the UDO for issuance of the requested special use permit. I'll be happy
42 to answer questions you may have.
43
44 Dave Neill: Mr. Neiman, you know what I'm going to ask you. Are you familiar with this
45 instrument?
46
47 Brent Neimann: Yes, I am.
48
49 Dave Neill: Is this instrument titled, Affidavit of Brent Neimann, PE, and is it a fair summary of
50 your testimony this evening?
51
13
1 Brent Neimann: Yes, it is.
2
3 Dave Neill: And did you execute it under oath?
4
5 Brent Neimann: Yes, I did.
6
7 Dave Neill: We would offer tab 2, Affidavit of Brent Neimann, into evidence. I would also ask,
8 Mr. Nieman, do these panels move, track, with the sun? How does that work?
9
10 Brent Neimann: No, this is a fixed tilt system. Our panels are oriented due south, sometimes a
11 slight adjustment to the west, depending on the topography; but this site is set up at due south.
12 It's a fixed tilt. It's tilted at about 25 degrees from horizontal, but there are no moving parts.
13
14 Dave Neill: Our next witness is Gabe Cantor, electrical engineer, and Director of Engineering
15 for Strata Solar.
16
17 Gabe Cantor: Hello, my name is Gabe Cantor. I have been sworn in this evening, and I have
18 been asked to talk about— give an opinion about— if there's any potential health effects from
19 electromagnetic fields generated from the proposed solar farm. Electromagnetic fields are
20 generated whenever there is a charge that's moving. So, whenever electricity is used, an
21 electromagnetic field is generated. They are generated from natural sources, such as the
22 earth's magnetic field, such as solar flares, or from power distribution lines. Electromagnetic
23 fields decrease rapidly with distance, so as you double the distance, the field intensity will
24 increase by the cube of that distance. So, double the distance and the field intensity decreases
25 by 1/8; triple the distance, it's decreased by 1/27, and so on and so forth. At the perimeter, the
26 electromagnetic field generated by our equipment is indistinguishable from background
27 electromagnetic fields. In — I guess in summary, I mean, based on my education, research and
28 experience in the solar industry, it is my professional opinion that the proposed farm does not
29 generate any more EMF than the existing electrical lines and will not materially endanger the
30 public health or safety.
31
32 Dave Neill: I have before me the affidavit of Gabriel Cantor, PE. Are you familiar with this
33 document?
34
35 Gabe Cantor: Yes, I am?
36
37 Dave Neill: Is it a fair summary of your testimony?
38
39 Gabe Cantor: Yes, it is?
40
41 Dave Neill: Dave Neill: And on the last page, is this your signature, given under oath?
42
43 Gabe Cantor: Yes, it is.
44
45 Dave Neill: And we would offer tab 3, affidavit of Gabriel Cantor, PE into evidence this evening.
46 Our final witness is Rich Kirkland, of Kirkland appraisals. I would direct your attention to tab 4.
47 In addition to the affidavit that hopefully his testimony will support, you will find behind that, the
48 Kirkland Appraisal market study that I understand Mr. Kirkland will be referencing frequently; so
49 you may want to have that out.
50
14
1 Rich Kirkland: Good evening. Again, my name is Rick Kirkland. I am a commercial general
2 certified appraiser in North Carolina. I've been working the Triangle as an appraiser for 19
3 years. Focus is commercial, but a big focus of what I do is land. I do a lot of land appraisals,
4 subdivisions and things of that nature. I was hired by Strata Solar to look at the question of
5 whether or not there is going to be an impact on the property value of the adjoining properties to
6 the solar farm. To that end, I have visited a number of solar farms across the state. I have
7 done research through the appraisal institute's loan library. I have gone out and looked at raw
8 data. I have gone out and looked at solar farms; looked at - for what we call matched pairs. The
9 textbook answer for whether or not a property is going to be impacted —the way you look for
10 that, the appraisal institute teaches, is you look for what's called a paired sale analysis, or a
11 matched pair. Essentially, you are basically looking for two properties that are identical in every
12 way, except for one difference, and that is what you are measuring for. In this case we are
13 measuring for, adjacent to a solar farm. The best example I was able to find was in Goldsboro.
14 There is a solar farm that Strata Solar built, called the AM Best Solar Farm, and there is a new
15 subdivision being built adjoining this solar farm. They have lots that back up to the solar farm,
16 and they have lots that don't. They are all being marketed the same. They are all being sold.
17 There are a number of sales that have happened; I believe there are five that have happened in
18 2013, of homes that back up to the solar farm. These are selling for the same houses, for the
19 same floor plans as the ones that are across the street or down the street away from the solar
20 farm. I talked to the brokers. They said the solar farm is a non-factor as far as things go. 1
21 walked down the street. I knocked on doors. I talked to the folks who bought these homes that
22 live next to the solar farm. No one expressed any concern about it. Some of the property
23 owners were aware that the solar farm was under construction when they bought, and some
24 were not. Regardless of whether they knew or didn't know, they were paying the same prices.
25 So, this really is a strong indication that there is really no impact on these adjoining property
26 values. Homes in this subdivision are selling in the $240,000 to $260,000 price range. And so,
27 that is the textbook way you look for this. This is — as far as it goes, there is nothing else to
28 adjust for. These are identical uses. Since then, it's not actually in my report, but I've actually
29 found a couple of other matched pairs that I would just briefly discuss. Specifically, the White
30 Cross - the tract of land —the parent tract that that solar farm was built on —They sold off that
31 piece in 2013, and it sold for a price — I can reference it here— I'll tell you the right amount— It's
32 selling for $7,500 an acre. Again, I've done a lot of work in that area lately for the local
33 environmental groups. Looking at the recent sales, there was a sale—very similar size tract of
34 land —27 acres sold for $7,900 an acre, slightly more - the comp that's not next to the solar
35 farm, but that one also had mature timber on it, which is the difference that I saw there. So, that
36 again showed that, for residential agriculture land, no impact adjacent to the solar farm. I've
37 also identified property that I reference in my report as the Zebulon Solar Farm. It's in Zebulon,
38 North Carolina. Some of the information there is actually dated. Since I wrote this report last
39 month, I've identified since then that a tract of 25 lots — a package of 25 lots —that are
40 referenced in there as "The Meadows of Duke's Lake." Those sold to a builder. A builder
41 picked up all of those lots — paid $25,000 a lot for those. Again, that's a package deal where
42 you buy 20 some odd lots. You don't— it's like when you buy a can of coke. If you buy a case,
43 you're going to pay a lot less per can than you would if you just bought one can. Same thing
44 with builders when they buy lots; when they buy a big package, they get a discount of 30 to 50
45 percent off of sort of market value. But I compare those to some other bulk sales that have
46 happened in that Wendell/Zebulon area in 2013, and there were two other sales of similar
47 packaged lots that were selling for $15,000 a lot and $12,000 a lot. So, again, this one that was
48 next to this proposed solar plant actually was selling stronger than other similar developments in
49 that area. So, all the matched pairs are really showing strong information that there is no impact
50 from the solar farm adjacency—that it's not really affecting property values in any way. And that
51 goes in well with how you normally look for what would cause a problem, or a discount, or a
15
1 diminishment in value. There is normally something you would point to, such as a use that is
2 going to cause a lot of noise, or something that's going to bring an odor, or something that's
3 going to bring an awful lot of traffic to that area. But, the solar farm is not going to have any of
4 those things. It's silent. I've visited over 25 of these farms so far, and I have never heard
5 anything outside the fence. I have never smelled anything. I've never experienced anything
6 that would suggest to me that there was an issue. The one issue that folks come up with and I'll
7 point out, is appearance, you know, they don't like the way it looks. I've looked and included in
8 there— I've shown pictures of greenhouses, which is the most similar use I can think of other
9 than —well it's the most similar other type of development use I have found. I take pictures of
10 greenhouses all the time now. Again, they are very similar, very compatible use, which makes
11 sense. A greenhouse really is just trapping solar energy also. And again — proximity to
12 greenhouses —there has never been anything to suggest that has ever been a problem either.
13 So, for all those reasons, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm is going to
14 have no impact on adjoining property values. I also looked at the question of harmonious use,
15 and I've broken down a list of the adjoining uses on a number of the solar farms I've looked at,
16 and it shows that most of the adjoining uses where these are going are residential or agricultural
17 in nature. Most of these are not being located in industrial areas necessarily. There certainly
18 are some examples where they are in those transition areas, but most of these solar farms are
19 being located in areas where agricultural and rural uses are transitioning into more residential
20 suburban areas. That is one of the other reasons I'd conclude that this is a harmonious use,
21 and so it is my professional opinion that this is a harmonious use for that.
22
23 Dave Neill: Mr. Kirkland, I have here under tab 4 in the Board and commission's package, the
24 affidavit of Richard C. Kirkland, MAI. Are you familiar with that document and its contents?
25
26 Rich Kirkland: I am.
27
28 Dave Neill: And they are truthful?
29
30 Rich Kirkland: Yes
31
32 Dave Neill: And that is your signature, given under oath?
33
34 Rich Kirkland: It is.
35
36 Dave Neill: We would offer tab 4, the affidavit of Mr. Kirkland, as our last exhibit of evidence for
37 this matter for our case. Unless there are questions from members of the Board, or from the
38 commission, we would offer to the Board, our application and ask for your support, as I know
39 the seat still has to go before the planning board and back to the commission later on. We
40 believe that we've provided competent material and substantial evidence of the requirements
41 and compliance with the requirements of the special use permit, a class A special use permit,
42 and we stand ready to answer any additional questions and would also welcome questions or
43 comments from others who are here this evening who may have competent evidence to offer.
44
45 Buddy Hartley: Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
46
47 Commissioner Rich: I have a question about the noise, or lack of noise. I met with someone
48 today that is not—that is going to be a neighbor to another proposed solar farm, not this one,
49 and they are concerned about the noise. It's just that hum. Their property backs into where the
50 proposed farm is going to be. So, can you just talk a little bit about— I mean I understood what
51 he said, that you can only hear it if you are close to it. But, if your property actually backs into
16
1 where the proposed farm is going to be, if you are sitting on your deck and reading the
2 newspaper, are you going to hear that hum?
3
4 Gabriel Cantor: We typically locate - the inverter has a fan for cooling purposes. That's the
5 piece of equipment that converts the DC electricity that's generated by the panels in the fields to
6 AC, which is the same type of electricity that flows through the wires in your house. That piece
7 of equipment has a fan for cooling purposes and a transformer associated, so there is a small
8 hum. Those are typically located in the middle of the field. In this case, the closest one to a
9 property line is about 300 feet. You would not be able to hear that until you approach within
10 about 50 feet has been my experience. So, you have to be inside of the property line to hear it.
11
12 Commissioner Price: I have a question about the vegetation maintenance. You say you are
13 going to plant grass. I don't know how you're going to mow it underneath all those panels, but
14 I'll let you worry about that; but what about other vegetation? I mean, is there going to be
15 weeding, or you mentioned fertilizer? Will there also be any other pesticides, and how much,
16 because I am concerned about that runoff?
17
18 Brent Niemann: We actually have specialized mowing equipment that can make a pass
19 underneath the panels. It's actually pretty interesting. It works pretty well. We wouldn't use any
20 more treatment to the grass than any other residential home would to establish a yard. So, to
21 the extent necessary to maintain weeds —we would not be applying any pesticides above and
22 beyond what you would apply to your house to grow grass. We treat it just like a lawn. It will be
23 just like a lawn.
24
25 Commissioner Price: So, would you be able— I mean I'm asking you this now; but for future,
26 would you be able to provide a list of what chemicals you would be using, and how much. 1
27 mean personally I don't use any on my lawn, so I can't gauge.
28
29 Brent Niemann: Ok, so I personally have someone treat my lawn at home.
30
31 Commissioner Price: I mean if you can't give an answer now -
32
33 Brent Niemann: I don't know the specifics.
34
35 Commissioner Price: Well could you provide that for us, or to staff?
36
37 Brent Niemann: Sure, yes, we can do that, absolutely.
38
39 Commissioner McKee: It was mentioned earlier in the presentation, about the runoff basically,
40 as I understood it, staying on the property. Will there be—Are you talking about building
41 sediment basins and control ponds to keep that on the site, or how are you going about that? 1
42 am hearing some concern over that.
43
44 Brent Niemann: Sure, as any development project, especially with the amount of clearing and
45 growing associated with this project— I believe your question earlier— I forgot to address that.
46 It's about 44 acres, is about the project disturbance acreage. Yes, we will be providing
47 sedimentation and erosion control features; more than likely a sediment basin or two, depending
48 on topography and location relative to the project. Post construction, at the White Cross Solar
49 Farm, because we have such low impervious values, less than one percent, we are able to
50 install typically, vegetated swales to treat the runoff.
51
17
1 Chair Jacobs: I have a question for Mr. Harvey. It's not dissimilar to Commissioner Rich's
2 question. How many solar farms do we currently have in Orange County?
3
4 Michael Harvey: We have one solar facility, the White Cross Solar farm that was permitted by
5 this Board with the issuance of a Class A special use permit. We have several private property
6 owners who have erected solar facilities on their property. Several examples include: Mr. Bob
7 Nutter, off of Dairyland Road; there is one at the Eco-Institute off of Pickards Mountain Road;
8 and we have several small properties that have solar facilities, solar panels, either on the
9 houses or on the residential property. But, as far public utility facilities, this will be our second.
10
11 Chair Jacobs: And are you aware of any complaints that have been brought to you by
12 adjoining property owners regarding those panels or facilities.
13
14 Michael Harvey: I can testify I have not received any noise complaints, and there have been no
15 investigations conducted by the planning department or the Sheriff's department, who would
16 obviously enforce a noise ordinance.
17
18 Johnny Randall: Now, I am all for solar. I have a solar water heater. I hope to have photo-
19 voltaics on my house, and some of my best friends are in the solar business; but I would like to
20 make a couple of comments to Strata Solar about this, and I'm sorry if I haven't had the
21 opportunity or made the opportunity to make these before, as a planning board member. But, in
22 terms of property value, I don't know if they've considered the fact that this wooded site is
23 between 1-85 and the residential area, which I'm sure provides a significant sound buffer. And 1
24 don't know how that will affect what will be coming from 1-85 subsequent to the logging of that
25 site. I know that there is railroad track right behind those residences, so you know they get
26 intermittent noise, I'm sure; but that's different than a constant sound from 1-85.
27
28 The other comment is also for Strata Solar. This is clearly not a significant natural area;
29 however, looking at aerial photos, it's largely hardwood and maturing trees and I would just like
30 to say that for future site choices, I would encourage you to choose sites that are perhaps
31 redevelopment sites, gray fields, brown fields that would be more in line with your sustainability
32 mission. Because losing 52 acres of trees, which are going to suck up not only pollutants, but a
33 lot of carbon dioxide and sequester that over the long term, kind of offsets what you —the
34 philosophy—What I believe your organization, your company, does is to reduce carbon
35 emissions to the environment, but by taking out 52 acres, there's 52 acres that's not going to be
36 taking up carbon, sequestering that. But, at the same time I know this can be re-developed or
37 developed in other ways, apartment complex for instance, which you know - So, I'm just pointing
38 that off for your future land use. And as far as the runoff goes, let's say there are, you know on
39 the low side, a hundred trees per acre, and you've got 52 acres, 5,200 trees. A modest size
40 tree can transpire over 100 gallons of water per day; therefore, 520,000 gallons of water per day
41 could be leaving that site. So, you might need to calculate that as well, in terms of about how
42 much water is going to be running off the site. I don't know if you're going to check the amount
43 of runoff post tree harvest or pre tree harvest, but I think you should do that post tree harvest.
44 That's all I've got.
45
46
47 Megan Toben: Hi thanks for the opportunity to jump in here. My name is Megan Toben and
48 I've been sworn in. I'm going to tell you the truth; I actually came to speak in support of the
49 agricultural zoning, which we're going to talk about later. But, I didn't realize Strata was her
50 proposing one of these, and I actually was one of the first—our farm was one of the first sites
51 that Strata put a solar farm on, probably was it like six years ago on Pickards Meadow. It's
18
1 been three or four, I don't know, it's been awhile, and it's been wonderful. They come quietly
2 and take care of whatever needs to be taken care of. We usually don't even notice that they
3 come. They take care of the grass. The grass is beautiful there. It's better than it is in our
4 pastures. The solar panels are gorgeous and it's actually a place of pride for us and for our
5 neighborhood, that, you know, North Carolina was maybe lagging in renewable energy
6 development before Strata came in, and now, you know if we have the choice between any of
7 the choices we have for energy, be it hydro fracturing or coal or nuclear, this is by far and away
8 the one that we want to support, Orange County. So, please give them every courtesy.
9 Thanks.
10
11 Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to ask a technical question, because Johnny Randall
12 was sworn, but we didn't enter into the record what his credentials are to make those
13 statements. I don't know if that's important, but he does have credentials. You might want to
14 enter those into the record.
15
16 Johnny Randall: I am a professional biologist, plant ecologist, and botanist— Master's, PhD in
17 botany and plant ecology.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
20
21 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
22 the County Board of Commissioners in time for the May 8, 2014 BOCC meeting.
23 2. Adjourn the public hearing until May 8, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning
24 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
25
26 Commissioner Rich: Commissioner Dorosin brought to my attention that we have two
27 recommendations on the back of the presentation and only one recommendation in the packet.
28 Is the recommendation in the packet the one that we're going with?
29
30 Chair Jacobs: On the sheet that I'm operating from, there is only one.
31
32 Michael Harvey: If I may -We have a recommendation in the packet to take this, essentially to
33 adjourn your public hearing to May 8 and submit this to the planning board for them to move
34 forward. As I discussed with Chair Jacobs and Mr. Hartley, given some of the comments we
35 received from adjacent property owners via email, we suggested if the Board had additional
36 questions or comments, that there was an alternative that this Board could conceivably engage
37 in, with respect to adjourning this hearing to a day and time specific if they felt additional
38 testimony was necessary. Which is why, Commissioner Rich, you are seeing this on your
39 PowerPoint presentation; but the motion obviously was to go with staff's recommendation as it
40 is currently contained in the abstract.
41
42 Chair Jacobs: So, is it your intention to ask for a substitute motion, or are you satisfied with the
43 motion?
44
45 Commissioner Rich: No, I just think for me it would have been good to have both of these
46 here, so I would have known what we were doing. It's fine. I'm fine with that motion.
47
48 Commissioner Gordon: I have a question about this. If we don't continue the public hearing
49 until March 18th, then there won't be a chance for applicant and staff to meet with local property
50 owners. Is that correct?
51
19
1 Michael Harvey: Without speaking for Strata Solar, in your packet, and it has already been
2 introduced into evidence, Strata Solar has committed to meeting with adjacent property owners
3 to address or discuss their concerns. Staff has also indicated to Strata Solar that we will be
4 meeting with them with the property owners. There will be time. Obviously you can accept
5 written evidence, written updates, as the planning board can. I think, Commissioner Rich,just
6 to further explain why you have the dual recommendations. We didn't get adjacent property
7 owner comments until after the, obviously, abstract went out. So, we were trying to, quote,
8 hedge our bets and give the Board as much leeway, and give the Board as much support in
9 terms of a motion that would address your needs.
10
11 Commissioner Gordon: Well I'll move a substitute motion of the second recommendation.
12
13 Chair Jacobs: Well why don't we hear from Commissioner Dorosin first. He's been waiting to
14 speak.
15
16 Commissioner Dorosin: I just want to ask a procedural question. We're having this public
17 hearing today. We're going to vote to send it to the planning board for their consideration, and
18 they're going to hold a—receive public comment in their meetings?
19
20 Michael Harvey: They can receive written comments per the Unified Development Ordinance
21 (UDO), which become part of the record and part of their deliberation. Now, if I am an
22 interested party and wish to comment or talk about what I've written, that's been allowed at the
23 planning board; but typically it's only written comment.
24
25 Commissioner Dorosin: So there is going to be some— It's going to go to the planning board.
26 They're going to take in everything they heard today. They're going to review it. They're going
27 to make some comments, maybe, and come back, and we're going to meet again. This is going
28 to come back, according to the first motion, on May 8th, and then at that time we're going to not
29 take any additional public comment. It's going to be one of those fake public hearings, where
30 it's a public hearing, but the public is not allowed to give comment, and then we're going to vote
31 at that time on the CUP, presumably.
32
33 Chair Jacobs: Yes, presumably, right, with whatever additional materials were presented to
34 the planning board, which presumably could include neighbor's concerns as addressed to Strata
35 Solar or the planning board.
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin: Right. Well, I just—So, I understand that's the way that things have
38 been done, and that's how it's been set up; but it strikes me as being not the most efficient
39 process. If we value the planning board's input in this, I would think that input would be relevant
40 to the actual public hearing where the public gets to comment as well. So, I just wonder if, in
41 the future, it wouldn't make more sense to have the planning board review the application and
42 bring forward a recommendation, and then we — and that is part of this public hearing that
43 people get to comment on. So they get to see what the planning board has said. They get to
44 see how the applicant has responded to the planning board's suggestions, and then — Now of
45 course it might take another round after that, but conceivably at this point, we could have a vote,
46 with all the people here. So, maybe this is something to put onto our procedural review agenda,
47 but it seems to me that this doesn't seem like the most efficient or expeditious way of doing it.
48 And I have concerns about that.
49
50 Michael Harvey: If I may add, that subject matter is actually coming up later this evening.
51
20
1 Commissioner Dorosin: Excellent. I wish it had come up first, but thank you. I know there is
2 some discussion about this.
3
4 Michael Harvey: And again, without belaboring the point, we have a staff recommendation.
5 We wanted to provide you with an additional recommendation if you felt it may be necessary to
6 continue this public hearing to allow any additional public comment. So, we wanted to give you
7 both concepts of what you would like to do.
8
9 Commissioner Rich: I'll be quick. I wasn't criticizing. I actually think it's important to see the
10 different options that— I mean often we don't see the different options, and I think it's important
11 to see that. I wasn't criticizing.
12
13 Michael Harvey: And I didn't take it that way. I just wanted to make sure you understood why,
14 all of a sudden, you are seeing it here instead of also in the staff report.
15
16 Commissioner Gordon: So staff doesn't have a recommendation.
17
18 Michael Harvey: Staff's recommendation is that you send this to the planning board, adjourn
19 this to May 8th. If you believe additional testimony is necessary, you cannot adjourn the public
20 hearing until May 8th, because no additional testimony will be accepted. If you believe additional
21 public comment is necessary then our recommendation then will be that you adjourn this public
22 hearing until the March 18th regular meeting where you reconvene the public hearing to accept
23 additional public comment.
24
25 Commissioner Gordon: Otherwise, it goes to the planning board and people can write their
26 comments.
27
28 Michael Harvey: Yes, ma'am.
29
30 Commissioner Dorosin: So, I just wanted to ask, could we, instead of—Could we do some
31 combination of this? In other words, couldn't we potentially amend the motion on the floor to
32 allow for additional public comment when it comes back on May 8th? You just described it as
33 saying, if we wanted more public comment we should set it for March 8th, and then presumably
34 at that point we would adopt the proposal that's on the floor. And I'm just wondering if—
35 Couldn't we do them both at the same?
36
37 Michael Harvey: My concern would be that the planning board would then begin deliberations
38 with comments made this evening. Any additional comments, this would be a reconvening of
39 the public hearing with just the County Commissioners. So, the planning board would begin
40 deliberation on this item based on everything they've received here this evening, and I wouldn't
41 advise the planning board to make a recommendation until after the March 18th if you do
42 continue this. Because, obviously they're basing their decisions on matters entered this
43 hearing, but they aren't going to have comments from March 18th until afterwards. So, if you
44 forward this to the planning board for the March regular meeting, they can discuss the merits of
45 the application based on the testimony they've received, but they can't make a decision if there
46 is going to be an extended public hearing; which is why it is just more appropriate, if you're
47 going to extend the public hearing, to do that, and then submit this to the planning board for
48 their April regular meeting, where they have all the facts to deliberate on.
49
50 Commissioner McKee: I realize and also agree that the process is a bit cumbersome. My
51 concern is that we not change up the process in the middle of a project, that we move this
21
1 forward under the process that we've got; and then that we, either later in this when we talk
2 about it, or in a later meeting we discuss what process we need to go to, if we need to go to
3 another one. But, I would prefer to go ahead with the process we've got in place, and move this
4 project forward.
5
6 Commissioner Gordon: I have a procedural question for the attorney or somebody, and that
7 is, some people just came in who wanted to speak. We haven't actually closed the public
8 hearing yet. We've got a motion on the floor and a second, but we haven't voted on it. If people
9 wanted to withdraw those motions and let people speak, could they?
10
11 James Bryan: Yes.
12
13 Commissioner Gordon: Well that's what I would suggest.
14
15 Commissioner Pelissier: Well that was also one of the things that I wanted to say is that we
16 should accept additional public comment, and I do want to make another comment about the
17 public hearing. I thought, and I can't remember at the last meeting, that when we make such
18 motions that we adjourn the public hearing to receive the planning board comments, when it
19 comes back, it's not really a public hearing; so I wouldn't call it a fake public hearing. And I think
20 we have to make sure we have the correct title so that we are not misleading anybody in the
21 public about what we're doing, and this is our public hearing, tonight.
22
23 Commissioner Dorosin: So, we are the body that makes the decision on the CUP, right, not
24 the planning board? So, I don't understand why their deliberations would necessarily have to be
25 subject to testimony under oath or anything else. And I think if we are going to receive the
26 planning board's comments as part of the record, then the public hearing is not over. So, either
27 that becomes part of the record of the public hearing, and so then there's opportunity for more
28 comment; so again I think it's either, if we're taking more evidence, which is what I think the
29 planning board recommendation would be considered, then the public hearing is still open; and
30 if it's still open, then anybody should be allowed to comment; and if it's closed, then there
31 shouldn't be any evidence added to the record, which is why the planning board's
32 recommendation should come at the front end.
33
34 Chair Jacobs: Let me suggest two things —one is that I think there is sentiment on the board, if
35 the motion maker and the seconder are comfortable, to table consideration of the motion to
36 entertain whether there is any additional public comment at this time—secondly, as far as your
37 point, as Mr. Harvey pointed out, we have a whole discussion of process, and I think some of
38 your points relate directly to that process and are well taken in regard to calling something a
39 public hearing when it's not, or else actually having a public hearing, if that's what we're going to
40 call it. But, I would suggest that, while your points are well made and well taken, that looking at
41 all the people who are here for other items, and the fact that we are going to discuss this toward
42 the end of the meeting, that we just at this point table the motion for consideration until we see if
43 there additional public comments and then have this discussion of process; and we could
44 always talk about how it may relate to other items. But, at this point, move forward and see if
45 there are people who had comments about this proposal. If you do, you need to come identify
46 yourself, and come forward and be sworn. If you sent written comment, then it will be included
47 in the record anyway, and you don't necessarily have to speak.
48
49 Commissioner McKee: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw or table the motion until we get further
50 public comment, since we have someone who wishes to speak, if the seconder will agree to
51 that.
22
1
2 Commissioner Price: Oh, I definitely will agree.
3
4 Chair Jacobs: Was there anyone else here who wanted to speak on this item, who would not
5 need to come forward and be sworn? If not, I'm going to say that we have a motion that was
6 previously tabled and seconded, to move this item -
7
8 Commissioner Gordon: I am withdrawing my substitute motion.
9
10 Chair Jacobs: Commissioner Gordon is withdrawing her substitute motion.
11 - to refer this to the planning board to return a recommendation for our May 8th 2014 meeting.
12 Now do we any additional comment on this motion?
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment - To review an application seeking to rezone an
17 approximately 12 acre parcel of property located at 5908 US 70 East in Eno
18 Township from Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1); Economic
19 Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2); and Lower Eno Protected Watershed
20 Protection Overlay to Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2) and Lower
21 Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay.
22
23 Michael Harvey said this item is not a special use permit, but is a legislative action to
24 review a re-zoning request. He reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
25
26 BACKGROUND
27 PIN —0803-11-5662.
28 Size of Parcel — 12 acres with approximately 8.6 acres zoned EDE-2 and 3.4 zoned
29 EDE-1.
30 Future Land Use Element Map Designation — Economic Development Transition Activity
31 Node
32 Growth Management System Designation -- Urban.
33 Existing Conditions -- The property supports a previously permitted Class 2 Kennel and
34 telecommunications tower.
35 • Access --The property has direct access onto US Highway 70.
36
37 REQUEST:
38 • Applicant requests EDE-2 zoning for entire property,
39 Believes EDE-2 zoning designation is more appropriate for the property given its
40 frontage along US Highway 70,
41 Represents a logical extension of the district.
42 Existing land use (i.e. Class II Kennel) is a conforming land use in EDE-2 zoning district.
43
44 EDE-1 VERSUS EDE-2 LAND USES:
45 EDE-2 would allow the following additional uses:
46 — Animal Hospital/Kennels (Class II require SUP) —STAFF NOTE: kennel already
47 operating on property
48 — Manufacturing/Assembly uses (i.e. fabricated metal, electronic equipment, food
49 products, furniture, etc.)
50 — Retail (i.e. restaurant, retail sales, etc.)
51 — Services (i.e. hotels, research facility, etc.)
23
1 — Wholesale trade
2
3 STAFF ASSESSMENT:
4 The application is complete,
5 The property is of sufficient size,
6 Consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management
7 System Map, and adopted Eno Economic Development District Area Small Area Plan,
8 Logical extension of existing EDE-2 district,
9 Would help property owner address issues associated with expansion of existing kennel
10 operation.
11
12 RECOMMENDATION:
13 1. Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas.
14 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
15 the proposed amendment.
16 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
17 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC
18 regular meeting.
19 4. Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
20 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
21
22 Buddy Hartley asked if there were any questions from the boards.
23
24 Michael Brough, representing Sunny Acres, said he and the owners of the kennel are
25 available for questions. He said this will essentially eliminate split zoning of this property. He
26 said the reasoning behind this request is a possible future expansion of the kennel in future.
27 He said it is in the interest of the general public to have a single tract of land, under single
28 ownership, zoned the same way.
29
30 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the skinny rectangle in the middle of the map, as well
31 as the front small piece, and asked if these were separate parcels.
32
33 Michael Brough said these were separate and he is not sure whether these have been
34 combined, but if not, this will happen as part of the next step. He knows there has been an
35 acquisition of additional acreage since the property was first purchased. He said he has a
36 survey, and this may be combined or it may not be. He said it is all effectively one tract of land.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
39
40 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
41 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC
42 regular meeting.
43 2. Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
44 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48
49 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review an application
50 seeking to amend Section 5.6.5 (A) (2) (b) Kennels (Class ll) — Standards of Evaluation
51 to reduce required setbacks for Class 11 Kennels developed within the EDE-2 zoning
24
1 district.
2
3 Michael Harvey said there is no formal presentation for this item. He referred to a
4 display of the text markup. He referred to page 65 of the abstract and the proposed text
5 amendment on Attachment 1.
6
7 He said this is referring to a Class 2 kennel, which involves the keeping, boarding, care,
8 and training of more than 20 animals. He said the current requirement is a 150 foot setback
9 from all established property lines. He said the applicant is currently operating under an existing
10 Class 2 kennel permit, issued in 1986. He said the applicant has dog run areas within the
11 required setbacks, and the proposed text amendment would drop the required setback to 25
12 feet. He said this would, in effect, adhere to general zoning setbacks already established for
13 this district.
14
15 Michael Harvey said staff has some concerns, which are identified in the abstract and
16 the staff memorandum. He reminded the Board of an email in front of them from Mrs.
17 Easterland.
18
19 Michael Brough referenced a handout. He said the purpose of this is to correct an
20 unfortunate situation where the applicant is in violation of a zoning ordinance as a result of the
21 150 foot setback situation. He said it did not occur to the owners when the property was
22 purchased that the replacement of an existing fence would create a zoning problem. He
23 referred to a handout and a comparison of past and current site plans. He said the 1986 permit
24 was evidently in violation of the setback requirement, and the new owners were not aware of the
25 setback requirement. He said the initial notice of the zoning violation occurred back in 2006,
26 and there is no mention of the 150 foot setback requirement.
27
28 He said the amendment reduces the 150 foot setback that applies to kennel 2 uses, only
29 in the EDE-2 zoning district and where the property adjoins other property that is zoned EDE-2.
30 He said it does not apply to any other zoning district. He said the 25 foot setback would
31 continue to apply to this use, although the owners prefer to keep their existing fences where
32 they are. He said the change in ordinance only applies to the exercise yards, and it doesn't
33 apply to buildings. He referred to the proposed new language which states this. He said the
34 change to the 150 foot setback does not apply to buildings, as buildings can already go up to
35 the 25 feet.
36
37 Michael Brough said the most important aspect of the change is that the amendment
38 only applies in the EDE-2 district and where the property adjoins other EDE-2 properties. He
39 said this is important because the uses in the EDE-2 district are fairly intensive as compared to
40 other districts. He said there is low likelihood of any other type of uses in this area, due to the
41 location and lack of sewer. He said that makes this a very narrow amendment. He said the
42 benefit to the public of maintaining that 150 foot buffer is marginal, if it exists at all; however the
43 hardship that it creates for the owners is pretty extreme. He said there are no other practical
44 areas to place the exercise yards, and these are integral to maintain the business. He said
45 there are 300-400 signatures from customers and community members in support of this
46 business. He said there are 20 or more employees, whose livelihood depends on the business.
47 He noted the members of the audience in attendance to support this amendment.
48
49 Commissioner Gordon addressed Michael Harvey and referred to the staff analysis page
50 73. She asked for clarification on this, specifically items 6 through 9.
25
1 Michael Harvey said he would reject some of what Michael Brough said. He said the
2 setback being referenced was enforced in 1986, and the applicants were made aware of the
3 problem, as were their attorney and their surveyor. He said the existing language of the UDO,
4 as was enforced in 1986, indicated that the minimum setback distances would not apply if all
5 elements of the operation were in an enclosed facility; but the ordinance clearly states that all
6 buildings and runs must meet the setback requirements.
7
8 He referred to Commissioner Gordon's question and said staff's initial observation is that
9 impacts observed from kennel operation are universal and are not mitigated because the
10 operation is in a non residential district. He believes the question here is what constitutes an
11 appropriate setback for a kennel in an effort to address impacts on adjacent properties. Staff is
12 concerned that the reduction of the setbacks to 25 feet will increase complaints related to the
13 operation of the kennel and its impact on adjacent property development. He said staff is not
14 convinced that the 25 foot setback will provide sufficient separation from adverse impacts. He
15 said staff is also concerned that this proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use
16 Plan. He said staff understands the situation that the kennel is in, but it is their opinion that the
17 cons outweigh the pros.
18
19 Commissioner Gordon said it sounds like there is a situation of existing use, but the
20 remedy is to change the whole zoning ordinance.
21
22 Michael Harvey said that is the applicant's contention.
23
24 Commissioner Gordon asked if there is any other approach, such as a variance under
25 the Board of Adjustment, for hardship.
26
27 Michael Harvey said no, not in his opinion. He said there is an existing special use
28 permit, and the kennel is in violation of that permit.
29
30 Commissioner Price asked why the variance is out of consideration.
31
32 Michael Harvey said this facility is operating under a previously issued special use
33 permit, and the facility is now out of compliance with that permit and with the ordinance. He
34 said the kennel has to bring the site into compliance with the code in order for the special use
35 permit to remain valid and the operation to continue. He would also argue that this situation is
36 self created, and the operation has been expanded. He said, as a result, this would not qualify
37 for a variance because the hardship is not unique, and it is self induced.
38
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board could amend the terms of the conditions of the
40 special use permit.
41
42 Michael Harvey said the ordinance would have to be amended in order for the conditions
43 of the special use permit to be modified. He said the 150 foot setback applies.
44
45 Commissioner Rich questioned whether an amendment to this ordinance would mean
46 anyone with a kennel could request this change as well.
47
48 Michael Harvey said it would only apply if a kennel was in the EDE-2 zoning district. He
49 said there are no other kennels in the EDE-2 zoning district.
50
26
1 Commissioner Rich noted that this conversation started in 2006, and she asked what
2 has happened between 2006 and 2014.
3
4 Michael Harvey said there have been a lot of changes in attorneys and surveyors, and
5 there was no proposal to address the problem until recently.
6
7 Commissioner Pelissier asked how many acres in Orange County are zoned EDE-2.
8
9 Michael Harvey said, according to Craig Benedict, the amount is approximately 200
10 acres.
11
12 Commissioner McKee said he is hearing two different versions, that the setback amount
13 it was unknown, and that it was known.
14
15 Michael Harvey said he stands by his answer to the Board.
16
17 Chair Jacobs said this is that what the Board of Adjustment is for, to allow someone to
18 articulate their beliefs and then to have County staff articulate what it believes the facts to be.
19 He said there is then a rendering of an opinion on whether an exceptional situation exists, or is
20 allowed to exist.
21
22 Michael Harvey said staff issued an opinion in 2006, and that opinion was not appealed;
23 so that opinion is the full force of law. He does not believe the owners have standing to appeal
24 it now.
25
26 James Bryan said he would encourage the Board not to focus on this particular
27 petitioner. He said the Board has an obligation to consider all of the ramifications of this. He
28 said the question of how much EDE-2 is in the County, is a very relevant one. He said whether
29 this petitioner will benefit from it or not, or whether the petitioner has alternatives available to
30 them, is not a valid basis for an eventual decision.
31
32 Chair Jacobs said he feels that one of the things the Board is looking for is an alternative
33 to making a universal decision to address an individual circumstance. He asked if there is an
34 alternative avenue other than changing the buffer requirement in the entire district from 150 feet
35 to 25 feet. He said this would be to address the difference of opinion, interpretation,
36 understanding or experience.
37
38 James Bryan said there are three alternatives: One is a variance; one is a new or
39 amended conditional use permit; and the third would be an appeal to any staff decision. He
40 does not know the details of all of these. He said a new or changed SUP is not viable, because
41 the Board cannot eliminate requirements in the ordinance. He said an appeal is basically the
42 back and forth that has been heard tonight, and the details would have to go through a
43 a quasi-judicial hearing with the board of adjustment. He said a variance is very much akin to
44 the SUP process, but it is fact dependent and the likelihood is not good.
45
46 Michael Harvey said a conditional use is not applicable here, since this district allows
47 Class 2 kennel operations and guidelines and restrictions have been established. He said the
48 UDO has language mandating that those guidelines and restrictions be observed in the
49 conditional use permitting process.
50
27
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates the attorney's advice that this is a legislative
2 decision and not a quasi-judicial one. He thought he read in the packet that the general setback
3 is 25 feet, so if this change were made, it would change the kennel setbacks to match the
4 setbacks of all the other permitted uses in the EDE-2.
5
6 Michael Harvey said this is correct.
7
8 Commissioner Dorosin said he would make a motion to adopt this change.
9
10 Chair Jacob said it is still early in the process.
11
12 Commissioner Price clarified that in order for the kennel to apply for a variance, it would
13 first have to come into compliance
14
15 Michael Harvey said his interpretation is that the kennel has an existing special use
16 permit that is governing the operation of their site. He said his problem is that the owners
17 cannot meet the criteria to then justify the issuance of the variance.
18
19 Commissioner Price said it is for the panel to decide if this is a hardship or not. She is
20 just clarifying that the kennel would have to come into compliance first.
21
22 Michael Harvey said the owners can apply for a variance, but it is his opinion that it
23 cannot be issued if it is to comply with local ordinance and state law.
24
25 Commissioner Gordon asked if it would be an option to have another hearing and make
26 this a non-conforming use, and eliminate kennels from EDE-2.
27
28 Michael Harvey said if the use is eliminated, then you have an illegally established use.
29 He said under the confines of the non-conforming ordinance, the logic is that it could continue
30 operation; however it is already in violation of the permit it was issued in 1986.
31
32 Commissioner Gordon said the question is whether the Board wants to make a universal
33 change for a specific circumstance. She said the consideration is whether it is universally
34 acceptable to have a 150 foot setback for a kennel. She said this is a legitimate question.
35
36 Commissioner Pelissier referred to her original question about the EDE-2 total acres,
37 and she asked if information can be provided on how much of the EDE-2 is already developed
38 and how much is not.
39
40 She wants to make sure that the public understands that letters sent, even before the
41 public hearing, become part of the public record.
42
43 Michael Harvey said this is correct on both counts.
44
45 Tony Blake, representative for Bingham Township, said he agrees with Commissioner
46 Dorosin. He said the intent of this ordinance is to protect people from noise and annoyance
47 from a kennel, and this is the additional setback. He questioned, in the case of EDE-2, who
48 cares. He said there should be an ability to tweak this kind of stuff, or the County ends up
49 putting people through unnecessary hardship or putting them out of business.
50
28
1 Commissioner Gordon clarified that this is a public hearing, and no decision will be made
2 tonight.
3
4 Mike Schmidt said he would use his three minutes to tell a story. He said he was having
5 a tough day at work. He said he drops his dog off early in the morning and usually picks up late
6 at night, but he took off early and picked up his dog early. He drove up the driveway and saw
7 his dog chasing bubbles that someone was blowing. He said he asked about this and he was
8 told that the kennel had researched how to create dog sensitive bubbles to give the dogs
9 different play and interaction. He said he was told long ago that you can judge someone by
10 their actions when they don't know they are being observed. He said these people really care
11 about these animals, and he wants to tell about the great benefit he receives, along with the
12 hundreds of others that signed the petition.
13
14 Jane Bozart said she sent an email, and if this is in the record she does not need to
15 repeat it.
16
17 Ken McNish said he has been bringing his dog to Sunny Acres for three years, and he
18 feels that the key feature that makes it different is the open space for the dogs to run. He said
19 there are a lot of complicated things being discussed tonight; but this is simple, and the proposal
20 makes sense.
21
22 Susan Heske said her dogs have been at Sunny Acres for two years, and aside from the
23 benefit of the dogs being able to run and socialize, it is also a very professional business. She
24 is amazed at the staff and the commitment. She said it is located in an area that can use some
25 business. She is not aware of any neighbors waging any complaints. She said she is more
26 concerned with the process and why this situation has not been adjudicated in 8 years. She said
27 a fair amount of money was invested in improving an existing fence. She said this is about
28 process, and her concern is why this has remained dormant for so long. She said this is a low
29 impact business, and there is nothing harmful to the environment. She said the kennel provides
30 jobs to people and is a benefit to hundreds of dogs.
31
32 Peter Eckhoff said he has been a customer of Sunny Acres for 4 and a half years. He
33 said his son came down with cancer, and his dog was boarded for 2 months at Sunny Acres.
34 He said the dog was high energy, and he was able to go out in the runs. He said when the dog
35 came home and was then taken back to the kennel; he dragged the owner to the front door. He
36 has had other dogs at other kennels, and it wasn't the same experience. He wonders what the
37 basis is for the ordinance, and he noted the proximity of the highway and the noise created by
38 that.
39 Michael Brough said he would like to address a couple of issues. He said if the choice
40 of a variance was available, that would have been pursued. He said the consensus was that
41 the variance opportunity is not a real possibility. He said the conditional use permit is out as an
42 option, and so is an appeal. He said the only realistic way to cure this is the legislative solution
43 before the Board. He addressed Commissioner Gordon's question about a universal change.
44 He said he is very sensitive to this, and he represents a number of local governments. He is
45 very sensitive to an ordinance change being broader than the needs of the particular applicant;
46 however he is frequently called upon to craft legislative solutions to deal with particular
47 situations like this one.
48
49 He said the reality is that the applicant has drafted a very narrow amendment, and it only
50 affects 200 acres, and quite likely it will only affect this property owner. He said this is not a
51 question of amending an ordinance of universal applicability or not. He said the realistic choice
29
1 is whether you are going to keep an ordinance on a theoretical basis that is going to have the
2 practical effect of driving this business out of business. He said there have never been any
3 complaints about noise or smell, which indicates there will not be a problem to make the
4 legislative choice before the Board.
5
6 Michael Brough said the owners have confirmed to him that they did not know about this
7 150 foot setback requirement until the past couple of months. He said that is their
8 representation to the Board. He urged the Board to adopt this ordinance.
9
10 Commissioner Gordon asked, given the item that came before this, where the property is
11 located, and whether it has to be re-zoned EDE-2 in order to qualify.
12
13 Michael Harvey said the rezoning for the previous item is necessary because it is
14 improper to have split zoned property. He said re-zoning does provide an abundance of
15 additional area where dog runs can be placed in compliance with the 150 foot setbacks.
16
17 Commissioner McKee said for him it boils down to aligning the setbacks with the zoning.
18 He said the EDE-2 zoning is high intensity, so you don't expect the same kind of setbacks and
19 development as would happen in a residential or EDE-1. He sees no problem with moving the
20 setback to 25 feet.
21
22 Commissioner Gordon questioned, given the statement that there is room for
23 compliance if the re-zoning is granted, why that cannot be done.
24
25 Michael Brough said this was anticipated, and this was examined. He said looking at the
26 maps, it looks as if there is sufficient space; but it is very difficult as a practical matter. He said
27 the three houses would have to be moved or trees cut down, and there is a creek through the
28 center of the remaining property, as well as some substantial elevation changes. He said the
29 application of the setback makes it a very narrow area, and there is also a required setback
30 from the cell tower on the property. He said, given these things, it becomes very difficult and
31 expensive, and it is of no benefit to anyone to do it.
32
33 Commissioner Gordon said it could be done, but it is expensive.
34
35 Michael Brough said he cannot say that it can be done, as he cannot survey it out.
36 Chair Jacobs said he assumes the Easterlings would know which was more onerous,
37 hiring a lawyer or moving the fence, and they chose to hire a lawyer. He said, based on what
38 Michael Brough is saying, it seems it is highly problematic to move the fence. He said he has
39 used Sunny Acres for years. He said this comes down to the Board being forced to make a
40 choice between an abstract and a specific. He said sometimes the answer is to be inflexible in
41 the name of a greater good, and sometimes the answer is to recognize the situation in front of
42 you and choose that over the abstract.
43
44 He said a decision cannot be based on the property being recombined until a vote is
45 actually taken to recombine it, so this is also abstract. He would rather have dealt with this in
46 another way, but there is no other option.
47
48 Maxine Mitchell said she would want to see a layout of the area and some pictures at the
49 next discussion.
50
30
1 Tony Blake said one more point would be to find out if the adjacent owners have been
2 notified to find out if this is a problem for them.
3
4 Michael Harvey said the adjoining property owners were made aware of the text
5 amendment. He said no complaints have been received.
6
7 Judy Foster said she owns the property next door to the kennel, and she has no
8 objection to the 25 foot setback. She said she would agree to this, and she is right next to their
9 parking lot.
10
11 Commissioner Gordon said she is not unsympathetic to this; she is just trying to find out
12 what the options are. She said the question is a general question about universal standards
13 versus specific standards. She said she loves dogs, and this is a wonderful operation that has
14 not conformed with the regulations, so it is a difficult question.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
17
18 1. Accept the applicant's proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
19 attachments.
20 2. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
21 the BOCC in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
22 3. Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
23 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27
28 3. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
29 Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments -To review government-initiated
30 amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas
31 to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area.
32
33 Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
34
35 Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas
36 Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
37 Quarterly Public Hearing
38 February 24, 2014
39 Item CA
40
41 Background
42 • Heard at November 2012 quarterly public hearing
43 • Denied by BOCC in February 2013
44 • 1 year waiting period required for a new application in cases of denial
45 • This proposal is the staff-recommended version considered on February 5, 2013
46
47 Basic Charge
48 Implement recommendations in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan to
49 establish design and site planning standards for this area of the County served by public
50 (or quasi-public) water and sewer systems.
31
1 Amend plans and regulations as necessary in order to establish two new zoning overlay
2 districts.
3
4 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (chart)
5
6 What is a zoning overlay district?
7 • Regulatory tools that create a special zoning district, placed over the existing base
8 zones, which identifies special provisions in addition to, or in lieu of, those in the
9 underlying base zone.
10 • Purpose is to guide development within the specified area.
11 • Overlay district regulations can be more restrictive or less restrictive than the regulations
12 that apply to the underlying base zones.
13
14 Zoning Atlas Amendment (map)
15
16 Future Land Use Map (Map)
17 Relationship to Existing Efland-Cheeks Overlay District (map)
18
19 UDO Text Amendments
20 • Amendments to several sections necessary to implement the new zoning overlay
21 districts
22 • Intent of the new districts:
23 - Allow for a more urban style of development in the Efland Interstate Overlay District
24 - Allow for an urban village style of development in the Efland Village Overlay District
25
26 Why Necessary?
27 • Different development regulations necessary in order to reflect the reality of smaller
28 sized lots (both existing and anticipated) served by water and sewer.
29 • Encourage high quality growth in an area of the county proposed for additional growth
30 while protecting existing development and community character.
31 • Ensure good planning practices related to site design, transportation, and architecture
32 are achieved.
33
34 General Information
35 • Many of the proposed changes in the amendment packet contain footnotes explaining
36 the reason/rationale for the proposed change.
37 • Website contains more information
38 - Questions and Answers
39 - Synopsis of Proposed New Regulations and/or Differences from Existing Regulations
40 - (Orange County, Planning Department, "Current Interest Projects")
41
42 Exceptions and Existing Uses
43 • Single-family detached residences (both existing and new) are not subject to the
44 requirements of the overlay districts.
45 • Other existing land uses are not required to come into conformance with the new
46 regulations so long as the property continues to be used as it is currently being used.
47 • The requirements of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District are not
48 being altered.
49
32
1 Synopsis of Changes
2 (Applicable to Both Districts)
3 • Side and rear setback can be less
4 - Intent is to allow required buffer and minimum setback to be the same
5 • Smaller (less wide) buffer between lots
6 - In keeping with those required in the existing Efland Cheeks Overlay District along
7 Highway 70
8 • No more than 1 entrance/exit point, unless justified
9 • Large projects must provide an internal pedestrian circulation system
10 • Must provide intra-site accessibility
11 • Requirements for driveways and shared access
12 - Shared access only applicable if fronting on Mount Willing Road or Highway 70
13
14 Synopsis of Changes
15 (Efland Interstate Overlay District only)
16 • Site Planning must take into account need for connecting roadways shown on the
17 adopted Access Management Plan for the area
18 • Requires that national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses be altered as
19 necessary to complement the surrounding area
20
21 Synopsis of Changes
22 (Efland Village Overlay District only)
23 • Changes in front yard setback requirements
24 - Minimum of 30-feet along Highway 70
25 - If not along Highway 70: front setback in keeping with adjoining uses
26 • No fences in front yards unless a demonstrated need can be shown
27 • No chain link or similar fencing
28 • No outside storage of materials
29 • Allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard (setback area)
30 • Encourages shared parking and puts a cap on parking
31 • Limits signage to monument style signs that do not exceed 6-feet in height and prohibits
32 pole signs
33 • Does not permit modern corporate franchise building design
34 • Principal building must face fronting street and have a functional doorway
35 • Requires that buildings be designed to contribute to a "human scale"
36 • Prohibits drive-throughs and mirrored glass
37
38 Public Notification
39 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
40 — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
41 — Mailed notices to affected property owners
42 — Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties
43 — Posted 25 signs in strategic areas of the affected area
44
45 Recommendation
46 Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
47 Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas.
48 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
49 the proposed amendment.
33
1 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
2 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC
3 regular meeting.
4 Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
5 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
6
7 Perdita Holtz said there is already a similar overlay district along Highway 70. She
8 reviewed the comprehensive plan graphic and said the zoning districts need to be consistent
9 with the comprehensive plan. She said the area where the proposed overlay district is located
10 is a commercial/industrial transition activity node. She said staff is also suggesting a tick mark
11 be added in the other three transition land use classifications, so that any future overlay districts
12 that are contemplated will not require a comprehensive plan amendment.
13 She reviewed the map of the Zoning Atlas Amendment, as well as the Future Land Use
14 Map and the map of the overlay district mentioned earlier. She said the proposed text
15 amendments contain amendments to several areas. She said the current development
16 regulations primarily address development on large size lots.
17 Referring to the slide "Synopsis of Changes (Efland Village Overlay District only", she
18 noted that varied setbacks along an individual street create a more chaotic feel and look. She
19 said it is good urban design for a village setting to have consistent setbacks.
20 Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of how all of this came to be proposed.
21 Perdita Holtz said this is part of the Efland Mebane small area plan, which was a plan
22 made up of appointed residents in the area. She said this is a community driven plan, and it is
23 based on recommended standards for achieving good development.
24 Commissioner McKee noted that the Efland Mebane small area plan was brought
25 forward in 2004, and the committee ran for two years. He asked if staff has gone back to the
26 community since 2006.
27 Perdita Holtz said committee meetings were held when the zoning overlay districts were
28 last proposed, and public information meetings were held in 2012. She said these meetings
29 were not held for these changes, as these are substantially similar to what was proposed in
30 2012.
31 Commissioner McKee said, since this was denied by the Board in 2013, it would have
32 been good to go back to the community to get their response before moving forward with
33 another proposal.
34 Perdita Holtz said the amendment outline form for this item specifically stated that there
35 would not be another public outreach meeting and the reason why. She said this was because
36 this has already undergone public comment in the past, but she understands the concern.
37 Commissioner Price asked for an explanation of the rationale behind the fencing.
38 Perdita Holtz said this does not apply to single family houses, but it has to do with the
39 aesthetics of having chain link or other fencing in the front yard.
40 Commissioner Price asked why there is an aversion to chain link fences.
41 Perdita Holtz said the committee expressed concern about this if there was a lot of
42 commercial development.
43 Commissioner Price asked if this would apply to a duplex.
44 Perdita Holtz said you would not be able to have a chain link fence in the front yard.
45 Commissioner McKee asked about the drive-throughs. He asked if drive-throughs along
46 highway 70 on any commercial facility would be banned.
47 Perdita Holtz said that is correct. She said there was a point in the small area plan that
48 these would not be permitted in the Efland Village, but it would be permitted in the interstate
49 district. She said the concern was having a string of fast food restaurants cropping up on
50 Highway 70.
34
1 Commissioner Price said she believes another concern about the drive-throughs was the
2 concern of car stacking and all of the associated fumes.
3 Perdita Holtz said that was a concern in the County, but the concern specific to this plan
4 was about the proliferation of fast food restaurants on Highway 70.
5 Commissioner Rich said she remembers this as one of the first things that came before
6 the Board when she came on, and she didn't have a lot of information. She said her concern at
7 that time was calling things urban when there are no sidewalks being put in. She said she still
8 has concerns with calling things urban, when there is no way for people to use their feet to get
9 there, because there are no sidewalks. She is unsure of why the word urban is used in these
10 settings.
11 Perdita Holtz said the growth management systems map adopted in 2003 calls areas
12 rural designated and urban designated, and this is in one of the urban designated areas.
13 Commissioner Rich questioned whether this is really urban. She said the County is just
14 creating an area where people are being allowed to build density.
15 Perdita Holtz said it depends on your definition of urban, but this is creating areas where
16 people can not only build density, but can put non- residential uses.
17 Commissioner Rich said you can't walk there; you have to drive your car there.
18 Perdita Holtz said it is true that you cannot walk there on a sidewalk.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said the difficulty is that this is just a small area compared to an
20 urban area like Chapel Hill or Carrboro. She said, even in Chapel Hill, 15-501 by-pass is in an
21 urban area, but there are no sidewalks. She said it is difficult because of the scope of what is
22 being looked at.
23 Commissioner Rich said it might just be her getting stuck on the word urban; but when
24 these overlays are done, there are all these districts of overlays that are supposed to be urban,
25 but none of them connect.
26 Perdita Holtz said the small area plan is supportive of having a sidewalk network, but
27 right now, counties in North Carolina have trouble providing, funding, and maintaining
28 sidewalks. She questioned whether you hold this up just because sidewalks can't be provided
29 right now. She asked if development regulation should be kept in place that sometimes requires
30 a buffer of 100 feet, when lots are only 100 feet wide; or if the County should implement
31 something that is good for development now, and the sidewalk issue will continue to be worked
32 on.
33 Commissioner Rich said she understands that, and if the County will be forward thinking
34 and work toward sidewalks, then she is fine with this. She just doesn't want to approve an
35 urban overlay and then that's the end of it.
36 Perdita Holtz said this is just one aspect of implementing the small area plan, and there
37 is still more to do. She said keeping sidewalks and bike lanes in mind is part of the plan, and it
38 is something she thinks Orange County will do when the time is right.
39 Commissioner McKee referred to the statement on creating non-conforming uses. He
40 asked how "operating in the manner in which they are currently operating" will be defined. He
41 said he is aware of multiple parcels of property where new regulations prevent expansion of
42 existing business. He is concerned that this is what will happen here.
43 Perdita Holtz said this would create non-conforming uses if someone wanted to expand
44 their businesses.
45 Commissioner Price asked if there would be a time limit for a non-conforming business if
46 there is a change in ownership and a gap in use.
47 Michael Harvey said there is a time limit of 6 months within any 180 day given period.
48 Greg Andrews said he lives in the Efland Community and he owns a business in the
49 proposed overlay district. He said he is also here in part to represent the Efland Ruritan Club.
50 He proposed a public hearing in the Efland community. He said there are a lot of elderly folks
51 who cannot come sit at this meeting for 3 or 4 hours to get to this part. He said he would like to
35
1 see the people who sat on this committee and made these recommendations. He referenced
2 the discussion about sidewalks and said he does not know how safe walkways would be on
3 highway 70. He asked that this issue remain open. He said the Efland Ruritans would be
4 happy to hold this event in Efland.
5 Doug Efland said he owns property in the Efland village area. He said he has a lot of
6 questions, and he would like this to continue with some sort of public meeting in Efland. He said
7 there are a lot of things that are alarming or hard to understand in the proposed text. He
8 referenced shared right of ways and other parts of the text that he did not understand. He
9 referenced the section on easement agreements between contiguous parcel owners and asked
10 what incentive it is for an adjacent property owner to enter an agreement with you if there are no
11 plans to develop their property. He said there are certainly questions. He questioned the
12 stipulations on connecting roadways to the east and west side of Mount Willing. He asked that
13 this discussion be continued.
14 Ben Lloyd said urban to him is Chapel Hill, Charlotte or New York City. He said Efland is
15 a sleepy little community where most of the residents have been living there all of their lives. He
16 said this small area study has been going on for 20 years and notice of this public hearing was
17 given 15 days ago. He has taken a quick look at this plan, and it would take a lawyer to pick all
18 this stuff out. He said the people in the Efland community need to have the opportunity to have
19 some input into this plan. He asked for an open Efland community meeting, followed by a public
20 hearing for general public input.
21 He said he has a letter from Joseph Forrest and he asked what to do with that. He read
22 the letter and asked it to be entered into the record.
23 Bill Efland said he also agrees with having the hearing in Efland. He asked if the
24 residents are privy to having the names of the people on the Mebane Efland small area plan
25 committee. He asked if there were any Efland family members on that committee and he said
26 he feels that they should have been involved in this process.
27 Commissioner McKee said there were Efland folks on this committee. He said he would
28 share the list of names after the meeting.
29 Lindsey Efland said he has had 40 years of Orange County government saving us from
30 ourselves. He said when all is said and done this language affects approximately ten parcels of
31 land. He said there are only a few developable properties. He said it has also been noted that
32 he community has not been part of the planning process of late. He said this is a significant
33 change for the future of the community and there is not any understandable language as it
34 relates to the re-development of buildings. He feels work needs to be done on this and local
35 input should be involved. He respectfully requests that the public hearing be continued while
36 planning staff works with land owners to help them, and the planning board, understand the full
37 implications of what is going on.
38 Mike Efland questioned how many landowners of involved parcels were on the
39 committee. He wants to know whose brainchild this is.
40 Brian Efland said there are a lot of Eflands from Efland, and he is not aware of any who
41 were on the committee. He feels that stake holders should be involved in these decisions. He
42 noted the large number of community members present, and he said no one who sees this likes
43 it. He would like to see continued discussion in the community.
44 Commissioner McKee said this came before the Board a year ago, and he still does not
45 like it. He feels this should be sent back to staff with instructions to work with the affected
46 community to address their concerns. He said this is not a countywide zoning overlay; it affects
47 a very small number of people in a very big way, and these people need to be involved upfront.
48 He understands there was a public meeting two years ago, but there have been changes made.
49 He does not think the public hearing needs to be held over, but this should be sent back to staff
50 instead.
36
1 Commissioner Price said she voted against it last time, and her comments are the same.
2 She questioned whether the public received notice of the meeting last year when this was on
3 the agenda.
4 Perdita Holtz said the notice went out for the November 2012 quarterly public hearing,
5 and the notice contained an update on the information meeting held in November, which was
6 attended by only ten residents.
7 Commissioner Price said she would still like to see more discussion with the community.
8 Commissioner Pelissier said this reflects the comments of the small area plan. She said
9 that was a big picture, and this is only a small section of the Efland area plan. She is fine with
10 having community meetings. She said it is important to continue this to avoid waiting another
11 year. She said things get more difficult the longer this goes on. She suggested continuing the
12 public hearing with a set date.
13 Perdita Holtz suggested this be continued to the May Quarterly Public Hearing. She
14 said a public hearing out in the community has never been done before, and it would require a
15 quorum of both the Board and the planning board. She said a public meeting can be held with
16 staff in attendance.
17 Commissioner Pelissier said she was not trying to imply having a public hearing in the
18 community, as this will not allow for question and answers with staff, which is what the
19 community wants. She said this is called a public information session.
20 Ben Lloyd said people really want a public information session.
21 Chair Jacobs noted, in fairness to staff, that meetings were held at the Efland Ruritan
22 and there were repeated attempts to recruit people from Efland. He said there were people
23 from Efland who served diligently. He said this was the Efland Mebane small area plan. He
24 said the conversation included plans to get Mebane involved to insure that it would not annex
25 into Efland. He said if this is not a concern now, it is because Mebane has agreed not to do
26 this. He said there were signs up, and there were meetings at the Efland Community Center,
27 the Efland Ruritan Club and Efland Cheeks Elementary school. He feels it is a good idea for the
28 community to meet with staff to ask questions about this, and then this can come back to the
29 Board. He said there have been no attempts to exclude anyone.
30 An unidentified resident asked when the meeting was held at the Ruritan Club. He
31 asked if the details presented tonight were discussed at that meeting four years ago.
32 Perdita Holtz said the details were discussed at the open house community meeting held
33 in November of 2012 from 4 - 6 pm at the Efland Community Center, and 10 people came.
34 Greg Andrews said if this was turned down last time, he would like to see what changes
35 have been made since then.
36 Chair Jacobs said staff does that in the documents, and this is included.
37 Greg Andrews said it seems that at least two of the Board members recognize that there
38 is not enough change to make a difference
39 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to turn
40 this proposal down and send it back to staff for further review and community input before
41 bringing it back.
42 Commissioner Gordon said this cannot be turned down, as this is not voted on at this
43 meeting. She asked if Commissioner McKee would like to turn it back to the staff.
44 Commissioner McKee said it was turned back to staff a year ago.
45 Commissioner Rich said she is fine with the description of the sidewalks because of the
46 forward thinking that the sidewalk issue is not being dropped. She said she does not
47 understand why this wouldn't just continue to be a public hearing to get more information.
48 Commissioner Price said staff and the Commissioners would be able to have dialogue
49 with the community. She said it would give more time for community input.
50 Chair Jacobs said this may just be a difference of semantics. He said the motion is to
51 defer further Board of Commissioner consideration until staff meets with the members of the
37
1 Efland Community to address their concerns, and then this comes back to the Board. He said
2 this does not say that this won't come back to the Board, but it directs staff to meet with the
3 community.
4 Commissioner Dorosin suggested holding an informational meeting with the public at the
5 Whitted building to allow Commissioners and staff to attend, in an effort to bridge the gap. He
6 asked if this could be added to the motion.
7 Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price agreed to this.
8 Commissioner Pelissier also suggested an amendment to the motion, stating that this
9 would come back in May.
10 Commissioner McKee said he could not accept this, as he is not sure that this allows
11 adequate time for staff to address community concerns. He said this would set an artificial
12 deadline.
13 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to have a specific time frame.
14 Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price agreed to September.
15 Chair Jacobs reviewed the amended motion to have a public information meeting to give
16 the Efland community members an opportunity to: meet with staff and Commissioners to
17 express concerns, and for staff to explain the proposals, to come back for the September Public
18 Hearing.
19 Michael Talbert said there are two options: 1.To close the existing public hearing or 2.
20 Continue this public hearing until the September 2014 Public Hearing.
21 Commissioner McKee said he will add this to the beginning of his motion.
22 Commissioner Gordon said she is not sure about having a public information meeting
23 that requires the Commissioners to have a quorum.
24 Commissioner Price said this is just a public meeting and the Commissioners can
25 attend, but quorum is not required.
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
27 close the public hearing; hold a staff coordinated public information session; and to bring this
28 item back to a meeting in September, 2014. (There was discussion of the possibility of no QPH
29 in September and the public hearing would possibly be during a regular meeting.)
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 Commissioner Price suggested there be more than one meeting.
34
35 5. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
36 Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to
37 establish a zoning program commonly referred to as Agricultural Support Enterprises
38 (ASE) outside of the Rural Buffer land use classification.
39
40 Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
41
42 Agricultural Support Enterprises Outside of the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification
43 Quarterly Public Hearing
44 February 24, 2014
45 Item C.5
46
47 History & Purpose of Amendment
48 A work-in-progress since 2001
49 ➢ Need for Conditional Zoning construct was one of the "sticking points"
50 ➢ We now have this type of zoning in the UDO
38
1 Augment allowable uses famers can pursue in order to generate additional farm-related
2 income and to potentially allow farming support/related uses in rural areas while
3 minimizing any adverse impacts on adjoining property.
4 ➢ Balance between rights of property owner and rights of neighboring property
5 owners
6
7 Two Proposed ASE Amendments
8 Outside of Rural Buffer land use classification
9 Within Rural Buffer land use classification
10 - Requires amendments to Joint Planning Area documents
11 Orange County, Towns of Chapel Hill & Carrboro must approve JPA
12 amendments
13 - Will be on longer review/approval timeframe
14 - The more intensive uses could not be considered in the Rural Buffer, under the
15 current proposal
16
17 Comprehensive Land Use Map
18
19 Unified Development Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan Amendments
20 Add provisions for ASE into the UDO.
21 "Agriculture", as defined in the State statues, remains exempt from zoning
22 regulations.
23 Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow new zoning district in certain land use
24 categories
25
26 ASE Program (Zoning/Land Use)
27 Create new conditional zoning district (ASE-CZ)
28 Add additional permitted uses to some of the existing general use zoning districts
29 Create standards for many of the new uses
30 Update some existing development standards
31 Add definitions
32 Amend Land Use/Zoning Matrix in Comprehensive Plan
33
34 Project Review/Approval Process
35 Depends on use being proposed and current zoning of property
36 Three basic processes:
37 Staff review/approval
38 Special Use Permit
39 Class B is reviewed/approved by Board of Adjustment
40 Class A is reviewed/approved by Board of County Commissioners
41 Rezoning
42 General Use district
43 Conditional district
44
45 Use Specific Standards
46 Help mitigate impacts
47 Balance between rights of neighboring/nearby property owners
48 Standards address issues such as:
49 Location on major roads
50 Additional setback requirements
51 Noise
39
1 Hours of Operation
2 Groundwater usage
3 Building size
4 Minimum lot size
5 In addition to all requirements in the UDO
6
7 Permitted Outright vs. SUP or Conditional Zoning
8 Less intensive uses added to the Table of Permitted Uses as permitted outright
9 (example for AR zoning district; other zoning districts are also affected)
10 Subject to use-specific and general development standards
11 Community Agricultural Processing Facility
12 Community Farmers Market
13 Cooperative Farm Stand
14 Community Meat Processing Facility
15 Non-Farm Use of Farm Equipment
16 Rural Special Events
17 Check "Definitions" to see how these uses are defined
18 Staff approval
19 More intensive uses must be permitted through either the Special Use Permit process or
20 rezoned as an ASE-CZ
21 Class B Special Use Permit (in AR zoning district):
22 Microbrewery with Minor Events
23 Taxidermy
24 Winery with Minor Events
25 Microbrewery, Production Only
26 Winery, Production Only
27 • Veterinary Clinic
28 • Veterinary Clinic, mobile
29 Rural Heritage Museum
30 Class A Special Use Permit (in AR zoning district):
31 Equestrian Center
32 Special Use Permits are "quasi-judicial" proceedings
33 Public Hearing
34 Decided on a case-by-case basis with public input ("evidence")
35
36 Conditional Zoning District (ASE-CZ)
37 Conditional zoning districts allow projects to be considered on a case-by-case, site-
38 specific basis
39 Rezoning (legislative process) with public hearing
40 Acknowledges that there are places where a specific type of use may be appropriate
41 whereas it would not be in a different site-specific situation
42 BOCC has final decision on whether a proposed use(s) is compatible with
43 surrounding uses
44 Mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part of the approval process
45 • Allows tailoring of project to a specific site
46 Table of Permitted Uses lists the types of uses that can be applied for as an ASE-CZ
47
48 Change in groundwater usage standard language
49 Proposed language in amendment package:
50 A comprehensive groundwater study, for facilities expected to use more than 240
51 gallons of groundwater per day per acre of lot area. Said study shall detail:
40
1 (i) The amount of water anticipated to be used on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual
2 basis;
3 (ii) An analysis of the amount of groundwater withdrawal considered to be safe and
4 sustainable in the immediate vicinity; and
5 (iii) An analysis of whether other wells in the vicinity of the proposed use will be affected by
6 withdrawals made by the proposed use.
7
8 Change in groundwater usage standard language
9 Language Proposed as a result of comments
10 A comprehensive groundwater study, for facilities expected to use more +"moo
11 gds of groundwater on an annual basis per day per °^r° of'^+ are than an average
12 single family residence (which uses 240 gallons of water per day) built at the highest
13 density the existing zoning district would allow. For example, if the existing zoning district
14 allows a residential density of 1 unit per 2 acres and the proposed use is on a 6 acre lot
15 (which could yield 3 residences), the proposed use(s) may use three times the water
16 used by an average single family residence (or 720 gallons per day, on an annualized
17 basis) before a comprehensive groundwater study is required. The water usage rates of
18 any existing use subject to zoning regulations located on the same lot shall be taken into
19 account when determining if a comprehensive groundwater study is required. Said
20 study shall detail:
21 (i) The amount of water anticipated to be used on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual
22 basis;
23 (ii) An analysis of the amount of groundwater withdrawal considered to be safe and
24 sustainable in the immediate vicinity; and
25 (iii) An analysis of whether other wells in the vicinity of the proposed use w414 are expected to
26 be affected by withdrawals made by the proposed use.
27
28 Agricultural Preservation Board and Planning Board Review
29 APB has reviewed 3 times
30 Consensus to move forward
31 Would like farmers to have the ability to apply for as many uses as possible
32 (Do not remove more intensive uses from consideration)
33 Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee reviewed 2 times
34 • Same conclusion as APB
35 Both Boards had minor comments/questions that have been incorporated into draft
36 materials
37
38 Public Notification
39 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
40 ➢ Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
41 Held Public Information Meeting on February 17 (was postponed from advertised date of
42 February 13)
43 ➢ Flyers posted
44 ➢ Press Release
45 Has been a topic on a few agendas in the past year
46 ➢ BOCC (including Assembly of Governments)
47 ➢ Planning Board
48 ➢ Agricultural Preservation Board
49 Planning website posting on January 24
50
51 County Attorney's Office Comments
41
1
2 Perdita Holtz reviewed the land use map and said this amendment applies to all of the
3 areas outside of the rural buffer and outside of the municipalities, which includes: Bingham
4 Township, Cheeks Township, Eno Township, Hillsborough Township, Cedar Grove Township
5 and Little River Township.
6 Referring to the slide titled, "Permitted Outright vs. SUP or Conditional Zoning", she said
7 "permitted outright" means that approvals are done by staff.
8 Referring to the slide titled "Conditional Zoning District (ASE-CZ)", Perdita Holtz said
9 projects can be considered on a case by case site specific basis. She said this is still a
10 legislative process, which includes a public hearing; however it does allow Commissioners to
11 have more discretion on whether projects are approved or not.
12 Perdita Holtz said the proposed change in the groundwater usage standard language is
13 a result of comments made at the public information meeting held last week. She said the new
14 wording attempts to clarify that groundwater usage is being looked at on an annual basis, and to
15 account for the fact that some areas of the County do not allow a density of one unit per acre.
16 She said there is a "for example" included in the language in an attempt to be as clear as
17 possible. She said the change from "will" to "are expected to" comes from conversations with
18 the consultants who would be doing the groundwater studies.
19 She said, in response to input requested by the Board regarding possible removal of the
20 more intensive uses, the agricultural preservation board felt that there are places in the County
21 where the more intensive uses might be acceptable, and that the conditional zoning or special
22 use process would allow for any issues to be addressed.
23
24 James Bryan, County Attorney, said he has advised staff, and he would like to advise
25 the Board that the attorney's office has found that this is legally insufficient, and parts of it would
26 be unenforceable. He said if the Board adopts it and there is litigation, there is a high likelihood
27 of an unfavorable outcome.
28 Chair Jacobs asked how this got all the way to a public hearing before this was
29 discovered by the attorney's office.
30 James Bryan said there was agreement to disagree.
31 Perdita Holtz said there was a meeting back in August regarding his concerns about
32 some of the definitions of non- farm use of farm equipment. She said staff asked if James
33 Bryan would provide some legally sufficient language, but the attorney's office did not want to
34 interject into policy. She said she and Michael Harvey have discussed this and both feel that
35 proper discretion goes a long way in enforcing what is an obvious business use, versus a farmer
36 who grades one road a year. She said this is where the County's attorney had concerns. She
37 said there is some discretion allowed in enforcing this.
38 Chair Jacobs said it is insufficient to have this come up at a public hearing, and this
39 needs to be fixed.
40 Commissioner Gordon asked for the specific areas James Bryan is referring to.
41 James Bryan said it is not that he does not want to inject policy. He said this is purely a
42 legal issue and his legal advice is to pull these definitions. He said there are three definitions
43 related to permitted-by-right, and these are: non-farming use of farm equipment, meat
44 processing and the farm stand. He said all of these definitions say it has to be on a bona-fide
45 farm. He said the state statutes about bona fide farms are very lenient. He said there is no line
46 at all in this, and it is not statutorily correct.
47 Commissioner Gordon asked about the PowerPoint and the use specific standards on
48 the bottom of page 4. She asked if, in the ASE-CZ, there are any uses in which all of the
49 standards are eliminated and it is entirely a case by case basis.
50 Perdita Holtz said no.
51 Commissioner Gordon asked if the standard for major roads is ever eliminated.
42
1 Perdita Holtz said yes, that is one that has been discussed. She said there are some
2 uses where you have to be located on a major road, but that standard can be modified if you go
3 through the re-zoning process for the conditional zoning district.
4 Commissioner Gordon asked for the reason why R1 does not have agricultural support
5 enterprises.
6 Perdita Holtz said, in the permitted use table, there is a footnote under the R1 zoning
7 that says no uses are being added here. She said the reason for this is because the R1 zoning
8 district purpose statement says that this is a zoning district for rural residential non-farm uses.
9 She said staff did not feel that farm uses should be added as permitted uses, as it would be
10 contrary to this purpose statement. She said, if you are currently zoned rural residential and
11 operating a farm, there are other avenues for approval, such as re-zoning to AR or applying to
12 the ASE-CZ zoning district. She said the R1 purpose statement could be modified, but that was
13 not the purpose of this effort.
14 Perdita Holtz presented the following final two slides:
15
16 Final Note
17 Some uses the farming community might be interested in applying for may be
18 permissible as a "Home Occupation"
19 Home Occupation standards are currently in the amendment approval process
20 Heard at November 2013 quarterly public hearing
21 Planning staff can help people determine which review/approval process would be the
22 most advantageous to apply for
23
24 Recommendation
25 Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development
26 Ordinance.
27 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
28 the proposed amendment.
29 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
30 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC
31 regular meeting.
32 Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
33 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
34 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
35 Perdita Holtz noted an error in attachment 3, on page 206. She said the sawmill use
36 category should be listed as being allowed in the ASE-CZ zoning district. She said this has
37 been corrected on the internet materials.
38 Commissioner McKee said it seems there is a problem between legal and the planning
39 staff. He asked how to proceed.
40 Michael Talbert said this is a large item with many moving parts, and the area in conflict
41 is fairly small. He feels it would be appropriate to proceed with the staff recommendation, and
42 this can come back on April 15th with revised definitions that meet the requirements of both
43 departments.
44 Perdita Holtz said this was scheduled to go to the planning board next week. She
45 suggested it would be good to have this language turned around in time to put together these
46 agenda materials. She said if this is not possible, it should be continued to a later date.
47 Chair Jacobs suggested it be continued to a later date.
48 Commissioner Price asked if the attorney is comfortable with the rezoning districts on a
49 case by case basis. She said it seems like it is getting close to spot zoning.
50 James Bryan said he has reviewed all of this and he only found the three definitions to
51 be legally insufficient.
43
1 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the addition of the provisions for some of the
2 enterprises that might use more water than an average household. She asked if this would be a
3 problem if a neighborhood went in with pools and irrigation and did not have the same
4 requirements for ground water studies.
5 James Bryan said this might be a policy issue, but he sees no legal issue with it.
6 Paul Guthrie referred to the process with micro breweries and some of the definitions.
7 He said this needs to be dealt with.
8 Tony Blake said he has talked with farmers and all of the concerns were around the
9 water usage. He said people are not clear on what the language means for them. He said
10 there is concern about the available use of water for their livelihood through expansion of herds
11 or crops.
12 Chair Jacobs said it is important to clarify this.
13 Commissioner Gordon asked if this would apply to a bona-fide farm.
14 Perdita Holtz said this would not affect any livestock or crop usage. She wonders if this
15 is getting at the issue of having a bona-fide farm that raises cattle and then there is also an
16 agricultural services use that is subject to the groundwater study.
17 Tony Blake said the issue seems to be a desire for flexibility.
18 Perdita Holtz said this does not restrict water usage for cows or crops in any way, even if
19 the farmer also has an agricultural services use.
20 Marc Marcoplos said he is impressed with the handling of the Efland overlay issues. He
21 said he has been hearing about the agricultural enterprise concept for years, and he thinks it is
22 important to help farmers make a better living. He said the water issue is the one that people
23 will seize on, and perhaps for good reason with the way it is written.
24 He said he went to the information session, which was re-scheduled due to weather. He
25 said there are 600 farmers in the County and it is worth looking into that there were none of
26 them there. He feels there must be a better mechanism to communicate with the farmers.
27 Megan Toben said she lives off Dairyland Road and has been farming for 12 years. She
28 said she has sold at multiple farmers markets. She said for 9 of those 12 years, her husband
29 subsidized the farm with his income. She said most of the farm's financial resources and lands
30 were lost in 2010 as a result of the financial crisis. She said she and her husband made a shift
31 with the remaining 38 acres toward agri-tourism and crop diversification. She has been running
32 a non-profit called Pickards Mountain Eco-Institute, which offers environmental education to
33 local schools, as well as weekend workshops on various topics. She said the farm is also in the
34 final stages of opening a farm stand called the Honeysuckle Teahouse, which will open in April.
35 She said it is hard to make ends meet as a farmer. She said farmers need all the help that the
36 County can offer, and it is worth it to spend the time working out all of these details. She
37 recommended that the Board and staff check in with the Carolina Farm Stewards program for
38 input on the issues farmers face. She said she is here to thank for the Board for what they do
39 and to ask them to stay with this agricultural support enterprises program until it is the best that
40 it can be.
41 Perdita Holtz said she would like to clarify that if you use more water than the average
42 single house, it does not mean you cannot exist; it means you will have to do a groundwater
43 study.
44 Tony Blake said he has a neighbor who had a spring that dried up in the drought. He
45 was forced to go to groundwater. He said it was not clear to his neighbor that he was not being
46 restricted.
47 Commissioner McKee said there were not a lot of commercial farmers at the information
48 meeting or at tonight's meeting because those are large businesses that fall outside of the
49 permitting structure. He said this will be beneficial to smaller or beginning farmers who want to
50 transition their operation. He said these large farms have computers and smart phones and
44
1 ability to communicate. He said he is sure there will be concern and pushback over the water
2 issue in the future.
3 Commissioner Gordon said she does think the ground water is a key concern. She said
4 the County does encourage businesses that have low water usage, as part of economic
5 development. She said the consideration of water usage is a legitimate concern, and the
6 County has to consider not exceeding the carrying capacity.
7 She thinks the Board needs time to consider the definitions.
8 Perdita Holtz said, per the prior discussion the plan is to adjourn until the May meeting.
9 Chair Jacobs said, after all the time the Board has spent on this, he hopes it does not
10 get hung up on how many gallons of water are allowed. He said the water issue is important;
11 but there are a lot of people who can benefit from this, and he feels it is possible to come up
12 with reasonable standards. He hopes staff will work with the planning board to come up with
13 something that is sensitive to the concerns of farmers as well as the concerns of people who
14 worry about our ground water.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
17 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
18 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the May 20, 2014 BOCC
19 regular meeting.
20 2. Adjourn the public hearing until May 20, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
21 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 6. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
26 Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to
27 establish a zoning program commonly referred to as Agricultural Support Enterprises
28 (ASE) within the Rural Buffer land use classification.
29
30 Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
31
32 Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer
33 Land Use Classification
34 Quarterly Public Hearing
35 February 24, 2014
36 Item C.6
37
38 Purpose of Amendment
39 Allow appropriate agricultural support enterprises within the Rural Buffer land use
40 classification
41 Will augment allowable uses famers can pursue in order to generate additional
42 farm-related income while minimizing any adverse impacts on adjoining property
43 Intent is to better enable farmers to keep farming which will help preserve
44 the rural heritage of Orange County, including the geographic area that
45 comprises the Rural Buffer
46 Balance between rights of property owner and rights of neighboring property
47 owners
48
49 Two Proposed ASE Amendments
50 Outside of Rural Buffer land use classification
51 Within Rural Buffer land use classification
45
1 Requires amendments to Joint Planning Area documents
2 Orange County, Towns of Chapel Hill & Carrboro must approve JPA
3 amendments
4 March 27, 2014 joint planning public hearing
5 JPA documents must be amended before these proposed
6 UDO/Comprehensive Plan changes can be adopted by Orange County
7 Will be on longer review/approval timeframe
8 The more intensive uses could not be considered in the Rural Buffer, under the
9 current proposal
10
11 Unified Development Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan Amendments
12 Only a few changes/additions would be necessary to the ASE text applicable outside of
13 the Rural Buffer to allow ASE uses within the Rural Buffer
14 District chart in Article 3
15 Additions to RB zoning district in Table of Permitted Uses for General Use
16 Zoning Districts
17 Noting that some uses shall not be approved in the ASE-CZ if located in the
18 Rural Buffer
19 Additions to some of the use-specific standards in Article 5
20 Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow new ASE-CZ zoning district in the Rural
21 Buffer land use category
22
23 Project Review/Approval Process
24 Depends on use being proposed within the Rural Buffer
25 Three basic processes:
26 Staff review/approval
27 Special Use Permit
28 Class B is reviewed/approved by Board of Adjustment
29 Class A is reviewed/approved by Board of County Commissioners (none
30 in RB)
31 Rezoning
32 General Use district (not applicable in the Rural Buffer)
33 Conditional district (including proposed ASE-CZ)
34 All projects within the Rural Buffer are sent to JPA partners for review and comment, in
35 accordance with the JPA Agreement
36
37 Permitted Outright vs. SUP or Conditional Zoning
38 Less intensive uses added to the Table of Permitted Uses as permitted outright
39 Subject to use-specific and general development standards
40 Community Agricultural Processing Facility
41 Community Farmers Market
42 Cooperative Farm Stand
43 Community Meat Processing Facility
44 Non-Farm Use of Farm Equipment
45 Rural Special Events
46 Staff approval
47 More intensive uses must be permitted through either the Special Use Permit process or
48 rezoned as an ASE-CZ
49 Class B Special Use Permit
50 Microbrewery with Minor Events
51 Winery with Minor Events
46
1 Microbrewery, Production Only
2 Winery, Production Only
3 Rural Heritage Museum
4 Special Use Permits are "quasi-judicial" proceedings
5 Public Hearing
6 Decided on a case-by-case basis with public input ("evidence")
7
8 Conditional Zoning District (ASE-CZ)
9 Some of the more intensive uses that can be applied for as an ASE-CZ could not be applied for
10 in the Rural Buffer
11 Composting Operation with grinding
12 Regional Meat Processing Facility
13 Stockyards/Livestock Markets
14 Sawmills
15 Both Agricultural Preservation Board and Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
16 agree on removing these uses from consideration in the Rural Buffer
17
18 Conditional Zoning District (ASE-CZ)
19 Conditional zoning districts allow projects to be considered on a case-by-case, site-
20 specific basis
21 Rezoning (legislative process) with public hearing
22 Acknowledges that there are places where a specific type of use may be appropriate
23 whereas it would not be in a different site-specific situation
24 BOCC has final decision on whether a proposed use(s) is compatible with
25 surrounding uses
26 Mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part of the approval process
27 • Allows tailoring of project to a specific site
28 Table of Permitted Uses lists the types of uses that can be applied for as an ASE-CZ
29
30 JPA Review
31 November 21, 2013 Assembly of Governments meeting to discuss with elected officials
32 Amendment Package sent to JPA partners on January 17, 2014
33 To date, no comments have been received
34
35 Public Notification
36 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
37 ➢ Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
38 Held Public Information Meeting on February 17 (was postponed from advertised date of
39 February 13)
40 ➢ Flyers posted
41 ➢ Press Release
42 Has been a topic on a few agendas in the past year
43 ➢ BOCC (including Assembly of Governments)
44 ➢ Planning Board
45 ➢ Agricultural Preservation Board
46 Planning website posting on January 24
47
48 Recommendation
49 Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development
50 Ordinance.
47
1 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
2 the proposed amendment.
3 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
4 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the September 4, 2014
5 BOCC regular meeting.
6 Adjourn the public hearing until September 4, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
7 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
8
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
11 Commissioner Gordon referred to the use specific standards chart and asked why this is
12 not included in the rural buffer section.
13 Perdita Holtz said the standards are the same in the rural buffer as they are in the
14 agricultural residential. She referred to the amendment package, in article 5 and said any
15 amendments in red are just adding RB to a few sections. She said the standards are the same,
16 and there has been no re-write of standards to make it pertain to the rural buffer.
17 Commissioner Gordon asked how the Planning Board consideration interfaces with the
18 joint planning consideration.
19 Perdita Holtz said, within the rural buffer, the planning board will make a
20 recommendation on the JPA amendments as well. She said the planning board will be briefed
21 on this in April, and information will be shared from the public hearing, planned for March 27tH
22 She said the UDO revisions being considered tonight will be on the April planning board agenda
23 for them to make a recommendation as well.
24 Commissioner Gordon said the recommendation will be made with just the hearing
25 comments, but not with the comments from the jurisdictions.
26 Perdita Holtz said the UDO amendments are not what are being heard at the March 27th
27 joint public hearing; this is to hear amendments to the joint planning land use plan and
28 agreement, and there are very few amendments that need to occur.
29 Commissioner Gordon asked for a memo listing those amendments.
30 Perdita Holtz said this can be done.
31 Commissioner Gordon asked when the input on the UDO from the Chapel Hill and
32 Carrboro public officials will come.
33 Perdita Holtz said public officials don't comment on UDO amendments unless staff
34 wants to bring something to their attention.
35 Commissioner Gordon asked when these comments are due.
36 Perdita Holtz said these were due by tonight, but these will still be accepted while the
37 public hearing process is going on. She said written comments can be submitted as part of the
38 JPA process.
39 Chair Jacobs asked if there are any items in this proposal that have the same issues that
40 the attorney and staff had in the previous proposal.
41 Perdita Holtz said this is not due to come back until September, so this is not an issue.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
44 1. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
45 the Board of County Commissioners in time for the September 4, 2014 BOCC regular
46 meeting.
47 2. Adjourn the public hearing until September 4, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
48 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
51
48
1 7. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government-
2 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public hearing
3 process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related
4 items/amendments.
5
6 A motion was made by Renee Price, seconded by Earl McKee to continue the public
7 hearing until May 27, 2014 to consider the recommended changes in the Unified Development
8 Ordinance text amendment to change the existing public hearing process.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn
15 the meeting at 11:34 PM.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Barry Jacobs, Chair
20
21
22 David Hunt
23 Deputy Clerk
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 March 6, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday,
10 March 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
17 Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
18 members will be identified appropriately below)
19 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
20 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
21
22 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
23
24 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
25 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following information at the Commissioner's places:
26 - White Sheet - Chair Jacobs' correction sheet - Item 6a- Minutes
27 - Yellow— Item 7a - CDBG grant application information - Item 7a -- Report and
28 Recommendations from the County and Town Managers Regarding the
29 Implementation of Improvements in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood
30
31 Chair Jacobs said that due to the pending inclement weather, the closed session is
32 canceled.
33
34 PUBLIC CHARGE
35 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
36
37 2. Public Comments
38
39 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
40 Andrew Dykers said he lives in Carrboro and wanted to share an idea to help citizens
41 have greater access to information on candidates running for public office in Orange County.
42 He said when candidates file to run for office, the County lists their name, email and residence
43 on the website. He suggested the inclusion of a hyperlink to the candidate's on-line presence.
44 He said citizens would benefit by having this information in a consolidated manner.
45 He suggested a new straightforward web address for accessing this information. He
46 said he did talk to Michael Talbert regarding concerns about promoting one candidate over
47 another. He said he is not here to suggest that the County advance the cause of any particular
48 candidate.
49
50 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
2
1 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
2 below.)
3
4 3. Petitions by Board Members
5 Commissioner Pelissier said, now that the Board has approval from the Federal Transit
6 Administration for project development of the light rail project, she would like to re-petition for
7 Chair Jacobs to write a letter to the town of Chapel Hill requesting information about plans for
8 affordable housing. She said this is one of the criteria for moving forward, as it is important to
9 see what the plans are near and around the light rail. She said Chair Jacobs has done this
10 previously, but she would like to re-initiate the letter, because the Board did not get a response
11 from the Town of Chapel Hill. She said that perhaps a presentation could be requested at the
12 next meeting with the town.
13
14 Commissioner Rich said she wanted to recognize the fencing team at Chapel Hill High
15 School for winning the state championships this year. She would like to have a resolution of
16 recognition and have the team come to one of the proposed meeting dates on March 18th or
17 April 15 th
18 Chair Jacobs noted that the Chapel Hill girls' basketball team is in the quarterfinals and
19 is currently undefeated. He said there might be two teams to recognize.
20
21 Commissioner Price said she would like to add on to Commissioner Pelissier's petition.
22 She said she attended a NACo workshop to consider high opportunity areas for the light rail.
23 She asked that low and high opportunity areas for economic development and jobs be
24 considered as related to the light rail.
25 Chair Jacobs suggested this be expanded to include bus service and light rail.
26
27 Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 7:08.
28
29 Commissioner Gordon read her petition as follows:
30
31 "On March 27, 2014 the Board of Commissioners (BOCC) will have a joint meeting with the
32 Town of Carrboro and Town of Chapel Hill.
33 The first part of that meeting will be a public hearing on two different text amendments to the
34 Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement.
35
36 Following the hearing, there will be a non-public hearing agenda for the meeting.
37
38 My petition is that an agenda item for the non-public hearing part of the meeting should be the
39 presentation of the proposed Agricultural Support Enterprises within the Rural Buffer. That
40 would be good background for understanding why the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use
41 Plan are proposed to be changed. The agenda background material would be the 2030
42 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments proposed
43 to establish a zoning program referred to as Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE) with the
44 Rural Buffer, along with any other material that would be necessary to understand the
45 proposal."
46
47 Chair Jacobs said he would like to petition for a presentation on the Board's social
48 justice goal since many of the Commissioners are new. He said it is not referenced often for
49 policy decisions, and it is important.
50
3
1 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
2 a. Address and Road Naming Ordinance Update
3 The Board received an update on the Road Naming and Addressing Ordinance.
4 This update was given by Dwane Brinson, the Tax Administrator. He introduced
5 Tammy Walker, the Land Records/GIS Manager, who was there to answer questions.
6 Dwane Brinson gave brief background on this issue. He said the Board formally
7 adopted a Road Naming and Addressing Ordinance in December, 2011, and a letter was
8 mailed to all affected residents on August 29, 2012. He said this letter explained the ordinance
9 requirements and it did not cite non-compliance.
10 He said a presentation was given to the Board on March 7, 2013 after the addressing
11 responsibilities were moved to the tax office.
12 Dwane Brinson said the issues identified last March are coming to fruition in greater
13 numbers than expected. He reviewed the following issues as outlined in the abstract:
14
15 Pervasive Issues Encountered in 2013
16
17 After adoption of the Ordinance, a letter was sent to Orange County residents in August,
18 2012 notifying them of the Ordinance requirements, and it provided information regarding
19 signage and posting of addresses. This caused residents to go out and purchase house
20 number signs, often from their local fire departments, prior to them being reviewed for
21 compliance. Once reviewed, the residents were notified of new house numbers to be in
22 compliance with the Ordinance. As a result, residents had to purchase a second sign with the
23 correct house numbers, except in the Orange Grove Fire Department. Orange Grove was able
24 to locate a chemical that would allow the removal of the numbers.
25
26 A second issue pertains to mobile home parks, a top priority identified in our implementation
27 plan. A mobile home park is defined by the tax office as at least three mobile homes on one
28 parcel, generally. It was quickly discovered that most mobile homes within mobile home parks
29 were addressed at the main road instead of the mobile home park road. Hypothetically, an
30 emergency responder would receive an emergency call for 102 Wide Branch Lane, unit 3, a
31 mobile home park. The only reference of said address was at the mobile home park entrance
32 on Wide Branch Lane. Once the emergency responder arrived at the mobile home park, no
33 identification could be located on any mobile home within the mobile home park.
34 The Ordinance does not permit such an addressing system as each mobile home within the
35 park must have identification on the lot itself, and the addresses must reference the road within
36 the mobile home park if the road is at least 75 feet in length rather than, for example only, Wide
37 Branch Lane. A collaborative approach was taken to remedy these issues once discovered. Tax
38 office staff, the Orange Grove fire chief and the mobile home park owner walked the entire park
39 on foot to identify issues. Subsequently, the parties involved developed an addressing system
40 that complied with the Ordinance. After a collaborative plan was agreed upon, the tax office
41 mailed formal notification letters to the owner(s) and the addressing system was established.
42
43 As a final example of large-scale issues encountered in 2013, it was discovered that, after GIS
44 was moved under the tax office, a great number of residents were essentially queued as a
45 result of the letter mailed in August, 2012. Residents had received a letter explaining the
46 Ordinance and its requirements, which prompted thousands of calls into county offices for
47 further clarification. The message to residents who reached out to the tax office was to wait as
48 the GIS Department had just been reorganized to the tax office. This period of abeyance would
49 allow tax office staff to become acclimated to the Ordinance and prepare a revised
50 implementation plan for review of the BOCC
4
1 Dwane Brinson said once work is completed in the Orange Grove fire district, the plan is
2 to move onto Cedar Grove. He referenced the following timeline:
3 2013 — Orange Grove
4 2014 — Cedar Grove, Caldwell, Efland
5 2015 — New Hope, Orange Rural, White Cross
6 2016 — Greater Chapel Hill, Southern Triangle, Damascus
7
8 He said, with regard to public information for 2014, staff has opted for a direct approach
9 with residents. He said there is a methodical approach to work through the fire districts and
10 work directly with each resident affected by the ordinance. He said there have been a few
11 directed public information efforts, which included the following:
12 • Spoke at a community watch meeting with the Sheriff's Department in November, 2013
13 • Participated in three (3) fire chief meetings in 2013
14 • Prepared handouts and discussion materials for four tax office presentations
15
16 Dwane Brinson referenced the color maps provided for the district. He said 20 percent
17 of Orange Grove's total addresses were affected, and this was greater than was expected.
18 He said, while working with Orange Grove, work was being done with the residents in
19 que from the letter of August 2012. He said staff also responded to other requests from
20 emergency responders who encountered situations during an emergency response call.
21 Dwane Brinson said exhibit C shows the model that Orange Grove used to submit
22 information, and the hope is that other fire districts will do the same.
23 Dwane Brinson said he was asked to submit a letter from a resident of Orange Grove
24 regarding his experience and the good that this addressing has done for his district; and this is
25 in the packet.
26 Commissioner Gordon thanked Dwane Brinson for this update. She said she would like
27 to emphasize that citizens in the County don't have to do anything to be in compliance until
28 contact is made with them. She said the previous information stated that there would be
29 education in 2013, followed by compliance letters in 2014.
30 She said it is important to let people know that this going to take longer than expected to
31 implement. She suggested that staff develop a list of frequently asked questions to put on their
32 website.
33 Commissioner Gordon said it is important that the Commissioners know that compliance
34 letters are going to be sent out in 2014, as staff will be working systematically with residents
35 during that time. She said she has gotten some questions about this.
36 Commissioner Price said she is impressed with what has been done, and she feels that
37 putting the fire district in the bigger picture helps to lessen the fear. She said it is easier for
38 residents to swallow this when they realize that it is for their own safety. She asked what
39 residents can do to get ahead of the game.
40 Dwane Brinson said exhibit b gives a list of other areas outside of Orange Grove where
41 emergency responders and residents have brought critical issues to their attention. He said
42 these are being worked on in the same process and in the timeliest manner possible.
43 Tammy Walker said Teer Road is a state road that has been severed by water. She
44 said the state addressed this by giving it two different state road numbers but still called both
45 ends of it Teer Road. She said this has caused a lot of problems with 911. She said she has
46 met with the County attorney and the state to get approval to call this East and West Teer
47 Road. She said this process just takes time to implement, and residents will have to be notified
48 that an address change is necessary. She said this same situation happened on Apple Mill
49 Road, and this will now be North and South Apple Mill Road.
5
1 Commissioner Price asked how residents can get ahead of this process, and if they
2 should call staff first.
3 Tammy Walker said staff is trying to work the most critical areas first, but residents can
4 call the Land Records/GIS office at 245-2505 to start the process.
5 Commissioner McKee said he appreciates staff taking this approach. He said he did not
6 expect this project to be so large and time consuming. He appreciates the work that is being
7 done. He still thinks this is a critical issue to be addressed.
8 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the ordinance gives a specific sign or numbering
9 requirement, or if residents can paint or place their own numbers on their property.
10 Tammy Walker said the number has to be visible from both directions on a contrasting
11 background.
12 Dwane Brinson said the number height must be three inches.
13 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the numbers do not have to be purchased, but can
14 be painted on, as long as it meets the requirements.
15 Tammy Walker said yes, as long as it is contrasting.
16 Commissioner Dorosin asked about the process when residents close off a road.
17 Tammy Walker said staff is working on the closed roads by going through legal.
18 Commissioner Dorosin asked for an explanation of the justification for blocking off
19 roads.
20 Dwane Brinson said this is not known, but efforts are being made to resolve this
21 amicably.
22 Chair Jacobs cited an instance of a resident using gravel to block access to a road. He
23 said this is now a public road, and it will be open and used.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said, if these are public right of ways, it should not take long to
25 open them back up.
26 Chair Jacobs, responding to what Commissioner Gordon suggested, said Carla Banks
27 could possibly help put up an FAQ on the tax website to provide basic information.
28 Commissioner Price asked if the numbers have to be reflective.
29 Tammy Walker said the ordinance specifies that the numbers have to be contrasting.
30 Dwane Brinson said the signs from the fire department are reflective, and this is helpful.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if everyone on the map has been notified of a problem with
32 their numbering.
33 Dwane Brinson said yes.
34
35 5. Public Hearings
36
37 6. Consent Agenda
38 e Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
39 Chair Jacobs asked for removal of item 6a to incorporate changes in the minutes.
40
41 e Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
44 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
49 a. Minutes
6
1 The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes from November 12 and
2 14, 2013 and January 31, 2014 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
5 approve the corrections to the minutes as submitted by Chair Jacobs for the minutes from
6 November 12, 2013.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
11 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
12 property tax values for thirty-eight (38) taxpayers with a total of seventy-seven (77) bills that will
13 result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with the NCGS.
14 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
15 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
16 values for nine (9) taxpayers with a total of fourteen (14) bills that will result in a reduction of
17 revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
18 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
19 The Board approved four (4) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
20 taxation for four (4) bills for the 2013 tax year.
21 e. Appointment of County Review Officers
22 The Board appointed one additional County Review Officer, to remove from appointment four
23 (4) Review Officers that are no longer employed by the County, and to re-appoint one Review
24 Officer due to a name change.
25 f. Correction to Ordinance 2014-001 — Board of Adjustment Operations and
26 Procedures
27 The Board adopted a revised Ordinance, amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
28 to correct a staff error.
29 g. Legal Advertisement for Joint Planning Public Hearing — March 27, 2014
30 The Board approved the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the Joint Planning
31 Area Public Hearing scheduled for March 27, 2014.
32 h. Power Lift Stretchers for Emergency Services
33 The Board approved the purchase of eight (8) automatic lift hydraulic stretchers that are grant
34 funded, requiring a 20% local match.
35 L Boards and Commissions — Commissioner Assignments
36 The Board approved the list of boards and commissions on which members of the Board of
37 County Commissioners have chosen to serve.
38 j. Approval of Financing Arrangement for New Hope Volunteer Fire Department of
39 Orange County, Inc. to Purchase a Replacement Tanker Truck
40 The Board approved a request from New Hope Volunteer Fire Department of Orange County,
41 Inc. to enter into a financing arrangement to purchase a Tanker truck, and authorize the Board
42 of Commissioners' Chair to sign the appropriate documents related to the financing
43 arrangement.
44 k. Approval of Financing Arrangement for Eno Fire & Emergency Services, Inc. to
45 Purchase a Replacement Tanker Truck
46 The Board approved a request from Eno Fire & Emergency Services, Inc. to enter into a
47 financing arrangement to purchase a Tanker truck, and authorize the Board of Commissioners'
48 Chair to sign the appropriate documents related to the financing arrangement.
49
50 7. Regular Agenda
7
1
2 a. Report and Recommendations from the County and Town Managers
3 Regarding the Implementation of Improvements in the Historic Rogers Road
4 Neighborhood
5 The Board considered recommendations from the County and Town Managers
6 regarding Rogers Road Sewer and Community Outreach to implement improvements in the
7 Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood.
8 Michael Talbert said it is a nice step to finally be moving forward with this item. He went
9 through the various attachments included in the abstract.
10 He said there was a report given to the board on November 21 st that included the
11 recommendations from the task force, and these are included in the packet. He said one of
12 these recommendations was for the town and County managers to explore a collaborative
13 approach to making this work. He said the managers have met and are moving forward with
14 this, with the Board's approval, and the Town of Chapel Hill met on February 10th and approved
15 this in a resolution. He said the managers, including the Town of Carrboro, have approved
16 going forward with funding the engineering study for the Rogers Road sewer; and there is
17 agreement on the proportionate funding of 43 percent for the County, 43 percent for the town of
18 Chapel Hill, and 14 percent for Carrboro. He noted that this involves the 86 parcels that did not
19 have sewer when this process was started.
20 Michael Talbert reviewed the managers' recommendations as outlined below:
21
22 1. That the Cost associated with preliminary engineering for OWASA sewer infrastructure and
23 community outreach is shared 14% Carrboro, 43% Chapel Hill and 43% Orange County.
24
25 2. That the County contract with OWASA for a preliminary engineering estimate to provide
26 sewer to the 86 parcels identified by the Task Force not to exceed $130,000. The cost of the
27 preliminary engineering will be shared with the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro.
28
29 3. That the County participates in community outreach partnering with organizations such as
30 the Jackson Center and/or the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) to identify
31 action steps needed to provide sewer service to the Rogers Road Neighborhood and lay the
32 groundwork for a master plan for the development of the Rogers Road area (including the
33 Greene Tract), not to exceed $50,000. Carrboro, Chapel Hill and the County will share in the
34 cost of this outreach.
35
36 4. Consider a budget amendment of$77,400 (43% of$180,000) for the initial engineering and
37 community outreach expected to take 8-10 months to complete.
38
39 Michael Talbert said the preliminary report that OWASA will provide does not commit
40 the Board to future actions, nor does it jeopardize the EPA investigation. He said the estimates
41 of these costs do not put the Board in any type of commitment for future action. He said this
42 will move toward a firm number of engineering costs and a clear picture of where the project
43 could go.
44 He said there are a lot of changes going on with community development block grant
45 funds in North Carolina. He noted that Commissioner Dorosin alerted staff to the issue that the
46 state was holding a meeting regarding possible allocation of$25 million. He said the
47 information he described for the engineering study is part of the first steps in getting to the point
48 of applying for this grant.
49 He said two staff members attended the meeting on the 28th and he referenced the
50 steps outlined in the memo below:
8
1
2 it
3
4 Date: March 3, 2014
5
6 To: Michael S. Talbert, Interim County Manager
7 Commissioner Mark Dorosin
8
9 From: Tara L. Fikes, Director
10
11 Subject: CDBG Infrastructure Application
12
13 cc: Orange County Board of Commissioners
14
15
16 As you will recall, last Thursday Commissioner Dorosin shared with us information regarding an
17 upcoming application workshop for the new CDBG Infrastructure Grant workshop sponsored by
18 the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the new administrators of this
19 program. He noted that this could be a funding opportunity for the Rogers Road community.
20 Thus, on last Friday, February 28th, James Davis and I attended this workshop in Raleigh to
21 gather information about the program. The room was full at this first of three workshops to be
22 held in the state so it is probably safe to surmise that there is lots of interest in this program
23 around the state.
24
25 The following is a summary of the information gleaned from this workshop and the critical
26 decision points to be considered should the County wish to apply for these funds for the Rogers
27 Road community.
28
29 According to their program statement, "the purpose of the Infrastructure Program is to construct
30 public water and sewer infrastructure to mitigate public and environmental health problems in
31 areas where the percentage of low to moderate income persons is at least 51 percent." There
32 is a total of$10 million available for applications submitted by April 1 and another $15 million
33 available for applications submitted by May 1. The maximum award is $3 million dollars over a
34 three year period. The type of wastewater projects allowable that matches most closely the
35 needs in the Rogers Road community is a project that extends public sewer to areas with failed
36 septic systems. With this in mind, below are the critical information needs that must be
37 addressed when considering whether to prepare an application at this time.
38
39 Budget
40 I. The applicant (local government) must provide "match" funds that will be used for the
41 house connections to the sewer lines and abandoning septic systems. (All houses in
42 the area must be connected to a new system.) Connection funds can come from the
43 applicant's enterprise fund. (Evidence of the commitment of funds must be included
44 in the application.)
45
46
47
48
9
1 II. The project budget must be sealed by a professional engineer. Documentation of cost
2 effectiveness of the project is also required. Further, if the grant will not cover the
3 complete project costs, the applicant must provide evidence of commitment of
4 additional funding to meet the budget. (A project budget would need to be developed
5 with funding sources identified and confirmed.)
6
7
8 Priority Criteria
9
10 I. Economic Need (75 points) —This criterion requires that the residential area served by
11 the grant contain at least 51% low and moderate income households, consideration
12 of the poverty rate of the County and the amount of the water/sewer bill relative to
13 the median household income. (Census data, perhaps door-to-door surveys and the
14 OWASA rate schedule will need to be reviewed to confirm compliance with this
15 requirement.)
16
17 II. Severity of Need (50 points) — For areas where there are failing septic systems, a map
18 delineating the location of failed septic systems must be submitted. Also, there must
19 be a letter from a registered soil scientist or a registered sanitarian verifying the
20 failed septic systems. (To receive the maximum points in this category more than
21 20% of the systems must be failing. Less than 10% of the systems failing yield 30
22 points.)
23
24 III. System Management (17 points) —The system serving the project area must have a
25 Capital Improvements Plan (updated in the last two years) and and/or an Asset
26 Management Plan that includes the proposed sewer project. The operating ratio
27 should be greater than one. (Uncertain of the existence of these plans and the
28 system's operating ratio.)
29
30 Additionally, in my professional opinion all other requirements of the grant application can be
31 met with the assistance of OWASA and perhaps GIS for mapping in time for the May 1
32 application deadline. This allows the opportunity for a public hearing on April 15 after the
33 application is developed no later than April 5th.
34
35 Nevertheless, the timeframe for application development is very short (one month), thus,
36 direction is needed as soon as possible regarding the County's interest in pursuing this
37 application. Should you wish to proceed, I am willing to work to develop this application for a
38 May 1 submission.
39
40 Michael Talbert said this is on a very fast track, and he noted the application due dates
41 of April 1 and May 1. He said there are several things outlined in the memo, including the
42 engineering study and confirmation of area demographics, which must be done in order to
43 apply. He said the demographic study could be done through the Jackson Center and/or
44 RENA. He noted the need for certification and mapping of failed septic systems.
45 He said this must be planned for in the capital investment plan, and it must be in
46 OWASA's plan. He hopes these steps can be completed this year in order to be in a good
47 position to apply for this next year.
48 He reviewed some of the manager recommendations. He said one of the concerns of
49 the Carrboro Board was that everyone gets a chance to review the documentation, especially
50 for the Jackson Group and RENA, to make sure that the scope of services is what everyone
10
1 wanted. He noted that the CIP, which comes out in March, will include, in year 2, the potential
2 to fund the sewer if everything is approved and the EPA concludes their investigation.
3 Chair Jacobs said the joint agreement to operate the community center was recently
4 approved, and he thanked Michael Talbert for helping to make this happen.
5 Michael Talbert said the community center is currently out to bid, and staff hopes to
6 bring the bid award back in April.
7 Commissioner Rich asked for an explanation of the ETJ process.
8 Michael Talbert said Rogers Road splits the unincorporated part of Orange County and
9 the part that is in Carrboro in half. He said the Orange County unincorporated section could
10 potentially be in a future Town of Chapel Hill ETJ. He said an initial public hearing has been
11 held and continued. He said his feeling is that the town is waiting to get buy-in that everyone
12 wants to move forward with this. He said the Chapel Hill town attorney has advised that the
13 only way the town can participate is if this is part of the ETJ. He said town is pursuing this and
14 will have to come back to the County for permission.
15 Commissioner Rich thanked Commissioner Dorosin for bringing this information
16 forward. She asked for clarification that it is too soon to do this now, but it will be done for next
17 year's budget.
18 Michael Talbert said yes. He said the sealed project budget estimate, which is pending
19 approval tonight, will take up to 6 months to complete.
20 Commissioner McKee asked the County attorney if there is any way to finesse the
21 timing issue and apply for a hold on some of these funds.
22 John Roberts said for some grants this is possible, but he does not know if that is the
23 case for this particular grant. He can look into this.
24 Michael Talbert said this is a small amount of money for a statewide grant. He said you
25 really need shovel ready projects to complete this application.
26 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the sheet and asked if it is not possible to do a May
27 1 st submission.
28 Michael Talbert said it is possible to do this, but there is a very slim chance of getting it.
29 He said there are no plans in the CIP and no sealed engineering report.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said he would argue for trying to apply. He said all of this
31 funding is for water and sewer infrastructure. He said the County is going to need to do this
32 anyway, and he thinks it is worthwhile since there is a contract with OWASA, and an
33 engineering contract is expected. He said the website has an income eligibility map and the
34 Orange County section shows Rogers Road as 71 percent to 80 percent low and moderate
35 income, which meets the threshold. He thinks it is critical to apply, and then next year the
36 County would have a shovel ready project. He said this would demonstrate to the community
37 that the County is taking their sewer commitment seriously. He said there may be other grant
38 projects that come up, and this will make the County more prepared and competitive. He thinks
39 this may be another representation to the EPA that Orange County is committed to moving this
40 project forward. He believes the engineering cost should be approved, and staff should be
41 encouraged to move forward with this.
42 Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin about pushing for this May 1St
43 deadline. He would also like to see if it is possible to place a hold on some of these funds. He
44 would like to move forward as expeditiously as possible.
45 Commissioner Gordon questioned how much work it would be for staff to move forward
46 on this.
47 Michael Talbert said he has not seen the documentation process, but he assumed that it
48 would be fairly detailed and would require a public hearing to move forward.
11
1 Commissioner Rich referred to the budget section on page 1. She asked about the
2 statement that all houses in the area must be connected to the system. She asked if this meant
3 people would be forced to connect to sewer.
4 Michael Talbert said the Board will have the opportunity to draw the map that meets the
5 criteria. He said the grant area may be smaller than 86 homes, depending on income levels.
6 He said everyone within the area drawn will have to be connected.
7 Commissioner Rich said at their last task force meeting only about 34 of the 86 homes
8 wanted sewer. She said there is an assumption that everyone wants sewer, and she has
9 concerns about this. She is not saying this shouldn't move forward, but she wants to keep the
10 conversation open and allow residents to have a say on this.
11 She asked if the wording means that this item must be in the CIP for 2013/14.
12 Michael Talbert said this is the implication. He said it has to be in the existing CIP, and
13 it must be funded, and neither of these things has been done.
14 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the application with all of the details would be
15 presented at the public hearing.
16 Michael Talbert said staff would have to define the areas to be served; draw this on the
17 map; do outreach; and provide cost estimates for infrastructure and connection. He said the
18 outreach process would provide much of the information Commissioner Rich was asking about.
19 Commissioner Pelissier asked if every household would need to be notified.
20 Michael Talbert said he does not know at this point.
21 Commissioner Pelissier said it would need to be made clear that this proposal would be
22 a change to what was in the task force report regarding residents being required to be hooked
23 up.
24 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner McKee and
25 said she would like to apply for the funds. She said information can be pulled from other grants
26 that have been done previously. She said the residents are just anxious to get the sewage out
27 of their front yards. She said, as long as the hookups are being provided, it is more palatable.
28 Michael Talbert said there was a similar application in 2011, and 9 homes were hooked
29 up to sewer and water. He said some of the same documentation could be used to recycle a
30 similar application.
31 Commissioner Price said she was referring to the census information and other
32 descriptive information. She said Tara Fikes' office may have some of this information.
33 Commissioner Gordon said it seems more prudent to give staff time to review the
34 application to see what can be done. She said if staff starts the process of looking into it, no
35 time will be lost. She said the only honest thing to do is to admit that this is not in the CIP, and
36 this will lose 17 points. She said it seems that staff should be asked to look at this and come
37 back in 5 days at the March 11th meeting with a recommendation of what can be realistically
38 done.
39 Chair Jacobs said Tara Fikes is retiring at the end of March, in the middle of this
40 process. He said there needs to be assurance from the manager that there are sufficient staff
41 members who are knowledgeable enough to execute this.
42 Michael Talbert said, given that there are 20 days to work on this prior to Tara Fikes'
43 retirement, he feels relatively confident that most of the application could be completed before
44 she leaves.
45 Chair Jacobs agreed that this should move forward. He also agrees that every single
46 person who might be affected should be notified and given an opportunity to speak at the public
47 hearing on April 15th, before there are irrevocable decisions made on their behalf. .
48 Chair Jacobs referred to page 4 and the reference to Rogers Road neighborhood. He
49 asked if it should be implied in every situation that references to Rogers Road refers to the
50 historic area.
12
1 Michael Talbert said yes.
2 Chair Jacobs noted that the final report talks about a broader service area, and he
3 wants it made clear that this is not what is being discussed. He mentioned the 60 acres that the
4 County owns, and he suggested that the Jackson Group look at this area as a low impact
5 recreation amenity for the Rogers Road and surrounding communities. He said there are trails
6 through it anyway, but it could be made to be a more visible, valuable and developed
7 recreational amenity.
8 Chair Jacobs asked how this application process and the CIP and funding commitment
9 will affect the EPA investigation.
10 John Roberts said that the County is not committed until the grants funds are actually
11 expended. He is confident that Orange County is going to emerge from the EPA situation in a
12 positive light and he has received word that the investigation has been concluded. He feels it is
13 safe for the County to proceed with this application.
14
15 Commissioner Gordon moved the manager's recommendation and suggested the
16 following addition:
17
18 5. They direct the manager to investigate the feasibility of this application and to report
19 back to them at a work session on March 11 to
20
21 There was no second.
22
23 Commissioner Dorosin noted that the CDBG funds are not scheduled to be awarded
24 until July. He said he thinks it is possible to include this in the plan.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
27
28 1. Negotiate a cost sharing agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro for
29 a preliminary engineering estimate to provide sewer to the 86 parcels identified by the Task
30 Force not to exceed $130,000 based on the Task Force recommendation;
31 2. Negotiate a contract with OWASA for a preliminary engineering estimate to provide sewer
32 to the 86 parcels identified by the Task Force not to exceed $130,000;
33 3. Negotiate a contract and/or participation in a Historic Rogers Road community outreach with
34 RENA and other partners they identify -paFtR iRg With eFgaRi"tie.ps s ,,.h ac the jaGk6gr
35 GeRter ,rd RRnin to identify action steps to provide sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road
36 Neighborhood and lay the groundwork for a master plan; and
37 4. Approve Budget Amendment#5-B appropriating $77,400 (43% of$180,000) from General
38 5. To instruct the manager to prepare CDBG application for submission by the May 1St deadline.
39
40 This motion changed bullet number 3 of the Manager's recommendation, as shown
41 above, and added bullet#5.
42 Commissioner Rich asked why the Board would eliminate the Jackson Center from the
43 motion if the task force has identified and voted for them.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not eliminating them, but he thinks RENA should be
45 the party to select the organizations. He said the Jackson Center could be one of those.
46 Commissioner Rich asked how this affects the $50,000 that was already approved by
47 Chapel Hill for the Jackson Center participation.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said Carrboro did not approve that $50,000.
49 Michael Talbert said if the motion is approved as stated, it would have to go back to
50 Chapel Hill and Carrboro before it proceeds.
13
1 Commissioner Gordon said she would like to amend item #3 in the motion to read as it
2 was stated in the original recommendation.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said he does not accept this.
4 Michael Talbert said the resolution from the town is on page 25, and it does not specify
5 the Jackson Center.
6 Commissioner Gordon said she would like to restore the language in bullet#3, and she
7 proposed a substitute motion to include this language. She noted that this will prevent the other
8 jurisdictions from having to revisit it.
9 Commissioner McKee seconded.
10 Commissioner Rich questioned whether this would have to go back to Chapel Hill if
11 Commissioner Dorosin's motion is approved.
12 Michael Talbert said it would still have to go back to Carrboro, because they have not
13 given approval yet. He said Carrboro wants to make sure RENA is involved in the decisions,
14 and he said the resolution from Chapel Hill does not exclude RENA.
15 Commissioner Rich reviewed the verbiage regarding partnerships and said Orange
16 County would be negotiating with RENA or the Jackson Center.
17 Michael Talbert said yes and other parties also.
18
19 VOTE to include Commissioner Gordon's amendment.
20
21 Ayes, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Rich); Nays, 4 (Chair
22 Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin).
23
24 Motion fails
25
26 Commissioner Gordon asked for a review of the motion.
27 Chair Jacobs reviewed the following motion:
28
29 1. Negotiate a cost sharing agreement with the Town of Chapel Hill and Town of Carrboro for
30 a preliminary engineering estimate to provide sewer to the 86 parcels identified by the Task
31 Force not to exceed $130,000 based on the Task Force recommendation;
32 2. Negotiate a contract with OWASA for a preliminary engineering estimate to provide sewer
33 to the 86 parcels identified by the Task Force not to exceed $130,000;
34 3. Negotiate a contract and/or participation in a Historic Rogers Road community outreach with
35 RENA and other partners they identify -paFtR iRg With eFgaRi"tie.ps s ,,.h ac the jaGk69r
36 GeRter ,rd RRnin to identify action steps to provide sewer service to the Historic Rogers Road
37 Neighborhood and lay the groundwork for a master plan; and
38 4. Approve Budget Amendment#5-B appropriating $77,400 (43% of$180,000) from General
39 Fund Unassigned Fund Balance for the initial engineering and community outreach expected to
40 take 8-10 months to complete.
41 5. Direct Michael Talbert to prepare CDBG application by May 1St deadline
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 Commissioner Gordon said she voted for this motion because she wanted to show her
46 support for this agenda item. She thinks it is a mistake to remove the Jackson Center.
47 Chair Jacobs said the Board has found in the past, with trying to get grants for parks
48 and open space, that there are almost no other applicants; so he is hopeful this will be
49 successful and can be used for other neighborhoods, as well as for Rogers Road.
50
14
1 b. Authorization for Triangle Transit Authority to Levy an Additional Three Dollar
2 ($3) Vehicle Registration Tax in Orange County
3 The Board considered a resolution authorizing Triangle Transit Authority ("TTA") to levy
4 an additional $3 vehicle registration tax in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign.
5 John Roberts said this is something that the Board has already visited. He said the
6 Board approved the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan in 2012, and in December of
7 2012 the Board approved by resolution an increase in Triangle Transit Authority's (TTA) vehicle
8 registration tax on vehicles in Orange County.
9 He said TTA currently levies a $5 registration tax. He said TTA wants to increase this to
10 $8, which is the full amount that is statutorily authorized. He said the Board authorized this, but
11 when TTA tried to levy tax, the statute would not allow them to levy it unless all the entities
12 approved it. He said Durham County and Orange County approved it, but Wake County would
13 not. He said TTA went back to the legislature to amend the statute to allow individual Counties
14 to give authorization for increases within that County. He said the previous Board approved it,
15 and TTA is asking for approval again.
16 Commissioner Pelissier noted that the change in the legislation was a technical
17 correction.
18 Commissioner McKee said, in order to be consistent with his prior votes, he would vote
19 against this.
20
21 RES-2014-015
22 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
23 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC
24 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO LEVY THE FULL EIGHT DOLLAR ($8.00) VEHICLE
25 REGISTRATION TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED IN ORANGE COUNTY
26
27 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has adopted the Orange County
28 Bus and Rail Investment Plan; and
29 WHEREAS, the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan provides for the levy and
30 disbursement of the full amount of the eight dollar ($8.00) motor vehicle registration tax
31 authorized by North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) §105-561(a); and
32 WHEREAS, pursuant to NCGS §105-561(a) the Research Triangle Regional Public
33 Transportation Authority currently levies a motor vehicle registration tax of five dollars ($5.00)
34 on motor vehicles registered in Orange County and desires to levy the full amount; and
35 WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Public Transportation Authority has created a special tax
36 district consisting of Orange and Durham counties for the purpose of increasing the motor
37 vehicle registration tax in those counties by three dollars ($3.00) as provided in NCGS §105-
38 561(d); and
39 WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Public Transportation Authority Board of Trustees
40 conducted a public hearing on the proposed increase in the tax rate in accordance with
41 NCGS §105-561(b)(1); and
42 WHEREAS, the Research Triangle Public Transportation Authority's Special Tax Board,
43 pursuant to NCGS §105-561(b)(2), adopted a resolution approving the three dollar ($3.00)
44 increase in the tax rate in the special tax district to the full amount of eight dollars ($8.00).
45 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it being in the best interest of the citizens and
46 residents of Orange County, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes
47 and approves the levy of an additional three dollars ($3.00) of the motor vehicle license tax as
48 authorized by North Carolina General Statute §105-561.
49
50 This, the 6th day of March 2014.
15
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
3 the Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
4
5 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner
6 Pelissier, Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price)
7
8 8. Reports NONE
9
10 9. County Manager's Report NONE
11
12 10. County Attorney's Report
13 John Roberts said there was another tax that DMV failed to collect from July 1 to late
14 September, 2013. He said he received communication from DMV that this shorted Orange
15 County $90,000 in collections. He said he will be discussing this with the Board in the near
16 future.
17
18 11. Appointments NONE
19
20 12. Board Comments
21
22 Commissioner Dorosin — none
23 Commissioner Gordon — none
24 Commissioner McKee — none
25 Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Price were at the NACo conference in
26 D.C., and she spent a lot of time in the technology areas. She will be sending a memo about
27 this. She said there was a lot of good technology work in some of the counties, and she feels
28 Orange County is a little bit behind and should be more engaged in this.
29 Chair Jacobs encouraged the practice of sending memos with information when a Board
30 member attends a conference like this.
31 Commissioner Rich said she will do this, and it will include links to some of the things
32 she participated in.
33 Commissioner Pelissier said she attended a private/public partnership conference
34 through the Triangle Transit Board. She said Triangle Transit requires board members to
35 submit a written report and to give a verbal report at meetings. She said there was some
36 discussion about the fact that many public officials in N.C. don't understand public/private
37 partnerships. She said it may be a consideration in the future to get familiar with this topic.
38 Commissioner Price said she attended a workshop where there were complaints that
39 the community colleges do not offer everything that is needed. She said the two attendees
40 from North Carolina spoke up on behalf of the state's dynamic community colleges.
41 Commissioner Price said she has a county tracker for economic development that she
42 will give to the clerk.
43 Chair Jacobs said the agricultural summit was held last week. He said it was a full
44 house and the responses were positive.
45
46 13. Information Items
47
48 e February 18, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
49 e Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
50 e Tax Collector's Report— Monthly Enforced Collections
16
1 BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from February 18, 2014 Regular Board Meeting
2
3 14. Closed Session
4
5 DEFERRED
6
7 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
8 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
9
10 15. Adjournment
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to
13 adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17
18 Barry Jacobs, Chair
19
20 Donna Baker
21 Clerk to the Board