Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-08-2014 QPH APPROVED 10/7/2014 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2014 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on September 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board members, Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, James Lea, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, Laura Nicholson, and Lydia Wegman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Bryant Warren A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. He noted the following items at their places: -White Sheets from Michael Harvey regarding item C-4 - Power Point slides for items C-1, C-2 and C-5 B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments and Zoninq Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. Perdita Holtz presented the following PowerPoint slides: Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area Quarterly Public Hearing September 8, 2014 Item C.1 Process Background • Former proposal heard at November 2012 quarterly public hearing -Denied by BOCC in February 2013 -1 year waiting period required for a new application in cases of denial • Current proposal heard at February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing -Community members asked for a meeting in the community -Public hearing adjourned until September 8, 2014 Community Meeting • County Planning staff held a community meeting on April 7, 2014 -Approximately 33 people attended the meeting -Staff encouraged meeting attendees to contact staff if they wanted to meet in small groups or one-on-one • Community representative contacted staff in mid-August -Meeting with small group held on August 18 Result of August 18 Meeting • Regular meeting date/time established for staff and interested community members to meet -3�d Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at Ruritan Club -May be more frequent after holidays • Staff suggests continuing the public hearing process • General agreement that the target date for completion of proposal would be in time for a March 2015 BOCC meeting. Proposed Public Hearing Process • Public Hearing must be adjourned to a date/time certain in order for the application to not be considered a withdrawal -Withdrawal treated the same as a denial (1 year waiting period for new application) • 2015 meeting calendar not yet adopted • Propose to adjourn the public hearing until December 1, 2014 at which time it is expected the public hearing will be further adjourned until a March 2015 meeting date Recommendation • Open the public hearing that was adjourned at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. • Accept any additional public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendments. • Adjourn the public hearing until December 1, 2014 at which time it is expected the public hearing will be further adjourned until a March 2015 meeting date. Lindsey Efland said the Efland community is involved in looking at the overall plans and proposals being made. He said the community has agreed to this series of ineetings, and he estimates that it will take until late February or early March to finalize those work sessions. He said the community would urge the Board to allow them the opportunity to meet with the planning staff to develop and polish these amendments. Chair Jacobs invited comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner McKee thanked the staff for their willingness to work with the community. Chair Jacobs said he is glad to see this is being done, but he would like to note that this is not the first time the community has had an opportunity to comment. He asked staff to look at the number of times the group has met in Efland in the past. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to: Adjourn the public hearing until December 1, 2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment - To review government-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan to assign County land use classifications to approximately 500 acres of property that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. Tom Altieri reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment— Related to Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Relinquishment Quarterly Public Hearing September 8, 2014 Item C.2 Purpose • To hold a public hearing on a County initiated amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. • This amendment assigns County land use classifications to properties that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). • Affects approximately 500-acres (22-parcels) located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships • This item is companion to Action Agenda Item No. C.3, "Zoning Atlas Amendment." Background • Genesis of changes to the Town's ETJ goes back to 2004 and previous joint planning studies. • In 2009, the Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement established a Town Urban Service Area and for consistency, identified areas for ETJ changes. • In May 2014, both parties agreed to implement ETJ relinquishment only (No Expansion) and have County Future Land Use Map and zoning classifications applied to affected properties. • Town held its public hearing on its ETJ relinquishment on July 17, 2014 and on August 21 its Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. • At its meeting tonight, the Town Board is expected to approve its ETJ adjustment to become effective October 1. Proposed Action • Amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to apply County Future Land Use Classification to the new areas of County jurisdiction, consistent with the following map. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Proposal The application of a Future Land Use Map category and overlays as proposed in this amendment are: • Consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; • Consistent with the types and densities of development that can be supported by private wells and septic tanks; • Compatible and consistent with those of the surrounding area; and • Are of a very low density residential, agricultural and conservation oriented nature. Supportive of a more rural style of development. Public Notification Completed in accordance with Section 2.3.6 of the UDO • Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks • Mailed notices to affected property owners • Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties • Posted signs in strategic areas of the affected areas Recommendation • Receive the proposal. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Tom Altieri said the effective date of October 1 St has been established so that the County can initiate its process this evening with the public hearing, and conclude its process of applying both land use and zoning within the 60 day period required by state law. He reviewed the map on slide 6 and said the areas in light gray are the areas being relinquished. He said the proposal is that the future land use classifications in the periphery of these areas would be extended and applied to these 22 properties. He said the base land use classification is agricultural residential, with overlays for watershed and resource protection. Commissioner Gordon referred to the map and asked about the section of land that has been left in the service area Tom Altieri this was discussed with the Town staff. He said this urban services boundary was established earlier as part of the interlocal agreement, and there were a number of options for the location of that area at the time. He said this is the boundary that the town used when initiating its public hearing process. He said this does split a parcel, and there would be a little bit of County jurisdiction within that urban services area boundary. He said this consistent with the direction given by the Town of Hillsborough. Commissioner Price said that Hillsborough is going to potentially approve this tonight, but the County will not approve it until November. She asked what will happen if someone decides to develop one of the parcels during that limbo period. Tom Altieri said this would not become effective until October 1St. He said things within the town would need to be processed according to the town's development regulations. Commissioner Price noted that the County will not approve this until November 6tn Tom Altieri said there has to be some time to apply land use and zoning to properties that have been formally released by the town through its process. He said it would be difficult to time things any closer than this. He said the land will have been transferred after October 1St, but it is more a matter of how the proposal fits into the future land use construct and zoning districts, which will not have been applied yet. He said if an application comes in, there will be a required processing time period that would allow time for the completion of this. Commissioner porosin asked about the proposed zoning of the southern piece. He noted that the southern area is surrounded by rural residential, versus agricultural residential. Tom Altieri said this relates to the next agenda item Commissioner porosin there is the same issue with the previous land use map. Tom Altieri said there is a judgment call made by staff on which district to recommend. He said this layout was part of the amendment outline previously approved by the Board. He said these two zones are very similar, and there are only three or four different permitted uses between them. He said the agricultural residential land use was more appropriate, as it allows for the agricultural support enterprise zoning district to be applicable. Pete Hallenbeck invited questions from the public. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the Board to: Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoninq Atlas Amendment - To review government-initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas to assign County zoning districts to approximately 500 acres of property that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. Tom Altieri noted that this is partnered with the previous item and relates to the same 22 parcels. He previewed the following PowerPoint slides: Zoning Atlas Amendment— Related to Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Relinquishment Item C.3 Purpose • To hold a public hearing on a County initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas. • This item is companion to the previous Action Agenda Item, "2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment." • This amendment assigns County zoning districts to properties that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). • Affects approximately 500-acres (22-parcels) located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. Background & Proposed Action • Backqround - Item and has its genesis in former joint planning studies and agreements with the Town. • Proposed Action -Amend the zoning atlas to apply County zoning to the new areas of County jurisdiction, consistent with the following map. Examples of Permitted Uses in Proposed Districts • Aqricultural Residential (AR) —Single-Family Homes, Mobile Homes, Greenhouses*, Bed & Breakfasts*, Parks, Governmental Facilities, Telecommunication Towers =< 75- ft., and Churches. *Only commercial uses permitted by right • Public Interest District (PID) - Botanical Gardens, Parks, Governmental Facilities, and Telecommunication Towers =< 75-ft. No commercial uses permitted by right Zoning Atlas Amendment Proposal The application of zoning districts and overlays as proposed in this amendment are: • Consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Future Land Use Map classifications that are being proposed; • Consistent with the types and densities of development that can be supported by private wells and septic tanks; • Compatible and consistent with those of the surrounding area; and • Are of a very low density residential, agricultural and conservation oriented nature. Public Notification Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO • Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks • Mailed notices to affected property owners • Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties • Posted signs in strategic areas of the affected areas Recommendation • Receive the proposal. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Tom Altieri said the map shows the Public Interest District in aqua green and the agricultural residential is show in light green. He said there are a series of overlays on the map to note watershed protection and special flood hazard areas, as well as a major transportation corridor shown in yellow. Commissioner porosin said the map shows the Town of Hillsborough developing on one side of the southern piece, and the other side is rural residential. Tom Altieri said the other side would be rural residential or agricultural residential. Commissioner porosin said the parcels outside of the area to be added are all rural residential. Tom Altieri said some are rural residential. He displayed another map that shows the whole area, and he reviewed the different color coding. He said both classifications are applied around Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction. Commissioner porosin said he is just asking about this one piece. He said on one side is the Town, and on the other side is rural residential. He asked if it is staff's position that agricultural residential is more of a transitional district going toward rural residential, or if it is a lower intensity of use. Tom Altieri said it is staff's position that there is very little difference between rural residential and agricultural residential. He said the only difference is the allowance of the agricultural support enterprises zoning construct in the agricultural residential. He said due to the agricultural nature of this amendment area, this is a better fit. Commissioner porosin asked if these parcels are currently in agricultural use. Tom Altieri said some of them are. He said staff could outline more about the differences in the permitted uses between the two districts. Commissioner McKee said the technical differences between the rural residential and agricultural residential have not really been explained. He said he is curious if this is moving from a high density town area to a lower density agricultural residential and then back to a higher density rural residential. He is not sure he understands that. Commissioner McKee said he is generally familiar with the area, and it is a very steep area. He questioned whether there are any agricultural operations at all in this area. Tom Altieri said it is his understanding that there are some agricultural operations. He said he does not have a copy of the zoning ordinance of permitted uses, but there are three or four differences. He said a cemetery is a permitted use in one, and it is not allowed in the other. He said the minimum lot size and impervious surface are the same for both. Commissioner Gordon said it would be a good idea to get more information. She said she has pointed out that rural residential (R1) districts do not allow Agricultural Support Enterprises and the answer she received was that the R1 district specifically designates no farm activity. She noted that the R1 districts do tend to be closer to the towns. She said, given that the purpose of Agricultural Support Enterprises was to keep farmers farming, it did seem strange to her that it was not allowed in the R1 district. She thinks that more information should be gathered. Commissioner Pelissier said there is no real difference in density, but there is a difference in uses. She said it is important to keep this in mind. Commissioner Pelissier noted that the watershed overlay areas have a lesser density. Commissioner Price said the yellow area of the map tends to have a suburban feel, even though it is rural. She said there is no intensive farming like you would find in the green, so it is more of an intensive use rather than density. Commissioner porosin said it seems like that is what you would want closer to the town. There was some discussion about the map shading, relative to the town. Chair Jacobs said it seems simple to get the different explanations of the categories, and he asked for a listing of the existing land uses of the 22 parcels in question. Commissioner Rich asked if all of the neighbors in the area had been reached, and if anyone had a problem with the switch back to the County. Tom Altieri said over 50 people attended the joint meeting, and only 2 came for the areas that were going to be released. He said all of the property owners have been notified, and there has been no opposition to being released by the town. He said he had received some questions from folks who were just relieved to find out there were no development projects associated with this. Pete Hallenbeck suggested taking an aerial photo and overlaying the areas, in addition to creating a list. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to: Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments, as well as the additional information requested. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said when this comes back he would like to see the planning area maps that were used when planning with Hillsborough. Chair Jacobs said, given the possible moves by the state legislature regarding ETJs, he would like to see a report from the planning staff about which areas of the County are ETJs with all four towns that are not jointly planned. 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to require that a neighborhood information meeting be held at least 30 days prior to the public hearing regarding applications for a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit. Michael Harvey said the next item on the agenda starts on page 61. He referred to the paper copies of two emails, as well as the three attachments in the abstract. He reviewed the background information and said at the May 27 Public Hearing, concerns were expressed by the Board that neighborhood meetings were not required for special use permits. He said staff noted that neighborhood meetings are currently required for all major subdivisions, conditional use and rezoning applications, as well as those individual land uses categorized as government uses. He said a neighborhood meeting is an opportunity for surrounding property owners to receive a presentation from the applicant providing a synopsis of the proposed project, as well to ask questions. Michael Harvey said staff keeps a record of this meeting, which is provided to the applicant, as well the Planning Board and the County Commissioners. He said this amendment proposes this same process be required for all special use permits, both Class A and Class B. He said staff is proposing this meeting should occur 30 days prior to a public hearing, and notifications would go our 15 days prior to that. Michael Harvey said staff has been coordinating this with the County Attorney's Office, and there have been some proposed language/word choice changes that will be made. He said staff will also incorporate comments from this evening Commissioner Pelissier asked how staff picked the timeframe of 30 days. Michael Harvey said 30 days was chosen because that is what is required for major subdivisions and government uses. He said conditional zoning requests only require 2 weeks, as these are a legislative decision and they are less complex. Commissioner Price asked if there are any guidelines about the location and the hours for these meetings. Michael Harvey said these meetings are typically held during the day, because that is when staff and the applicant can attend. He said he is aware of the concern that these may need to be held at an appropriate hour to guarantee mass attendance, but these will have to be coordinated with when the applicant can be available. Commissioner Price said that would be her concern. She suggested a set of guidelines within the department. Commissioner Rich said she has some concerns about the 30 day notice. She wonders if there is another way to let the neighbors know what is going on. Michael Harvey referred to page 80 and the typical timeline for the submittal of a special use permit applications. He said applications for a Class A special use permit are submitted 60 days prior to a public hearing. He said the timeline that has to be followed means that a neighborhood meeting letter is being sent out within two weeks of acceptance of the application. He said the application submittal deadline can certainly be altered if the Board wants to do so. He said one reason he would urge the Board not to require notification of neighbors when an application is submitted is that a sufficiency test has to be done to determine if the application is even complete, and if it is not complete it is rejected by staff and review does not occur. Commissioner Rich said the concern she had after the experience with the solar farm is that the solar company had a long time with the planning board, and the neighbors had a very short amount of time to understand what was happening. She said something was out of balance there. Michael Harvey said the application was submitted in December of 2013, but the applicant requested the review of the application be continued from the February until the May 2014 quarterly public hearing. He said the mechanism was currently not available for staff to notify property owners that an application had been submitted beyond the existing 2 week public hearing notice. He said if one special use applicant is treated differently than others, this creates a legal issue and the county could be challenged for being arbitrary. He said the applicant chose to delay the hearing after not responding to staff emails outlining deficiencies. Commissioner McKee referred to the outline on page 80 and said the notification is sent out 15 days prior to the 30 days before the neighborhood meeting. Michael Harvey said that is correct. Commissioner porosin said it seems there are two different things that can be done to improve this process. He said it seems that staff feels that there is no need to hold a meeting until the application is approved, but the neighbors have an interest in what is going on. He does not see these things as irreconcilable. He referred to the monthly report received by the Board listing applications in the planning queue. He suggested that this information, including the past 3 months of applications, could be made available on the website for the public to view. He said this addresses the criticism by giving more transparency and balancing the rights of the developers and the community. He asked if this is feasible. Michael Harvey said this would not be a difficult request to accommodate. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner porosin's idea. She said this is something being talked about in the strategic communication plan. She said this is an example of using a tool to help people get information. She said the there may be a lot of questions, but the opportunity for the community to know what is going on is very valuable. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the timeframe required for the meetings for major subdivisions. Michael Harvey said major subdivisions require a meeting before the Planning Board reviews a concept plan application. He said the neighborhood meeting covers the concept plan review. Commissioner Gordon asked about the timing for conditional use and conditional zoning and whether 30 days would factor into that. Michael Harvey said this would factor into the conditional use, but the conditional zoning is currently two weeks, and it will stay that way in the current ordinance. Commissioner Gordon asked what would need to be done to change the conditional zoning to the longer time period. Michael Harvey said staff has recommended that there is no need to change this, given the fact that this is a legislative item and does not require expert testimony. Commissioner Gordon said she thinks that this two week time period for conditional zoning is a mistake, because these can be more problematic than conditional use. She said this is true even though conditional re-zoning does not have a special use permit process. Michael Harvey said this is one of the reasons that the timeline was not expanded and that he did not agree that conditional zoning was more problematic given the lack of requiring expert testimony as with all quasi judicial cases. Commissioner Gordon said the conditional re-zoning requires some negotiating between the applicant and the County, and a lot of it is up to the Commissioners to approve. She said some of the standards for uses permitted under the conditional zoning process are similar to those for uses permitted under the Class B special use permit process. She said it is her opinion that the range of negotiation and need for public knowledge is the same. Michael Harvey said conditional use involves a special use permit and will have to meet the 30 day meeting requirement. Commissioner Gordon said it is still her opinion that you need every bit as much time on a conditional re-zoning as you do on a conditional use. She said a special use permit does put the additional burden of expert testimony. Commissioner Gordon said she likes Commissioner porosin's idea of having three months of submitted applications available, with clarification that these have not gone through the process yet. She said one of the attached emails suggested the planning staff play a more prominent role in the meetings, and staff needs to think about this and about what their role should be. She said she is extremely pleased to see that this idea about the neighborhood information meetings and timing has been raised. She said it is important to allow transparency and time to react. Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciates Commissioner porosin's suggestion. She thinks there is a front end of the process, but there also needs to be consideration of having better communication when there are a lot of concerns. She said it is hard to predict public reaction. Michael Harvey said he feels that if staff can implement Commissioner porosin's suggestion of using the webpage and if staff takes greater steps to explain the process and educate residents, this will help things. Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Price's question about the scheduling of meetings at night. He said this may not work for everyone, but it is expected by most people, and the developer should have a profit motive to be there. Michael Harvey said staff gets requests and complaints both ways with respect to holding meetings during the day and the evening, and there is no one way to make everybody happy Chair Jacobs said it seems to be the default to hold public meetings at night Chair Jacobs said it would be easy to take the report that was received in their planning packets and place it on the web as Commissioner porosin suggested. Michael Harvey said this will be accommodated fairly easily. Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons for talking about having public information meetings for some of the applications was because government and quasi-governmental facilities had no notice requirements. Commissioner Price said she supports what Commissioner porosin said about the meeting. Commissioner Gordon said she wants to underscore Commissioner Pelissier's point about situations where there are a lot of concerns, and more time is needed. She said the goal is to identify categories where a meeting is needed and then to allow sufficient time. She thinks conditional rezoning should be included in this. She said something else that could be done when there is an issue that generates a lot of concern is to adjourn the public hearing to a date certain. She said this was done for the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). She asked for an identification of situations where the public hearing could not be extended. Michael Harvey said he cannot think of a situation where an extension would not be allowed. James Bryan said special use permits require a quasi-judicial decision and a fair trial standard. He said this is ill defined, but there are principles of equity and fairness, so you cannot repeatedly continue an application as a means of delay. He said you need to articulate a reason for delaying. Commissioner McKee said he agrees with most of what is being said. He wants to make sure there is transparency for the public, and no one is blindsided. He said this discussion is about the time before a public hearing, and he notes that there is no guarantee that an item will pass once it gets to a public hearing. He said there has already been a lot of talk over the years about the time that it takes to get a project to completion, and he agrees with the staff recommendation of 30 days. He thinks a longer time frame would extend the time frame too much. Commissioner Rich asked if the Board is going to re-visit the previous question about solar companies and how other governments have handled these. Michael Harvey said this update will be presented at the October 7th meeting. Pete Hallenbeck said he has lots of notes for the Planning Board, and he is sees the following four main issues: 1) Determining the number of days prior to the first public hearing, as well as the idea of informing the public of new applications as soon as these become public, 2) the need for more details on the information that an applicant must provide at the public information meeting, 3) determining who owns the information and details—the planning department or the applicant, and 4) determining the most convenient location and hours of meetings. Pete Hallenbeck invited comments from the Planning Board members. Tony Blake said the issue that seems to be missing for him is the 500 feet requirement. He said this is probably adequate notice in town or in subdivision areas, but in the County you may not have a neighbor within 500 feet. He noted that the issue with the placement of the fire station involved complaints from people half a mile away. He said it was also not clear to him who the applicant was in the case of the fire station. Lydia Wegman said she is speaking as a member of the Planning Board and as a member of the public. She said she has concern about 30 days, and this time would have been insufficient for her neighborhood in the case of the solar project. She said only 17 days was allowed to get information to a neighborhood of 90 homes. She said 30 days is an improvement, but this is a quasi-judicial process, and it involves attorneys and appraisers. She has suggested 90 days, but even 45 would be better, because it takes a lot of effort, time, and money to organize a neighborhood if there is a project of concern. Chair Jacobs said there is a lot to consider. Michael Harvey asked if there is any consensus from the Board regarding what timeline they would like the staff and Planning Board to review. Chair Jacobs said he thinks the two options are 30 days or 45 days. Commissioner Price expressed her support of Tony Blake's comments regarding the extension of the 500 foot limit. She feels it should be greater in the rural area. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to: Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 18, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the public hearing until November 18, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments. Perdita Holtz said she would like to note that this amendment would not affect other existing public hearing processes for other departments. She reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Public Hearing Process Changes Quarterly Public Hearing September 8, 2014 Item C.5 Purpose of Amendment • To change the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas Amendments • Discussed at September 9, 2013 BOCC work session after quarterly public hearing agenda -Staff received direction on some points at this meeting, although not unanimous • On February 24 and May 27, 2014 quarterly public hearing agendas but postponed due to time constraints Statutory Requirements • Statutes require that the planning board be given the opportunity to review and comment on amendments, and that public hearings be held with notification in compliance with statutes. Local government can decide: • When planning board recommendation occurs (before or after public hearing) • How frequently public hearings are held • Other process components such as whether the Planning Board holds its own public hearing Proposal • End the current joint quarterly public hearings with the Planning Board • Create the opportunity for a minimum of 8 planning-related public hearings per year • Planning Board would provide a recommendation after the public hearing • Policy decision to end practice of having the BOCC approve the legal advertisements (would shave 3 weeks off of review process due to agenda deadline dates, much more for the first hearing after the summer break) • An alternative could be to circulate the draft ad via e-mail instead of making it a Consent Agenda item Existing & Proposed Processes Designation of Public Hearing Dates • A minimum of 8 meetings would be designated for planning-related public hearings each year when the BOCC adopts its meeting calendar for the next year • Internal changes to current agenda-setting processes -Little ability to remove public hearing items that were filed by deadline dates -Legal advertisements would be run in advance of agenda review dates (both Attorney/staff and Chair/Vice-Chair) in order to meet statutory requirements Ancillary Points • Current process of having all planning-related public hearings on segregated agendas likely results in more predictable BOCC regular meetings -Sometimes planning-related items can generate a great deal of public interest and comments -Possibility of having several planning-related public hearings on an agenda, depending on when applications are received --Could affect the amount of time available during a meeting for non-planning items --Since Special Use Permit quasi-judicial process tends to be more time consuming than legislative (text amendments, rezonings) items, could potentially limit SUP items to fewer agendas per year. • Currently, public hearing agendas are posted to the website at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing • BOCC agendas are generally posted 4 calendar days prior to the meeting date --Fewer number of days for interested persons to have information in final form • Requirement for written comments after oral public hearing (current requirement not proposed for change) -Allows interested persons to submit written comments to the Planning Board -Ensures Planning Board meeting does not become a de facto second public hearing -Particularly important to avoid in quasi-judicial matters (Special Use Permits) -Ensures BOCC is aware of additional comments • Continuation of Public Hearings to date/time certain -Case law in the mid-2000s resulted in legal advice to adjourn to a date/time certain unless the public hearing is closed the night of the hearing -Closing comments the night of the hearing would mean that no written comments could be accepted after the hearing and interested persons could not address the Planning Board -Could not close hearing if additional information is requested at the public hearing • BOCC agenda language when accepting Planning Board recommendation and any written comments -Currently, listed under "Public Hearings" section but with note that no additional comments are accepted -If the County wants to maintain the existing process of allowing written comments after the public hearing, but avoid potential confusion about an item being listed as a "Public Hearing," a new Section could be added to BOCC agendas that would not use the words "public hearing" -However, additional comments could not be made (persons could not sign up to speak on matters listed in this section) Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee • Reviewed on January 8, 2014 • Generally supportive of changes • Meeting Notes included in QPH package -One member had concerns about the (existing) requirement of accepting only written comments after the public hearing (e.g., no oral-only comments at Planning Board meeting when a recommendation is made) -Discussion starts on line 88 of ineeting notes Public Notification & JPA Review • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO -Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks • Amendment package sent to JPA partners on January 13, 2014 since new process would affect any requests related to the Rural Buffer -To date, no comments have been received Effective Date • The effective date of the amending Ordinance should be a specific date so submittal deadline schedules can be published -Staff recommends beginning new process with 2015 meeting calendar, so January 1, 2015 effective date Recommendation • Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Perdita Holtz noted that some of the process components are included in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as part of the procedure, but some things are just policies that are not written into the ordinance. She said the flow chart represents only the currently proposed process, but there was also some discussion of having the Planning Board make a recommendation before the Public Hearing, or having two separate public hearings for the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Perdita Holtz said the September meeting used to be held in August, and there is still a reference in the UDO to an August meeting date. She said this administrative change will need to be made at some point, even if no other changes are made. Perdita Holtz said part of the internal change to the agenda-setting process is that notifications would have to be mailed before the Chair/Vice Chair agenda meeting. Referring to the last slide of ancillary points, Perdita Holtz said the language change regarding written comments would be a policy type decision that would not be written into the UDO. Perdita Holtz said that if the County were to drop the requirement for accepting only written comments after the oral public hearing, that it would be prudent to only do this for legislative matters and not for quasi-judicial matters. She said it would be necessary to look at how this change might affect processes, as a fair number of applications are both legislative and quasi-judicial in nature. She noted the confusion related to this with the past process for the Buckhorn Village project. Chair Jacobs said when this first came up he was very supportive of making changes and incorporating flexibility. He said the more he thought about it, and considering the four hour solar array public hearing, he is definitely opposed to having these items on the Commissioner's regular meeting schedules. He said it is very hard to predict what will generate a public reaction, and it is hard to plan when there is no way to know when something may blow up. He said it is reasonable to have the Planning Board comment after the Commissioners have a public hearing. He said the rest of this just makes things more complicated. Chair Jacobs pointed out on page 85 that staff states the Orange County's typical review timeframe of 4-5 months compares favorably to other North Carolina local governments. He said the current process is not a burden to the development community. Commissioner porosin said, as someone who has been pushing this kind of change, he takes Commissioner Jacobs points well. He said his original concern with the current process is that a public hearing is held and comments are taken, then these are sent to the Planning Board for a meeting and discussion. He said the Planning Board comes back with its recommendations, and then another Public Hearing is held with no actual public comments. He said the renaming of this hearing is fine, but what is missing in the proposal is the fundamental sequence of things. Commissioner porosin suggested that the Planning Board should have a public hearing or open meeting with notices to invite the public and take comments. He said after this the Planning Board can submit its recommendation to the County Commissioners, who will then hold a public hearing with public input. He said the public hearing could then be closed, and a vote would be taken. He said this sequence would maximize the opportunity for public input. He said whether this is done in one meeting or quarterly is a different question, but that is not the main issue. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner porosin's suggestion, and she said this is the way she has done it in the past. She said she also agrees with Chair Jacobs. Commissioner Pelissier said she is not sure where she stands on the sequence, but her main concern is the timing. She said she does not want to base everything on the one meeting that took four hours for the special use permit. She does not think this would happen if the changes were made to the special use permit process. She said part of what motivated this was the issue of not having quorums, which could be addressed by not requiring the Planning Board to be part of the public hearing. She said there were also grave concerns that some of the simple projects had to wait so long for approval because they had to wait for the quarterly public hearings. She said the goal is to balance having a process that is not onerous but allows for public input. She is interested in having greater opportunity than quarterly public hearings. Commissioner Gordon said she has no objections to changing the process. She wants to follow the principles of making sure the public has enough notice to find out what is going on and to formulate their comments. Commissioner Gordon said there should not be a minimum of 8 hearings, but there should be a maximum of 8 hearings. She referenced information on page 96 regarding the potential meeting dates, which stated that there were only seven months when hearings were feasible, and she said this information seems to point to no more than 8 possible dates. She said there was also information stating that if these hearings are part of the regular meeting, the required notice is only 4 days, which is worse than the usual 10 days for public hearings. She agrees with Chair Jacobs that it makes the meetings unpredictable if you have public hearing items that have to be scheduled in. Commissioner Gordon said she did not even think about the internal timing changes until she saw the information about publishing notices prior to attorney, chair and vice-chair review. She said this change would not be wise. She thinks it would be a good idea for the Commissioners to have some kind of review of the advertisements for the timing. Commissioner Gordon said she would argue for the Planning Board to consider items after the public hearing with the Board of Commissioners. She said if the Planning Board makes the recommendation before the hearing, then they will have to confine themselves to more technical comments. She said the official notice that gets attention is the one listing when the Commissioners hold their public hearing, so you would get the public input here, and then the process would be closed under the proposed process. Commissioner Price said she agrees that the public might be better served if the hearings are held more than quarterly. She said she has no problem with taking the legal advertisements off of the consent agenda if there is another way to get approval from the Commissioners. She said if they are going to do away with the joint public hearing, she feels that it is even more important to get the Planning Board recommendation after the public hearing. She said some of the recommendations may become null and void after the public hearing. Commissioner Price asked about the phrasing change for the public hearing title. She asked why not just call it "close public hearing." Perdita Holtz said staff was trying to avoid using the words "public hearing" in the title. Commissioner Price said she understood the point of letting the public know that this was the deadline for written comment. She thinks it needs to be simpler than what has been recommended. Chair Jacobs said if there are some items that would not be difficult to consider as part of a regular agenda, there is no reason why that cannot be done now. He said the planning director can consult with the manager to determine which items can go on the regular agendas. He is just concerned about the larger items. He said the advertisements can be approved by email. Chair Jacobs said the issue of where the Planning Board fits in is somewhat of a philosophical question. He said when he was on the Planning Board, it was very important that they got the last word with the Commissioners. He said this setup gives the Planning Board more weight, as they get to hear and weigh everything before commenting to the Board. He said part of this process is making a decision about the role of the Planning Board, as this proposal would allow the public to have the final word to the Commissioners. He said he is willing to listen to the argument, but it is hard for him to think of doing it differently. James Bryan said these public hearings can be very confusing. He said there are two separate decisions, the legislative decisions and the quasi-judicial systems. He said it may be a philosophical distinction, but there is also a legal distinction. He said these should be looked at separately. He said neither the Planning Board nor the written comments should be involved in the quasi-judicial decisions. He said written comments are hearsay and should have no value in these situations. He said the only thing that can be considered is the evidence presented at the quasi-judicial hearing. Commissioner Rich asked if the public comes to the Planning Board meetings Pete Hallenbeck said this ranges from 0 to 20 members of the public, but there is no trend. Commissioner Rich said she thinks this is a problem. She thinks that when the Planning Board is discussing what will be presented, the public should be there. Commissioner Rich said there is something wrong when we are calling something a public hearing when it is not a public hearing. Commissioner McKee said he agrees that the public should be involved in the Planning Board meetings, but most of the public knows that the final decision is made here. Most of the public knows that the final decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners Commissioner porosin said if you said the culture could be changed to encourage people to go to the Planning Board hearings. He said he has talked to a lot of people on different advisory boards, and he has heard the opinion that the elected officials yield undue influence. He said it seems that having the Planning Board make a recommendation after listening to the public and the Commissioners is putting the thumb on the scale of what is expected, if the Board is seeking the Planning Board's independent analysis. Commissioner porosin questioned whether the Planning Board could be an expert at the quasi-judicial hearing. He said they are the expert witnesses for the UDO and he feels this would be relevant testimony. Lisa Stuckey said this is her 4th year on the Planning Board. She said staff inembers are the experts, but the board members do not have a long enough term to be considered experts. Lisa Stuckey said the Planning Board struggles to get a quorum at these meetings, and she said that the planning board could not have a public hearing on a quasi-judicial matter. She questioned whether it is really fair to the public to make them go through two public hearings. Commissioner porosin said he does not think it is fair to call the public back to a second public hearing where they cannot talk. Lisa Stuckey said she understands this but she is not sure that adding another public hearing in front of the Board's public hearing changes anything. She said the Planning Board is not the final decision maker. Tony Blake said he is on the planning board representing his neighbors. He feels that the neighborhood information meetings might augment the Planning Board quite a bit, if they are broad enough. He said he is not a rubber stamp and he does not feel bound to the Board's opinions. From his perspective the Board is not putting their thumb on the scale. Lisa Stuckey said the Planning Board usually does not know what the Board of Commissioners thinks. She said there is discussion, but it is rare that there is a consensus. Paul Guthrie said this is a complicated issue because of the various functions within the relationship. He said the number one question is what the Board wants from their Planning Board, and how they want it to function. He said he has asked a lot of questions about these proposed changes. He thinks that well managed citizen advisory groups serve an important role. He thinks a better definition of what the Commissioners want from the Planning Board and planning staff would be helpful, along with building a process that continues to bring information from citizens about what is important to them. Pete Hallenbeck said the quorum problems have been bad this year. He thinks it would be helpful if the Planning Board did not have to have quorum at the hearings. He said it is human nature for people to want to deal with decision makers and not middle managers, but he does think it would help if the Planning Board could take input from the public. He views the Planning Board role as a little bit of Planning Department oversight. He said their role is also to provide community feedback. Pete Hallenbeck said it seems that synergy has been shattered by this item, and Commissioner input is low, which makes it hard to come up with something. He said every time they try to streamline this process there are too many unknowns. Lydia Wegman said it is burdensome to expect the public to attend two different public hearings. She said the Commissioners are the decision makers and they will get more people, and more focused comments than at the Planning Board meetings. She encouraged them to allow opportunity for the public to speak. She said she hopes that she, as a Planning Board member, would have an opportunity to hear everything the Commissioners hear before making a recommendation. Commissioner Gordon said the key question is the role of the Planning Board. She said to get the Planning Board recommendation before the public hearing would only provide technical comments. She said this would not provide the benefit of the experienced Planning Board members going over the issues. She believes it would be better to get the Planning Board recommendation after they have heard all of the information. Commissioner porosin said a lot of time has just been spent talking about how to engage people earlier in the process, and he thinks that engaging them with the Planning Board early in the process is part of this. He asked if the public hearing could be left open and could include the Planning Board's recommendation, as well as any public input. He said this is more honest and sincere. He asked the attorney if this could be done. James Bryan said the Board has broad discretion over legislative decisions. Commissioner Rich asked why the Board closes the public hearing to comments. Perdita Holtz said she is not sure why this is done. She said this is how it is written, and it predates anyone on the staff. She said this would be a policy change with some minor text amendments, and staff would need to work with the attorney's office regarding those items with a re-zoning and a special use permit. She said this needs to be looked at closely. Commissioner Rich said she understands not having the public hearing all over again, but that's the part that doesn't make sense. Perdita Holtz said the problem arose in the mid-2000's. She said it used to be that the public hearing was just open and there was always a requirement for written comments only after the oral public hearing. She said the UDO would have to be re-written to state that this is no longer a requirement. Commissioner Price said she likes to go home at a reasonable hour, but she also likes to hear what people say. She said she was on the Planning Board for an extended period of time, and people would come to meetings and express their opinions. She said quorum was rarely an issue. She said there were times when the board disagreed with the Commissioners, and she would support the Planning Board hearing from the public before making a decision. She said if it is the pleasure of the Board to hear other comments on the day that the public hearing is closed, she is for this as well. Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to hear the Planning Board recommendation after the public comments. She said when she was on the Planning Board, no one really thought about what the Commissioners thought. She said the Planning Board was there to give advice, and as a Commissioner she looks to this advice when making land use decisions. She asked planning staff if they have been able to predict which will be the difficult decisions and which will not. Planning Board member James Lea left at 9:42 p.m. Perdita Holtz said no, not necessarily. She said staff would have to toss a coin. She said obviously text amendments take longer to discuss. Commissioner Pelissier said the legislative decisions are easier to incorporate into the meetings, but the quasi-judicial decisions are more of an issue. She is not sure how to address it, but she would like some consideration to not having these boxed in to so few dates. She would like to see more than a quarterly option. Commissioner McKee said he wishes he could say if it isn't broke, don't fix it, but this is broken. He agreed with Commissioner porosin's comment about taking public comment at the later meeting. He also agrees with Chair Jacobs' comments about time management and trying to figure out how long these meetings are going to be. He said he is confused, and he thinks all of what he has heard is reasonable. He suggested that the current framework should be maintained, and the Board can tweak it to make it more public friendly. He suggested maintaining the quarterly public hearings due to the necessity of quasi-judicial decisions. He said maybe there will be other controversial items that don't belong in a regular meeting. He said the Board should just tweak the things that need to change, and if those tweaks don't work, they can be changed back. Perdita Holtz said planning staff often does not know that an application is coming until right at application deadlines, which are based on the public hearing process. She thinks that the attorney would disagree that it is okay to have two different processes for judicial and legislative processes, but not for quasi-judicial items or legislative items. Chair Jacobs said he is not sure this is at a good place to even be referred to the Planning Board. He thinks there needs to be more discussion between the planning director, manager, and attorney. He said someone needs to walk through the process and make some projections. He said the Board has heard that there needs to be more public participation, and there is discussion about the ultimate role of the Planning Board. He said there are issues that staff needs to talk about before this comes back for a public hearing. Chair Jacobs said maybe a better job can be done of publicizing this discussion of the process to encourage public input. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to see this go back to the Planning Board to see what they come up with. Craig Benedict said he agrees that he needs to speak with the manager and the attorney's office to glean some direction. He said there is an opportunity for conversation at the upcoming dinner with the Planning Board. He agrees that there is not a consensus. He sees that the public input at the end is a big issue, and this could be modified. Commissioner Pelissier said she would also like to refer this back to the Planning Board. She said two broken items have been identified, and one of them is a public hearing that cannot be held due to a lack of Planning Board quorum. She said the other issue is allowing the public to make comments at the final decision meeting. Craig Benedict said this room offers the Planning Board members the opportunity to watch the televised meeting if they were unable to attend. Chair Jacobs said he also did not hear anyone disagree with the idea of looking at the public hearing notices through email. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to move the manager's recommendation. Chair Jacobs asked if the manager has any input. Bonnie Hammersley said she would be happy to work on this with staff and the Planning Board. She said she and the attorney have some ideas of things that can be implemented. She said focus groups could be formed in order to gather information. She said she also has some ideas based on other places she has worked. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the Board to: Refer the matter to the Manager, staff and Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments, as well as the recommendation of the manager and staff. Chair Jacobs noted that the motion creates a deadline for the Planning Board to bring back information by November 6tn Commissioner Gordon said this allows two months, and if that is not enough, it can be continued. Bonnie Hammersley said she thinks this is possible. Commissioner McKee asked if the timing could be changed to the first meeting in February. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to be involved in the discussion. Commissioner McKee said this seems like a tight timeline. Commissioner Gordon asked the manager if she feels something can be pulled together by November 6tn Bonnie Hammersley said she will respect the opinions of the Planning Board, who look a little unsure of that timing. She said her thought was that the planning staff and the manager could work on this and then bring options to the Planning Board to consider for presentation to the Commissioners. She said staff can support whatever level of urgency the Planning Board wants to work with. Perdita Holtz said that the next planning board meeting is October gtn Chair Jacobs said he would suggest that a compromise way of looking at this is to bring back an interim recommendation by November 6th, with no expectation that it will be completely done. Bonnie Hammersley said this could be a progress report. Chair Jacobs said this does not change the motion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING-CHAIR A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:02pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board