The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 02-19-2015 - E143 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 19, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. E.1 SUBJECT: Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Process Flow Charts Recommended by the Planning Board 2. September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes 3. November 6, 2014 BOCC Meeting Minutes 4. Planning Board Meeting Minutes — October 8, November 5, and December 3, 2014 INFORMATION CONTACT: Perdita Holtz, Planner III 919 - 245 -2578 Craig Benedict, Director 919 - 245 -2592 PURPOSE: To discuss and give clear direction to staff on whether (and, if so, how) the existing public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas matters should be revised. The Planning Board extensively discussed this matter at its meetings on October 8, November 5, and December 3, 2014. Meeting Minutes for these meeting are included in Attachment 4 and agenda materials for Planning Board meetings are available at- ht . The flow charts included in Attachment 1 depict the processes that capture the Planning Board discussion of what the processes should be for Legislative and Quasi - Judicial items if the existing process is changed. Staff has recommended that there be two processes — one for legislative items and one for quasi-judicial (and those few instances where there is a mix of legislative and quasi-judicial components, such as with conditional use zoning districts) — and the Planning Board has MA concurred with this recommendation since there are different legal requirements for the two types of reviews /approvals. Remarks on Possible Review Processes Legislative The possible process for legislative items illustrated in Attachment 1 has several advantages over the existing process: • Nearby property owners will be notified about proposed map amendments earlier than currently occurs through first class mailed notifications and posted signs for the Planning Board meeting, which would occur prior to the public hearing. • The public could speak at both the Planning Board meeting and the later BOCC public hearing. • A quorum of Planning Board members would no longer be required to hold a BOCC public hearing, but Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend the public hearings. • The public hearing would be closed the night of the hearing and the BOCC could do one of the following: o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be listed on the public hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the public could make oral comments). • Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review. • Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing (this would allow the current process to move more quickly for items that are not particularly controversial). • Because the requirement for written comments is removed and the public hearing is closed the night of the hearing, the hearing no longer would need to be continued to a date /certain so the awkward process of having items listed on the public hearing portion of the BOCC agenda but with no additional comments accepted would no longer occur. Quasi - Judicial Quasi - judicial matters differ from legislative items in that only sworn testimony from experts is supposed to be heard at the public hearing for quasi - judicial matters, which means that the opinions of typical residents (unless they are experts in a particular subject matter) is not supposed to be considered in the quasi-judicial decision. The Planning Board believes that it should be involved in making a recommendation to the BOCC on quasi-judicial matters and the flowchart in Attachment 1 reflects this. Some advantages of the possible process over the existing process include: • The Planning Board meeting could be viewed as a "dry run" for the later BOCC public hearing and anyone would be able to address the Planning Board, although non - expert speakers would be informed that their comments could not be a basis for decision at the formal public hearing. o The discussion at the Planning Board meeting could highlight areas for interest for the BOCC to question expert witnesses about at the formal public hearing. • A quorum of Planning Board members would no longer be required to hold a BOCC public hearing, but Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend the public hearings. • The public hearing would be closed the night of the hearing and the BOCC could do one of the following: o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (would be necessary if additional information was requested by the BOCC at the public hearing). 45 • Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review. • Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing (this would allow the current process to move more quickly for items that are not particularly controversial). FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact in discussing this matter and giving direction to staff. Existing staff will accomplish the necessary work associated with topic. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board discuss whether the existing public hearing process should be revised and, if so, give clear direction to staff on what the process should be. I Required for SUP, CUD, CZD, and Major Pre - Application Conference Subdivisions Strongly recommended for all other projects Application Submittal Generally —8 weeks prior to QPH, except August QPH which has deadline in mid -May DAC (Development Advisory Staff Representatives of various County Committee) departments and other agencies, as needed Review /Comments BOCC Approve Legal Ad for ' Generally —3 weeks prior to QPH, except QPH August QPH legal ad which is approved at last BOCC meeting in June Joint BOCC /Planning Board ' Normally held the last Monday of the month in Quarterly Public Hearing February, May, August, and November Staff can often turn materials around after the QPH to make the first Planning Board meeting Planning Board after the QPH (Planning Board meets on the first Recommendation Wednesday of each month). If the QPH reveals that more staff research must be done, projects may not be ready until the second Planning 0 Board meeting after the QPH (e.g., month+ delay). BOCC Decision Unless directed to a date /time certain by the BOCC at the QPH (it is typical to do so since the public hearing must be adjourned to a date /time certain in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation), the UDO states the Planning Board shall make its recommendation within three regularly scheduled meetings (e.g., three months). Pre - Application Conference Required for rezonings to Conditional Zoning amw istricts. Strongly recommended for all other projects (e.g., text amendments, general use districts) The Planning Department intends to begin posting a list of applications received on its website so members of the public can be informed about projects early in the process. Application Submittal Staff Representatives of various County departments and other agencies, as needed The draft legal ad would no longer be a Consent Agenda item. It would be circulated via e-mail to BOCC members a few days prior to publication with the County Manager, Attorney, and Planning Director resolving any conflicting Planning Board Meeting to This is a proposed new step in the process to Review Application / Make accommodate the ability of the Planning Board to Recommendation hear from the public prior to making a recommendation and to involve the public in the process earlier. DAC (Development Advisory time before potentially revisiting whether the frequency of Committee) Review /Comments public hearings for legislative items should be increased. The public could comment at the meeting where the Publish Legal Ad / Mail Planning Board reviews legislative items (the existing Notifications for Public requi rement for written comments only would be Hearing removed). Planning Board action could be: 1. Make a recommendation to the BOCC. 2. Make a preliminary recommendation to the Mail Notifications (for map BOCC with a request that if significant new amendments only) via first information is presented at the public hearing, class mail about the Planning the BOCC will send the item back to the Board meeting to Planning Board for further review and a adjacentinearby property potential new recommendation. owners and post sign(s) on hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the property public could make oral comments). The draft legal ad would no longer be a Consent Agenda item. It would be circulated via e-mail to BOCC members a few days prior to publication with the County Manager, Attorney, and Planning Director resolving any conflicting Planning Board Meeting to comments. Review Application / Make Recommendation An increase in frequency is no longer being suggested. Staff recommends trying the new process for a period of time before potentially revisiting whether the frequency of public hearings for legislative items should be increased. Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend Publish Legal Ad / Mail but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order Notifications for Public to hold the hearing. Hearing The public hearing would be closed at the conclusion of the hearing. Written comments would no longer be the required method of making comments after the public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the BOCC could do the Quarterly Public Hearing following: (BOCC only) * 1. Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be listed on the public hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the public could make oral comments). !BOCC 2. Refer an application back to the Planning Board for cision * further review. 3. Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing. Required for all Special Use Permit applications Pre - Application Conference The Planning Department intends to begin posting a list of applications received and deemed sufficient on its website so members of the public can be informed about projects early in the process. Staff also intends to produce and provide planning Application Submittal & process brochures outlining how input is provided Posting * by the public and applicant. MMMMWDAC (Development Advisory Committee) Review /Comments Neighborhood Information Meeting (minimum of 45 days prior to public hearing) 'Staff Representatives of various County IL departments and other agencies, as needed Text amendment requiring this new step was adopted by the BOCC on 11/18/14. Planning Board members will be encouraged to attend the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Attempts will be made to schedule the NIM the same evening as the regular Planning Board meetings so that Planning Board members can more easily attend the NIM. However, it might sometimes not be possible to hold both meetings on the same night due to timing requirements and because Ordinance Review Committee meetings needs to be held periodically as well. Planning Board Meeting to Review Application / Make The Planning Board meeting (which would be held on a Recommendation * date after the NIM but before the formal public hearing) could be a "dry run" for the public hearing. At this time, staff is suggesting that the public would be allowed to speak at the Planning Board meeting (e.g., "testimony" would not be required at the Planning Board meeting, Publish Legal Ad / Mail but speakers would need to be informed that their Notifications for Public comments would not be considered testimony and, Hearing therefore, could not be a basis for decision at the formal public hearing). The draft legal ad would no longer be a Consent Agenda item. It would be circulated via e-mail to BOCC members Quarterly Public Hearing a few days prior to publication with the County Manager, (BOCC only) * Attorney, and Planning Director resolving any conflicting Whoo comments. An increase in frequency for quasi-judicial items is no longer BOCC Decision being suggested. Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order to hold the hearing. Sworn testimony by experts (who are provided by the applicant or parties with standing) is necessary for quasi - judicial items. The public hearing should be closed at the conclusion of the hearing unless additional information has been requested. Additional information would need to either be in writing (if appropriate) or the hearing would be continued to a date /time certain for additional oral testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing, the BOCC could do the following: 1. Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date. 2. Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review. 3. Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing. 50 �1111� 5 � � ~ \ ƒ� § r \ \\ iiiiiii 4%4s 1 { � ry�& : � ' ! in » \ \r Attachment 2 - Excerpt of Sep. 2014 QPH Minutes 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 members 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 A4iendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review govern t- initiated ame ents to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO an o the Zoning Atlas to establish new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area Perdita Holtz preserrte_d the following PowerPoint sWs: Comprehensive Plan Text, Unifie velopme rdinance Text, and Zoning Atlas Amendments for Two New Zoning Ove stricts in the Efland Area Quarterly Public Hearing September 8, 2014 Item C.1 Process Background Former ,pr6posal 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 51 52 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 53 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 54 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 meeting 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 55 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 Dorosin 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 Dorosin 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 Dorosin'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. 56 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 Dorosin 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 57 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 Dorosin 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 members 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 Dorosin 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. W Commissioner Dorosin 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 Dorosin'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. 59 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 6 th 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 6 th 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 8th 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 M-11 61 APPROVED 1/22/2015 Attachment 3 - Excerpt of Nov. 6, 2014 BOCC Minutes MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 6, 2014 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. _ 7Revision or Changes to the Agenda bs reviewed the following list of items at the Commissioner's places: - Pink S ision for Item 11 a - Advisory Board on Aging Appointments - Powees for Item 5a - 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use M Amend- Powees r Item 5b - Zoning Atlas Amendment — Related to n of Hillsborough Extratrisdic i n (ETJ) Relinquishment - Monthly Report from the nning Division Chair Jacobs recognized B ie Hammersley, wh i troduced Elections Director Tracy Reams. Tracy Reams gave a brief presents i n and date on the 2014 election night. She said everything went well for Orange County, early voting had a record turnout of 23,195 voters. She said the County offered 303 h s o ting' and there was also record turnout on Election Day with 52,663 ballots cast a a turnout o .24 percent. She said results came in quickly on election night, and Oran ounty was one o e first large counties to report. She said the County was able to recr i and train over 200 volunt s, and she commended her staff members. Commissioner Ri asked if there were any specific problem er staff had to address with voters, such as stions about polling sites or identification require ents. Tracy Rea said they had both visual and printed materials availab during early and regular voting Tr Reams said there were very detailed instructions given to workers, an ere were s' s made to communicate requirements. She said there were 155 provisional b ots 62 • Reviewed the differences between Rural Residential ZAa ricultural Resid tia R) and consistency with County plans. • Re mmended unanimously that the BOCC approve nt as pr ented at public Baring (Attachment 4, Draft PB Minutes). Consistency State nt In response to a new o i ion issued by the N.C. Court of Ap014, the ■ Planning Board ha rovided a written recommend aC addressing plan consistency (Attachm t 5, pp. 24 -25); and ■ The BOCC must also ap ve a consistency statemt 6, pp. 26 -27). Manager's Recommendation • Receive the Planning Board StatemerhtgKConsistency and recommendation of approval. • Close the public hearing. • Adopt the BOCC Statement of onsistency (At hment 6, pp. 26 -27). • Adopt the ordinance (Attac ent 7, pp. 28 -29) ap ving the zoning atlas amendment. A motion was madeW Commissioner Gordon, secondeN Commissioner Price to: Receive the Planning Xard Statement of Consistency and reco endation of approval; 2. Close the public he ng; \ 3. Adopt the BOC tatement of Consistency (Attachment 6); and 4. Adopt the or ance (Attachment 7) approving the zoning atlas amendme CXmissioner Dorosin said he will vote against this for same reasons state n the previo motion. TE: 6 -1 (Commissioner Dorosin) c. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment — Public Hearing Process Changes — Interim Report and Closure of Hearing The Board opened the public hearing, received the information contained in this abstract and attachments, and closed the public hearing on a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment that proposed changes to the public hearing process (presented at the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing). Perdita Holtz said this item was heard at the September 8th quarterly public hearing and was referred to the Planning Board. She said this has been discussed extensively, and the flowchart in attachment 2 outlines a new process for legislative items. She said this process captures what the Planning Board discussed in October. Perdita Holtz said last night the Planning Board discussed a potential new process for quasi - judicial items, and although there is no flowchart, this would generally follow the cadence of the attachment 2 flowchart. She said the reason for the recommended closure of the public hearing is because the proposed public hearing is likely to change enough to necessitate re- advertising it for a new presentation at a future public hearing date. Commissioner Rich asked if any members of the public were in attendance while the Planning Board discussed this. Perdita Holtz said no. 63 Commissioner Rich said she does not feel that there has been enough outreach to the public regarding this process. Chair Jacobs noted that the discussion is not ending, just being deferred to another date. Commissioner Rich asked for an explanation on the reason for deferring it. Chair Jacobs said the Board would advertise the public hearing, and if significant changes are being made, there would be extraordinary efforts to make sure the public is aware of what is being proposed. Commissioner Rich said that is her point - that there may need to be more effort made to put the information out there about these changes. Commissioner Gordon said if this is changed, it is important to make sure the public has as much opportunity to comment as possible. She recommends that no conclusion should be made at the end of a regular public hearing, because this was often the first time that issues are articulated. She said that to her it does not seem helpful to distinguish between quasi - judicial special use permit hearings and the legislative hearings if that means re- zonings do not have enough time. She agrees that it takes longer for a special use permit if you are going to try to get expert testimony. She would like to make sure that there will be plenty of time for re- zonings, especially for hearings involving conditional zoning districts since they involve a relatively new process. Commissioner Gordon said she was interested to see that there was no recommendation to increase the number of hearings, and If there were to be an increase, she thinks seven meetings would work. Commissioner Gordon said the main point is that the public needs more time to comment than just a few days. She likes the idea of posting information when an application comes in that meets the ordinance requirements. She said she wonders about the issue of not requiring the Planning Board to attend the public hearings. She values the input of the Planning Board, and they offer public perspective as well as expertise. Commissioner Gordon said this is a process that can be tweaked, as long as the basics, such as making sure the public has sufficient time for providing input, are in place. She said the public hearing is when the information needs to come out, and this needs to be followed by some time to think about the issues before voting. Commissioner Price said she is a little confused on this process. She said this will not be resolved until sometime in 2015, and there is no mechanism right now to assure when and how the public will be involved. Bonnie Hammersley said she has attended the last two Planning Board meetings, and she intends to be involved in this process. She said when this comes forward she will make sure everyone is informed about this process. She said if it is the will of the Board, this will be well advertised if it goes forward. She said this hearing is being closed because of the anticipation of significant changes that will require future public input. Commissioner Price echoed what Commissioner Gordon said. She feels the Planning Board should be a part of the public hearings. Commissioner Dorosin said he had some questions about the flow chart. He said the current process is that a public hearing is held, and the public speaks; then the Planning Board is sent away and instructed to come back with a recommendation; then the public does not have an opportunity to comment on the Planning Board's comments; then there is possibly another meeting for this to come back to the Board of County Commissioners. He said this seems problematic, and this was the concern he originally expressed. .A Commissioner Dorosin said it appears that the flow chart has addressed his concerns about this structure for legislative items. He read through the flow chart as shown on page 18 of the abstract. He said the idea of this is not to eliminate the public input at all, but it is to make the process more equitable and streamlined. He said one of the changes is that as soon as an application comes in, there will be some sort of public notification or report. Perdita Holtz said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin said the next substantive change he sees is that there will be a round of mail notifications to direct neighbors about Planning Board meetings for map amendments. He said the people attending will have opportunity to make comments and suggestions, and it is almost like a mini public hearing at the Planning Board. Perdita Holtz said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin said someone could come to the Planning Board meetings now, but what is different is the provision of first class mail notification to nearby property owners. Perdita Holtz said currently the Planning Board does not discuss applications before the public hearing, and this would be a new change to increase public participation at this level. She said this moves the discussion up in the process, so that the Planning Board discussion occurs before the public hearing. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the notification was previously an agenda item voted on by the Board. Perdita Holtz said the legal ad was an agenda item. Commissioner Dorosin said the notification will not be on the agenda, assuming this is acceptable to the Board. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is any legal requirement that the Board has to vote on this. John Roberts said no. Commissioner Dorosin said the proposal does not say that the Planning Board cannot participate in the public hearing; it just states that a quorum will not be required. Perdita Holtz said this is correct. Commissioner Dorosin said the public hearing, as laid out it in the proposal, would be the last step before a decision is made, whenever that may occur. He asked if there will be any reference back to the Planning Board. Perdita Holtz said it could be the Board of County Commissioners' purview to send something back to Planning Board if something new comes forward at the public hearing. She said the public hearing would be closed, and then the item sent back to the Planning Board. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board could also have the option to send something back to the Planning Board while still keeping the public hearing open. He does not want to have public hearings where the public cannot speak. Perdita Holtz said for legislative items, it is required that a public hearing is held, and it is not precluded that that the public cannot comment before or after the public hearing. She said it is the County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that specifies written comments only being allowed after a public hearing. Commissioner Dorosin said it seems like this is getting close to a resolution. He agrees that the critical aspect is public participation, and he is in favor of the streamlining with targeted outreach early in the process. He said he not as wedded to the suggestion of not making a decision on the same night that it is presented at the public hearing. He can see both sides of this issue, and he is not sure it needs to be a matter of policy. He said there will be times when an issue is fully vetted by the time of the public hearing. 65 Perdita Holtz said if the concern is to get rid of the non - speaking public hearing, then the way to do this is to remove the requirement for only having written comments after a public hearing. Commissioner Dorosin asked what the basis was for this rule. Perdita Holtz said she believed that this was set up in the 1980's so that the Board of County Commissioners would be informed about anything that went on after the public hearing. Craig Benedict said the reason for this rule was to insure that their legislative and quasi - judicial procedures were the same. He said the goal was to have some point in time where the testimony coming in could be stopped to allow for a decision based on a finite amount of information. He said the new suggestion is to have a legislative procedure that can be wide open the whole time. He said for the quasi - judicial items, there will probably be some point in time where that testimony has to stop. Commissioner Pelissier said overall there are a lot of good things in the proposed new process, but she is confused about the lack of increase in the frequency of the quarterly public hearings. She said this would not accomplish the goal of speeding the process for applications that are "no brainers." Perdita Holtz said there were concerns expressed by the Board of County Commissioners about the possibility of putting quarterly public hearings on regular agendas. She said the current suggestion is to try this new process prior to taking that next step. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the UDO would have to be changed in order to change the process. Perdita Holtz said yes. Commissioner Pelissier said the recommendation to close the public hearing tonight does not preclude the Board from taking some action based on what has already been heard and discussed; but it is an iterative process, and there would need to be another public hearing in order to make changes other than what has been discussed. Perdita Holtz said one of the more substantive changes that would require a second public hearing was removing the proposed language about having up to 8 public hearings per year. She said if the Commissioners still want to pursue this, then perhaps there would not be a need for a second public hearing. Commissioner Rich asked if an additional meeting is being added after the notifications go out and the Planning Board meeting is held. Perdita Holtz said it is just another opportunity for the public to comment to the Planning Board. Perdita Holtz said one of the items in the 5th box on the flowchart talks about the fact that the Planning Board action could be to make a recommendation or to make a preliminary recommendation and ask the Board of Commissioners to send it back to the Planning Board if anything significant happens. Commissioner Rich said she wonders if that is actually speeding things up, or if it is just adding another repetitive step. Perdita Holtz said it could add a step to more controversial items where it may be sent back to the Planning Board. She said it is really just flipping when the Planning Board meeting occurs. She said, with this proposal there would be no Planning Board meeting after the public hearing for many legislative items. She said for more complicated issues, this would add another opportunity for the public to comment. Commissioner Rich said if this process is adopted, it is important to make these changes clear to the public in order to have as much involvement as possible. Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to add a historical note about the legal advertisement. She there was a case where the Board was sued over a deficient legal M.- advertisement. She said this may be why the Board of County Commissioners reviews the ad, and she likes the way this process is done now. Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to make sure that all property is being posted, and people are being notified by certified mail. Perdita Holtz said this is not going away. She said the requirement for certified mail is only for developer initiated applications. Commissioner Gordon said there used to be more development applications. The economy may be the reason there are currently not as many development applications and therefore relatively fewer quasi- judicial public hearings. Commissioner Gordon said her suggestion about waiting to vote is in reference to the first time a major public hearing is held. She said it is okay to decide something tonight for this item. She said the Board needs to be careful about having too many categories of hearings, each with a different process, because it might be confusing to the public. Commissioner Price said the flow chart states that the public can come to the Planning Board prior to the public hearing. She asked if these comments will then be entered into the record of the public hearing. Perdita Holtz said the record only relates to the quasi - judicial process, but not the legislative process. She said the flow chart in the packet is related to the legislative process. Commissioner Price asked if this flow chart would be the same for both. Perdita Holtz said there would be a slightly different flowchart for quasi - judicial, but it would follow the same general cadence. Commissioner Price asked if the public would be invited to speak at the Planning Board meeting. Perdita Holtz said the public would not be invited to speak, but there would possibly be an opportunity for comment. She said all of this has not been worked out. Commissioner Price said she is just concerned with the Board having an opportunity to see these comments. Perdita Holtz said there is not really a record of comments at public hearings for legislative items. She said the comments show up in the minutes, just as comments show up in the Planning Board minutes. Commissioner Price referred to item 1 in the bottom blue section of the flowchart on page 18. She asked when the public would be making comments if the item is not to be listed in the meeting agenda. Perdita Holtz said it would be listed as a regular item or a consent agenda item, but it would not be listed under the public hearing section. Commissioner Price said if it is on the consent agenda, the Commissioners may not know that there is someone in the audience who wants to speak. Perdita Holtz said the public can sign up, or the Chair can ask if anyone wishes to speak before the consent agenda. Chair Jacobs said he has never seen a planning item on the consent agenda. Commissioner Pelissier said the recommendation is to stick with the quarterly public hearings. She said this proposal solves the public input issue but not the timing issue. She sees that the roadblock is that you have to provide information 10 days before a quarterly public hearing, whereas you only have 4 days if a public hearing is added to a regular meeting. She questioned whether it might be possible, for legislative public hearings, to provide information on the website 10 days before, and then incorporate it in the agenda 4 days before. Perdita Holtz said there is no actual requirement to have it available 10 days in advance, but that is the practice that Orange County has had for 20 years. 67 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to find a way to do this. She would like to find a way to have the legislative public hearing items be more frequent than just quarterly. Perdita Holtz said it would be possible to have a section of the website that would allow for complete items to be listed ahead of the agenda. Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to try the new process with the 8 public hearings and see how it goes. Commissioner Gordon said it seems to her that Commissioner Pelissier's comments about the notices for public hearings are well taken. She said it is important with legislative items, like re- zonings, to give 10 days of notice for the public hearings. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Pelissier. She said there are some public hearings that can be added to agenda items. She would like to leave this option open. Chair Jacobs summarized that there had been comments and concerns regarding the following items: - Timing of public hearings - Provision of advanced notice of public hearings - Capturing public comments - Number of public hearings - Rendering of decisions subsequent to public hearings - Advertisement comments from Board of County Commissioners Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Gordon made good points about giving notice and having a deliberate process. He said there needs to be more discussion about time between public hearings and rendering a decision. Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin made some good points about the public engagement and the improvement in this. He referred to the final blue box in the flow chart and said this reminds him of the concept plans that are sent to the Planning Board for preliminary analysis and report. He said the Planning Board sends this report back to the Commissioners, and then if it is straightforward there is no need to send it back to the Planning Board. He said there are some items that are just very clear, and those could be on the regular Commissioner agenda. Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price were both talking about thinking through what we hear as part of the public hearing process, and whether people have had an adequate opportunity to address the Board. He said the flip side is that we don't want to ask people to come more times than necessary. He said this needs to be combed out a little more. He said his recollection is that staff reported that Orange County's review process is not any slower than neighboring jurisdictions. He said this process would potentially allow the Planning Board to take itself out of this process, but there is nothing that precludes that. Chair Jacobs said this proposal is generally an improvement but there have been some points raised that the Board may want to isolate more. Chair Jacobs said he is most concerned about there being more public access to the decision making process as well as the Board receiving that information in order to know what people are thinking. Commissioner Rich referred to Chair Jacobs comment about the option for putting a public hearing on the agenda. She asked if this has ever happened, where it has come from the Planning Board. Chair Jacobs said none have come from the Planning Board. He said he is saying that box 5 on the flowchart would accommodate a way to do this. M.- Commissioner Gordon said she is not sure Chair Jacobs got all of the major points. She said she wants to make sure to look through the minutes to capture all of these. Chair Jacobs asked if there were any members of the public who would like to speak. PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to: Receive the information contained in this abstract and attachments; and Close the public hearing. (This is being recommended because the proposed text amendments are expected to be heard again at a future Quarterly Public Hearing, so there is no need to adjourn the public hearing to a date /time certain. Closure of the hearing is necessary to ensure the text amendment is not considered a withdrawal, which requires a yearlong waiting period before amendments on the same topic can be considered again.) VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital Grant Applications for FY 2016 e Board conducted an annual public hearing on the North Carolina Commu Transport 'on Program (CT grant application by Orange Public Transportation ( T) for FY 2016 and co idered approving the grant application that includes adopting a re lution authorizing the licant to enter into an agreement with the North Carolina D partment of Transportation (N OT), authorized the County Attorney to review and co lete the necessary certificatio and assurances, and authorized the Chair to si Peter Murphy rev wed the following background information m the abstract: BACKGROUND: Each year, th NCDOT Public Transportation ivision accepts requests for administrative and capital needs county- operated commu ty transportation programs. OPT is eligible to make application for bot administra/'es ital funding. The current year FY 2015 - approved ap nation i5,604 in administrative funding and $482,489 in capital funding for replac ent vie total expenses equaling $668,093. The total CTP funding request for FY 201 is $166,765 for community transportation administrative expenses and an addition $232,286 f capital expenses. This draft grant application is made for expenses total g $399,051. Grant funds for administrative p oses will continue to be use o support overall transit systems management and op rations and will continue to promote eneral ridership. Grant funds for capital items incl a the replacement of three (3) buses ex c ding their useful life mileage thresholds in O s fleet. A public hearing (Attachment 3) is req sted with the opportunity for public iscussion and comment before the Board takes actin on the resolution (Attachment 1). T acceptance of these grant funds requires compliance with \annual certifications a assurances, for which the signature pages are attached (Attattached sig ture pages are for the certifications and assurances for FY 201certificatio s and assurances signature pages are very similar to those for FY , the Co ty has not yet received them from NCDOT. When received, they will the unty and and Chair for review and signatures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Attachment 4 - Excerpts of October, November, and December 2014 Planning Board Minutes Approved 11/5/14 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 8, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman -At -Large Chapel Hill Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Andrew Vanard HANDOUTS GIVEN: (email from Lydia Wegman concerning Item 10 which is attached at the end of the minutes) ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Planning Calendar for October and November b) inner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on NovZer24,2(014 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF UTES SEPTEMBER 3, 201 GULAR MEETING MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the Septembe ,014 Planni oard minutes. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. VOTE: UNANIMOUS AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITKNS TO AGENDA AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC C Intr uction to the Public Charge e Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North rolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the wri land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplis oordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the resent and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive pro s that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The B .• 70 Approved 11/5/14 325 MOTION by Bryant arre ement econded by Lisa Stuckey. 326 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 327 328 329 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To either provide input or make 330 a recommendation to the BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 331 to change the existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related 332 items/ amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 333 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 334 335 Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract 336 337 Craig Benedict: What I put on the Board here is what we presently have. We usually give the Planning Board a 338 briefing on what is coming up at the public hearings, this is kind of informal. We did have the joint public hearing here 339 and then this was referred back to the Planning Board and then back to the Commissioners for action. As you 340 answer these questions, we'll find out, does the Planning Board make recommendations here or do they make 341 recommendation somewhere else? We will draft it up, as you come to some sort of consensus, we'll try to sketch 342 something up for clarity. 343 344 Pete Hallenbeck: I am not going to read what is in attachment one, I'll just make a couple of quick comments. First 345 we are going through something different here, it's not a text amendment or something laid out for us. It's an 346 opportunity to say what we're thinking. With that comes the obligation to try to get our thoughts organized. I think the 347 main thing is the joint meetings were a problem just because of the quorum and I think you could move that so they 348 are not joint meetings. However, I think you can, somewhere between require and strongly urge, have the Planning 349 Board members attend. I think it is really important, since we are giving recommendations, to have as many people 350 as we can present to hear what is going on because there is such a difference between reading something and 351 hearing someone present it. There is talk in the meeting about holding the Planning Board either before or after. 1 352 think Planning Board before I like a lot, Planning Board after the decision is like closing the barn door after the horse 353 is gone. I'm not quite sure what we'd do, that was discussed. I think citizen notification which is in here is a good 354 deal and it would be nice if that notification includes a description of the process so people know what to do. Part of 355 what happened in the solar project is people were scrambling with the time they had and they weren't sure what the 356 next steps were and also the dates. I think when you combine what we just voted on with the 45 day and you add in 357 the changes we are looking at now and if that notification spells out what is going to happen, it should be a different 358 picture than what we had before. I like treating legislative quasi - judicial mixes as quasi - judicial and that led to those 359 recommendations. So you can sort of see what I am thinking from that attachment one. What we'll do here is just go 360 around the room and take input that anyone would like to pass on to the Commissioners. 361 362 Perdita Holtz: I forgot to mention that Lydia Wegman sent an email earlier today about her views. I wanted to make 363 sure it got into the minutes that I did distribute her email. 364 365 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes and we should put her comments into the minutes since she is not here. She also talked 366 about it the Planning Board should be at the public hearing and she talked about how they should be required to 367 attend the public hearing. We're seeing everybody wrestle with the same details. 368 369 Paul Guthrie: You took the first part of what I was going to acknowledge and suggest everybody read it carefully. 370 Lydia is a very smart person and has been in this business a long time. I must admit that I've thought a lot about this 371 issue and I really wasn't a 100% percent sure where I was going with it so I decided to make it simple. We are in 372 business for one reason and that is to work for the County Board of Commissioners, present them with our 373 understanding of issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations as we gather as citizens in the County. 1 374 would caution us as we shape this don't violate that particular rule and if you decide that it's necessary to change 375 that rule in a significant manner, then you need to decide whether the Planning Board is relevant. I would just say 376 that this is a very fundamental issue that needs to be carefully considered and I understand where the concern 377 comes and it is legitimate concern in terms of the quorum /non- quorum issue. It seems to me we ought to be able to 7 71 Approved 11/5/14 378 deal with that issue without tearing up the relationship of what a citizen advisory board is to the elected leaders of this 379 County. I think we should think in that line as we work on the process. 380 381 Pete Hallenbeck: I agree we need to find a way to get people there but we need to find a way to do it that doesn't 382 penalize people who come to a meeting if we don't have enough people there. That might be the best way to put it. 383 384 Laura Nicholson: I have a lot of comments, in light of the timeline that we were given to consider this I wonder if we 385 can't divide it. It seems like there are a few things that are easy and specific and there are a few things that are really 386 squishy so if could just get through some of the specifics. In regard to the quorum, I obviously haven't been here 387 long enough to understand why the quorum was ever an issue but it just seems like a communication thing. If we've 388 made it clear that you are supposed to be at as many monthly meetings and you can and be at the quarterly public 389 hearing, and are given insufficient notice, and we double check to make sure there's enough people there, I don't 390 see it as an issue. I think it is a little insane to do this whole roundabout to change this whole process that seems 391 important because we can't get our act together internally and I think it could be fixed internally so it doesn't have to 392 be this whole big process. And the frequency of public hearings, I don't know if that is something that is really 393 specific and easy to figure out or not but I'm just curious if we couldn't just divide it. So talk about a few things we 394 can iron out tonight and a few things we go back and ask for more time to figure out. 395 396 Pete Hallenbeck: Again, it strikes me how to get people there because I think there's agreement that's really 397 important but if we make mistakes and people can't show up for whatever reason, how do you keep that from 398 throwing everything off track? We do serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners so they could certainly come up 399 with some club and stick approach to make everybody come to the meetings but I would leave that decision to them. 400 401 Bryant Warren: Reading this I'm a little concerned with, I feel like it is on the step of dissolving the Planning Board 402 and just going straight to the County Commissioners. I'll apologize I did miss the public hearing last month, I got my 403 days mixed up and thought it was the next night. But it is very seldom that I'll miss a public hearing or a meeting. 1 404 will make sure I'm here and I don't understand how the Planning Board can make a recommendation to the BOCC 405 before the public hearing is being held because I really think they need to be involved in the public hearing in order to 406 make an adequate recommendation to the BOCC. I think we can do something, I only been on the Board for a 407 couple of months now so I don't know what went on in the past regarding the quorums. I do feel like if you're a 408 member of the Planning Board then it is your obligation to make sure you attend the meetings. I think what we need 409 to do is stress that we need to keep things the way they are, continue the public hearing, continue with the Planning 410 Board playing a very big role in it so they can make the recommendations they need to, because evidentially, if they 411 don't, then you might as well dissolve the Planning Board and not even have it. That's my recommendation. 412 413 Pete Hallenbeck: One challenge that came out of this whole discussion that hit me was during the quarterly public 414 hearing, I referred to citizens that want to go to the top they want to go to the decision makers and sometimes it's 415 hard to get citizens to come to an advisory board, they want to talk to the Commissioners. Part of the reason for 416 making sure that this notification process tells people about the Planning Board is to give them more opportunities for 417 input. The before and after comes down to what Craig has up on the board. We have a public hearing then Planning 418 Board then BOCC action. I think that's good I think that's critical and I think the Planning Board has to get input so 419 they can make the recommendation to the Commissioners. When I talk about having a Planning Board meeting after 420 what I am talking about is once the Board of County Commissioners has made decision, I don't think there is any role 421 for further input from the Planning Board. I do think it's critical and would even say they shouldn't make a decision 422 before the Planning Board has had an opportunity to make a recommendation. Any time the Commissioners have 423 the option of doing it and just saying wow, this is just too much to handle all this input, they can kick it back to the 424 Planning Board and we can talk it over and it will come up at the next meeting, they have that option. So, yes if the 425 impression that the Planning Board is somehow being diminished in its role, no I don't want that. I do want to make 426 sure we don't hold up the citizens that show up and I'd like to find a way to encourage citizens to come to the 427 Planning Board to get their concerns known earlier. Part of that is what I'm talking about in here about the Planning 428 Board meeting with the public if the public could come to these meetings, it is a bit of a dry run. The other thing that 429 came up in that meeting is another problem we've always had which is would that we had a crystal ball to predict the 430 no- brainers from the ones that are going to be controversial. If we can get citizens to come to the Planning Board N. 72 Approved 11/5/14 431 with input earlier, we can get a better feel of what is going on. The Commissioners can see that when they read the 432 minutes and I think those are ways the Planning Board can be more engaged than it is now. 433 434 Bryant Warren: The problem with that is they want to meet with the top people and by having a joint public hearing 435 appearing with both then they are both getting the information and people are showing up for it. 436 437 Pete Hallenbeck: I wouldn't be surprised if it continues in the same way but I also don't want to penalize people who 438 want to learn how the systems works and try to get the most out of it. So if they have a 45 day notice and they come 439 to the Planning Board and they're organized and they come to us and say here's the concern and talk about it then 440 the Commissioners can read it. That's the closest we're going to come to that no- brainer crystal ball. They will be 441 much more informed, the Commissioners will, than if all this just hits them for the first time. 442 443 Bryant Warren: Right now we have one every 4 months, if it goes to every 2 months, is there not some way if we 444 need another public hearing we can call one or do we have a time frame that would keep us from doing that. 445 446 Craig Benedict: The Unified Development Ordinance does set out a public hearing specific dates of 4 a year. We 447 can amend the UDO to say there are other times we can consider amendments. As Perdita put up there, there are 448 three types of hearing, the legislative ones are typically a little bit easier. There is a good possibility we could move 449 some of those legislative items to a regular meeting and have some more opportunities for them. We know that the 450 quasi-judicial are usually the ones that are a little bit more labored because of the testimony and that would probably 451 clog up a regular meeting so having the quarterly public hearings isolated for them will probably remain a good idea. 452 We can consider regular Commission meetings to have a public hearing. 453 454 Bryant Warren: I know a lot of developers want to get it out, get it to the public, and get it back as quickly as they can 455 so they can start generating money from it. That's probably what we're trying to do is to accommodate some of them 456 so I don't see anything wrong with it. 457 458 Pete Hallenbeck: We have the full spectrum of the developers would love a two month process and a lot of citizens 459 would like a nine month process. What you're talking about with additional meetings, I know Commissioner Jacobs 460 was concerned that if you put additional public hearings on the normal Commissioner calendar, that's where the 461 crystal ball for the no- brainers comes in. You would hate to put, for example, that solar project on the end of a 462 budget meeting cause it would take too long, you really won't be doing the citizens any service, everybody would be 463 tired by the time it was midnight and probably wouldn't accomplish what you wanted. If you know, that crystal ball, 464 that this was going to be a 30 minute with no problem. 465 466 Herman Staats: Pete, so I understand correctly, the process that is on the white board now, is what we currently 467 use? 468 469 Pete Hallenbeck: Correct. 470 471 Herman Staats: Am I understanding you to say that we should have an additional Planning Board meeting with the 472 public and if so where in that process do you propose to put it? 473 474 Pete Hallenbeck: The question is the first item, these quarterly public hearing are on a certain schedule but we meet 475 every month. There's an opportunity to have that 45 day notice and have people come to a Planning Board meeting 476 and get citizen feedback quicker and then that feedback can be presented at the next available quarterly public 477 hearing it is unlikely that the Commissioners would decide at that time but that's where the no- brainer, crystal ball 478 comes in. It is far more likely that they will take that citizen input and kick it back to the Planning Board. We would 479 also be at that meeting, however the carrot and stick approach the Commissioners work out for getting us there. 480 481 Lisa Stuckey: So if I'm a citizen and I am bringing something forward, you're suggesting that there be a public 482 hearing in front of the Planning Board and then a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners and 483 then it comes back to the Planning Board. 484 9 73 Approved 11/5/14 485 Craig Benedict: Maybe it doesn't have to go here afterwards. There are differences between the legislative and 486 487 Lisa Stuckey: But wait, because they were saying they wanted to give people a third or fourth opportunity to speak 488 without question when it came back, as a former member of the school board, every time you hold a public hearing, 489 you will get people to come and the more anxious they are about the outcome, the more they will come and they the 490 longer they will talk. It is just a lot of time. I am not passing judgment on whether or not they should be allowed to, 491 it's just a tremendous amount of time for the boards. 492 493 Craig Benedict: There could be different processes for legislative versus quasi - judicial. The reason we have a 494 process now to just have written testimony after this public hearing is because you're trying to set a point in time 495 where the record is closed, let's make a decision, and if we keep on opening things up very late in the process then it 496 doesn't end. That was part of the reason, especially for quasi - judicial matters, for legislative matters, the 497 Commissioners can choose to let them hold it in three minutes, don't repeat what we've heard here. They can 498 diplomatically say that. 499 500 Lisa Stuckey: It won't work. 501 502 Craig Benedict: Also it shows in the agenda package that the Commissioners, when they have this public hearing 503 over here, they can do three things; they could close the public hearing, this is what we are suggesting as potential 504 options. They could close the public hearing this night and they can set a date to make a formal vote on it, or if it is 505 contentious they could send it back to the Planning Board to return then for a date certain, or one that has never 506 worked well in the past is they can actually decide that night, close the public hearing and say we have enough 507 testimony to decide. That has always been a lot for them but over the many years there's been a few where they 508 thought that were very simple, one was actually a school site for the Orange County school that was an SUP and 509 they needed to get it built and they wanted to approve it there but the process didn't allow them to do that at that 510 time, to vote the same night. It had to go back. 511 512 Bryant Warren: So you're talking about on the public hearing that is joint now it will not be a joint public hearing, it 513 would be just the Commissioners? 514 515 Craig Benedict: That would be just the Commissioners and as the Chair said, we would suggest the Planning Board 516 attend here or they could watch it on Granicus or they could watch a video of it or they could look at the minutes. 517 (referring to board) This would not be a formal, this isn't the formal public hearing here, it's just a point where we can 518 let people know in a neighborhood information meeting that the Planning Board is going to be hearing this item. It is 519 what's called a Planning Board hearing, formal hearing will always stay with the Commissioners that's what state 520 laws says. 521 522 Bryant Warren: I don't think you're going to get as many people showing up for just a public hearing with the 523 Planning Board as you're going to get to show up for the Commissioners and Planning Board combined. 524 525 Craig Benedict: It's true, the Planning Board and staff may be able to answer some questions here at this pre - 526 meeting. At this crystal ball meeting. Even at this point here, we're going to be educating the public because that's 527 what the Commissioners suggested. Let them know about what process we're going through, is it legislative, is it 528 quasi-judicial let them know what levels of input there are, is it going to be formal expert or can it be anecdotal i.e., 529 we don't think that fits the neighborhood. We can do a lot of education here, having something early where the public 530 can be invited. It probably would be a lot more attendance at Planning Board meetings than you've had in the past. 531 It still goes to the formal public hearing, let's call that the legal public hearing. Then the Commissioners have the 532 opportunity to decide at that point to bounce it back or to themselves two weeks hence. 533 534 Perdita Holtz: This Planning Board meeting where he crossed off formal review, the Planning Board recommendation 535 meeting, where there would be notices that actually went out and the property would get posted with a sign to let 536 people know that the Planning Board meeting was happening, it would not be a formal public hearing, it would just be 537 a Planning Board meeting with changing the way we notify the public about Planning Board meetings so that people 538 would know the Planning Board meeting was happening, they would be able to come and speak, it wouldn't have to 10 74 Approved 11/5/14 539 be written comments only and at the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Board would make a recommendation 540 on whether they thought the application should be approved or not, on legislative items. Craig is a little bit mixing 541 legislative and quasi - judicial together. Then the item would go to public hearing with the Planning Board 542 recommendation. At the public hearing the BOCC could decide, man there's so many people here that maybe didn't 543 talk at the Planning Board meeting; we really should kick it back to the Planning Board for them to consider this other 544 information that came out at the public hearing. Or, the BOCC could decide this is one of those no- brainers, the 545 people who have been on the Planning Board before will remember the discussion about no- brainers, this is a no- 546 brainer, we can close the public hearing tonight and we can just vote on it, or they can say, well, you know the 547 Planning Board gave us a recommendation, nothing major has come out but I want to mull this over more and the 548 BOCC can say let's schedule it for a later meeting. 549 550 Loss of recording device /full memory- approximate 7 to 9 minutes lost. 551 [There was some discussion about how notices about the Planning Board meeting would be sent via first class mail 552 to adjacent property owners and a sign would be posted on the affected property, in the case of map amendments]. 553 554 Pete Hallenbeck: It is important that the notifications be a blend of the dry legal requirements of notification and a 555 nice human readable, ok guys here's how it's going to work- we're going to have to this meeting here's what you can 556 do, this is an opportunity for you, so it explains the process and people know what is going on. 557 558 Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments; I don't know how much power we really have. I think we're maybe 559 assuming that we have more power than we do here. We are really looking at the UDO and deciding whether or not 560 a project meets the criteria of the UDO, we can't just all of a sudden say, no we don't like that, and the second part of 561 it is, I think we're all here to represent some part of the County. I represent Bingham because I live there and 562 because I have other contacts in the community and it seems to me that we should be part of the notification list for 563 any public information session in our area of representation. We should be at least as strongly encouraged to attend 564 that public information meeting on behalf of the Planning Board and all the Planning Board members be encouraged 565 to attend any public information meeting as that somewhat cloudy crystal because I think you can tell from a public 566 information meeting how many people show up as to what kind of a response you're going to get and what the real 567 concerns and questions are that need to be addressed up front. I don't really understand the quasi - judicial role we 568 have, I understand that we stand up there and give testimony but if our power is limited to interpreting the UDO and 569 trying make whatever changes proposed fits within the UDO and it either does or it doesn't and staff is far more 570 versed in the UDO than I am. I find their recommendations are pretty bang on. All of what I have to say in a quasi - 571 judicial way is hearsay, right? 572 573 Pete Hallenbeck: The role of the Planning Board is this oversight, are we meeting the requirements of the UDO. 574 Yes, you're right, but that's a level of detail you have to have. I would point out, though, that there's also a document 575 called the Comprehensive Plan. If the UDO is the rules, the left brain, the Comprehensive Plan is the heart and soul, 576 it's the right brain part of it. There are times when we've reviewed things and it's met all of the requirements but then 577 you'll find something in the Comprehensive Plan that's not right and I think it's not power per say but it's a very valid 578 role of the Board is to point this out. An example of that is the Comprehensive Plan encourages that all subdivisions 579 have sidewalks and yet every time we run into it there is no money for sidewalks and DOT doesn't want it. There is a 580 conflict there and we don't have power over that but we can certainly point it out and I think that's also true with 581 representing the areas you're from. 582 583 Tony Blake: Yeah, but I don't find that to be quasi - judicial in essence. You can point it out in a quasi - judicial hearing 584 but it's not some... 585 586 Pete Hallenbeck: Quasi - judicial is such a different beast because people get sworn in and there's testimony. It really 587 changes the game a lot and our role in quasi - judicial is very strict. 588 589 Lisa Stuckey: We're supposed to be the judge in a quasi - judicial, aren't we? 590 591 James Bryan: In quasi judicial, it's the governing board- the deciding body that is the judge. From a legal 592 perspective, for planning boards' involvement, it's dangerous. Especially, how we have it where you close the public 11 75 Approved 11/5/14 593 hearing and then you have the statements. I think that's right before appeal, for a number of reasons, I don't know if 594 the Board really wants to get into all of that but my recommendation would be that because of all of the legal 595 concerns with all that let one board handle it, the Board of Adjustment, that's all they do and then you also have a 596 corollary to that because when the public goes to these meetings and they want to know, look I'm a neighbor and I'm 597 against this, quasi - judicial they can't say anything. That's objectionable, you're not supposed to allow them to go and 598 speak to that. So if you have one board where they know, oh Board of Adjustment that's when I have to have my 599 expert there to testify and any time you go before the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Board, that's 600 when I'm allowed to give my opinion because they do policy and legislative matters. It's clear for the public. 601 602 Lisa Stuckey: So, the quasi judicial, and I guess the mix will move out of the Planning Board? 603 604 James Bryan: That would be my recommendation. 605 606 Perdita Holtz: Well, the legislative part of the mix would not but we need to figure out what we want to do for 607 legislative versus quasi - judicial before we tackle that funny beast of the mix. 608 609 Lisa Stuckey: But quasi - judicial is leaving us. 610 611 Bonnie Hammersley: No, as the County Manager I have to speak. The issue tonight is some kind of 612 recommendation from this Board to the County Board of Commissioners, they make the final determination. One 613 thing I would want to add thought as you all talked about your power or your worth, this Board is a highly valued 614 board in county government and is in all the counties I've been in. The County Board of Commissioners depend on 615 you greatly for your recommendations and what you do and so I want you for that but no determination has been 616 made on what is going to happen. That's what this discussion is about. It would be a recommendation to the County 617 Commissioners and whether the Commissioners would agree with that, they would make the final determination and 618 1 don't know what that is. 619 620 Maxecine Mitchell: I'm sitting here thinking I want to share in my own way, when I decided to be on this Planning 621 Board, I came to represent my community. I don't feel comfortable in any decision we make, I have to be there to 622 hear what the people have to say. I sit here every month and hear the staff from their perspective and I get a good 623 understanding on their challenges, what they are trying to do as a whole, I then like to come to the public hearing 624 meeting and I cautiously listen to the people. Within the decisions we make to the UDO and the Comprehensive 625 Plan when we have a chance that helps me to figure out if it a good thing for the community. Then my 626 recommendation that I give to the County Board of Commissioners, I'm looking at it from the community perspective 627 because I have to live here. You may not live in my neighborhood, in my area, and I don't want rules making it hard 628 for me to enjoy the life here in Orange County. I take this very seriously so I don't want whatever we do, I want to 629 hear from the public, as well as coming here every month and hearing from the Planning Board and hearing the 630 County Commissioners and what they want and make it all work the best we possibly can. I understand the legal 631 process but for me that's top concern because we have to live here in Orange County so we have to keep it where 632 people can enjoy the County and not feel like they want to move to Durham or Alamance County, that's the way I see 633 it and I want to find the best way to say that in the decisions we make. I try my best to show up to the public hearings 634 and I go to work at 12 at night and the night of that long meeting, I left that meeting and went right to work because 635 that's my commitment to the citizens of Orange County to be there. I think that staff and the Board of Commissioners 636 get benefit from it. 637 638 Pete Hallenbeck: One good thing coming from this discussion is that it's an interesting opportunity for everyone to 639 think about the role of the Planning Board and I think we are all basically on the same page. If anyone has another 640 rule they think is critical. 641 642 Paul Guthrie: I mentioned one and that is the fact that we provide the Board of Commissioners with a screen with 643 which they can filter through information as they deal with some very tough issues. 644 12 76 Approved 11/5/14 645 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, with a blend of the feedback and the community and public input. Also I think there is 646 representation of the areas and there is also that everybody here has a diverse skill set and drawing on both of those 647 really helps with these opinions that we can give the Commissioners. 648 649 Tony Blake: Is it safe to say that any quasi-judicial process is preceded by a legislative? 650 651 Perdita Holtz: In quasi - judicial matters it depends on how you're zoned on whether you have to get a Special Use 652 Permit and so at some point zoning was applied to the property but you can't say that it precedes it by a month or a 653 year of something like that. 654 655 Tony Blake: No, what I'm saying is the maybe when we run up against this situation where we think, maybe the 656 County is being too heavy handed but we don't really have the power to do anything but interpret the facts against 657 the UDO and it either is or it isn't, right? Michael is the oracle on that, we have a handoff or a way to pass along to a 658 more powerful body, the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Commissioners whoever it is and say here's our 659 legislative view to take into your quasi - judicial. I don't know. 660 661 Perdita Holtz: No, it's not for most of the types of Special Use Permits that we see. The only time that there's a 662 legislative component is if there is a rezoning associated with also needing a Special Use Permit and that happens in 663 the case of some subdivisions when you get larger subdivisions in the rural area. 664 665 Tony Blake: Yeah, I was thinking of that dog kennel up on 70 where they weren't really in compliance. They wanted 666 to do something, they couldn't do something without being in compliance first and then being in compliance was too 667 expensive. It really got dicey and at the end of the day, basically, we were told we couldn't do anything outside of the 668 UDO but at the same time it didn't qualify for the Board of Adjustment and so there was this limbo thing and then it 669 was thrown over to the County Commissioners who changed the decision. 670 671 Perdita Holtz: Yes, that really was a messy one. 672 673 Tony Blake: That's the kind of situation I'm thinking of that it just really seems like we could be more graceful. 674 Changing gears here if we got in early at the community information meetings and tried to make that at least as 675 important as attending the quarterly public hearings for the representatives of that group to bring back to the Planning 676 Board I think that would go a long way towards your crystal ball. 677 678 Pete Hallenbeck: Two things here, on page 72 there's that summary and that Perdita came up with and 88% of the 679 time things are legislative and 3% of the time it is a mix. You never want to ignore a minority of cases but you also 680 don't want to optimize the system on one low probability parameter. Also, Tony, I wanted to comment and this will 681 sort of speak to what Maxecine was talking about, I like the idea that you notify Planning Board members if there is 682 neighborhood information meeting in their district. I think that's a great thing to do. 683 684 Michael Harvey: With all due respect, I think that the policy should be that every Planning Board member gets 685 notified and they can choose to attend if they can or cannot. That way everybody benefits. As neighborhood 686 meetings are scheduled the Planning Board gets notified and every member has an opportunity to attend. 687 688 Tony Blake: I would agree. 689 690 Michael Harvey: The reason I saying it that way is if Tony Blake can't show up, maybe other members can and the 691 fact that Tony was not able to show up on a given evening. I think if you're asking staff to make sure you're notified 692 of every N I M then we can just do that as a policy. 693 694 Pete Hallenbeck: You're right on the money, that's more functional and easier to implement. 695 696 Paul Guthrie: I have a question for those of us who live in the County but are under Chapel Hill planning 697 management, how do we get notified? Because most of the planning of what that has done is under Chapel Hill's 698 Planning Board. There was a point in time in the past the County Commissioners made a recommendation for 13 77 Approved 11/5/14 699 appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Board, from the area in which I live in, and the first thing that happened, it 700 happened to be me as the nominee, and the first thing that happened was Chapel Hill Planning Board and the 701 Council decided to eliminate that position so I think that we need to talk about those fringe areas that are in the 702 extraterritorial jurisdiction and see if we can get the process working there too. I'm in the southeast corner of the 703 County and it is going to be one of the big growth areas in a very small area over the next few years, I'm afraid, and 704 there is a lot going on but you usually have to read about it in the newspaper to find out about it. 705 706 Perdita Holtz: So you're suggesting that we work with Chapel Hill Planning's Department for them to overhaul their 707 practices on how they notify? 708 709 Paul Guthrie: No, I'm just saying it would be nice to know when those things are going on or how many newspapers 1 710 need to subscribe to. 711 712 Perdita Holtz: It's Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction and we don't necessarily always know what is going on. 713 714 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the key thing is, you being in Chapel Hill, if there's any neighborhood information meetings, 715 you'll find out about it in the County because Michael's suggestion was right on the money. It's easy to implement 716 and everybody's informed. 717 718 Buddy Hartley: I feel like the process we have now is working. The question is can we get a quorum at the public 719 hearing. That's the question. The process is working, staff is doing their job. Staff is giving us the information for 720 whatever is taking place and we are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners, whether they like our 721 recommendation or not, they do what they want to do. So, I do like the fact of possibly having the public being able 722 to come to us before the public hearing but then the question is are we going to have a quorum at the public hearing. 723 1 don't see a big problem with that we just need to let staff know in advance if we cannot make that meeting so they 724 know. We should be able to get a quorum at the public hearing. 725 726 Perdita Holtz: Well it's really far in advance because the legal ad gets published and notices get sent out, the legal 727 ad is due to the paper like three weeks before the public hearing. 728 729 Buddy Hartley: So we want to be able to have a quorum at the public hearing, we either do or we don't. 730 731 Lisa Stuckey: Aside from the time somebody was late, and I was one of them one time, it's been very close. There 732 were other meetings, I can think of two others, maybe three, where we were waiting for people to come. 733 734 Maxecine Mitchell: But I usually get an email and if not an email somebody calls. Does not everybody get that same 735 thing as a reminder? 736 737 Perdita Holtz: Yes, Tina sends out emails asking about quorum. 738 739 Maxecine Mitchell: I have it on my calendar but when I get the email I remember, that's right I do have a public 740 hearing. 741 742 Buddy Hartley: And she does call. 743 744 Maxecine Mitchell: Yes, if she doesn't hear from me, she'll call. I just wondering, is that not working for everybody to 745 remember that there's a public hearing? 746 747 Perdita Holtz: Often we call because enough people have said no, and so it's getting very close on whether we're 748 going to have quorum and so now we're scrambling to get on the phone with people who haven't responded to see if 749 they can show up or not. 750 751 Pete Hallenbeck: You can put a lot of procedures in place but the bottom line is we had a lot of trouble and if it 752 happens again something has got to change. I would ask, it's not clear to me, what the value of having a true joint 14 1A Approved 11/5/14 753 meeting where the Planning Board has a quorum versus requiring Planning Board members to attend and if you 754 have bad attendance then the Commissioners can do something about it, like say thank you for your service but 755 you're not cutting it. We're going to be there and we're going to hear the public hearing input. The commissioners 756 certainly have the ability while we're there, even if it's not a joint meeting, to ask if there are any comments from the 757 Planning Board. It's well within their purview so I just don't see that dropping the official joint with a quorum 758 requirement, I don't think that will change the process a whole lot. What it will do is not hold up a meeting where you 759 have 100 citizens there. 760 761 Craig Benedict: From what I'm hearing from the discussion, there seems to be somewhat of a role of the Board in a 762 differentiation between how they act on a legislative matter, where they can hear opinions left and right, they can 763 hear the community and they can see the site versus the quasi-judicial nature where your role is more structured. 764 Not that we are making any determinations tonight, but maybe when we do this interim report, maybe there are two 765 different processes that we follow for legislative matters versus a quasi-judicial and right now they're clustered 766 together and maybe we should take a look at the role of the Board on a legislative matter and how we get input 767 versus a quasi-judicial matter follow a different tract. Does that sound reasonable? 768 769 Pete Hallenbeck: In general, what I'm hearing, and I realize there is variation everywhere, is everybody agrees there 770 is great value in having the Planning Board at the quarterly public hearing. The challenge is if you don't have a 771 quorum, we don't want that to derail anything. I am also hearing people are happy with this concept that the Planning 772 Board can take citizen input so we can get that sooner and hopefully that combined with the 45 days will just make 773 everything go better. Most of what we've been talking about is for the legislative processes which are 88% of the 774 time. The quasi - judicial is a different process and we need to work on knowing what our role is in that. That may be 775 something staff and the attorney can work on to educate us on that a little bit better but again 88% of the time it is 776 legislative and it would be great to also notify all Planning Board member of any neighborhood information meeting 777 that is going on so we have a chance to get out there and see what is going on. Those are the main points I'm 778 pulling out. Is there anything major anyone can think of? 779 780 Laura Nicholson: So, is the idea that we will have quorum and we'll all just internally say we are going to be better 781 about getting quorum or was there some barrier that maybe some of us that are new don't understand why we 782 couldn't get a quorum before? 783 784 Pete Hallenbeck: My personal opinion is to drop the quorum requirement because we've blown it two or three times 785 and if we blow it one more time, it is just, it's getting to the point it's not excusable and that's also based on the fact 786 that if we can just impress upon people how important it is to be there, it's not clear what the quorum is doing and the 787 Commissioners can still ask Planning Board members who are present for comments and input. 788 789 Laura Nicholson: It's just funny that you're saying we need to make sure that we all know that it's really important to 790 be there but it's not a requirement. If it's really important to be there it should be a requirement. 791 792 Pete Hallenbeck: It should but then when you don't have it, we were lucky that we had only a 30 minute delay. What 793 would happen if you had a meeting and you didn't have quorum and you tell all these people I'm sorry we just don't 794 have the people, we'll try this again in three months. 795 796 Laura Nicholson: I agree I just don't see how we can't have a quorum. 797 798 Lisa Stuckey: Why don't we ask staff, what's the problem? Do we know why people haven't shown up? What's 799 been the issue? 800 801 Perdita Holtz: I think it just depends on the personalities that you have on the Board. How seriously people take their 802 position. 803 804 Tina Love: There has never been a time when staff went to the meeting without a quorum. I have never left work at 805 the end of the day that staff didn't have a quorum. If I haven't heard from you, I get on the phone and I call you and 1 806 keep on calling until I reach you, and I'm sorry about that, but we have to ensure there is a quorum. Then staff gets 15 79 Approved 11/5/14 807 to the meeting and for whatever reason, and things do come up last minute but there just isn't a quorum. I don't 808 know what other process we can do to fix that. 809 810 Tony Blake: Send the Orange bus. 811 812 Maxecine Mitchell: For me, I know we get a copy of the calendar every month, I put it on my personal calendar and 813 an alarm goes off and I say hey you've got a meeting. I don't care if it's an hour before, I'll throw on my clothes and 814 get up here because I've made up in my mind I'm committed and I know it's part of my responsibility on the Board. If 815 something comes up, an emergency, the first thing I try to do, I'm calling from South Carolina when my sister passed 816 away to say she passed I can't make it. Things like that, you can't help but if you're here you should be making it to 817 the meeting. I think it doesn't have to be a rule we just have to be committed and show up unless it is out of our 818 control. 819 820 Laura Nicholson: I just think if the quorum isn't a rule then we're making ourselves seem less important. Like we 821 can't make it to a quorum, we've already embarrassed ourselves by not being there so let's just not hold ourselves 822 accountable and I think we should hold ourselves accountable by saying there has to be a quorum. 823 824 Pete Hallenbeck: If the quorum requirement were effective, we would never have not had a quorum and I see this as 825 the price of failure of value of success and the price of failure having the quorum is we hold up the public. The value 826 of success is we have a quorum, the meeting starts but after that I don't see a lot of difference because the 827 Commissioners can still ask our opinion and we are still there to get input. I think that's why I come down on the side 828 of dropping the quorum requirement. It's just that simple weighing of the price of failure and the value of success. 1 829 don't see any difference in the outcome. 830 831 Tony Blake: What's the reason for the joint meeting? 832 833 Pete Hallenbeck: I think Laura's right on the money, it does bring the Planning Board out, it makes it part of the 834 process, it give value to it, adds importance to it. By the same reason if we don't show up it makes it look like the 835 Planning Board isn't important it doesn't care and the people are not there and you're holding up the citizens. 836 837 Laura Nicholson: Is it possible that it was a communication issue, so for example, I knew I was going to be ten 838 minutes late so I emailed Tina but I don't know if she got my email so maybe it's that we need cell phone numbers of 839 staff so that we can call people and say hey, I'm going to be late or this came up or maybe it's just because I'm new. 840 841 Tina Love: One other thing we need is alternative numbers, cell phone numbers for Planning Board. 842 843 Laura Nicholson: So I see it as a communication issue that is holding up the quorum process and if we just over 844 communicate rather than under communicate it will solve itself. 845 846 Perdita Holtz: It really wasn't the issue of someone being ten minutes late and calling. It was people having full 847 calendars and just not making it to the meeting. 848 849 Laura Nicholson: And they don't know that in advance? 850 851 Perdita Holtz: I don't want to speculate on when people know in advance. 852 853 Laura Nicholson: I'm new so I can't comment but to me it seems simple you're supposed to be there, you're there 854 and if you're not you tell somebody. 855 856 Perdita Holtz: That's a wonderful outlook. 857 858 Pete Hallenbeck: Sometimes just the ebb and flow of life just doesn't work out. 859 16 :1 Approved 11/5/14 860 Buddy Hartley: Things come up and when things come up, you contact staff and you let them know, I can't make this 861 meeting for whatever reason. Everyone won't be able to always make meetings and if that happened with 3 or 4 862 people for the same meeting, you might not have a quorum. 863 864 Lisa Stuckey: It's not a regularly scheduled meeting for us, it's an odd meeting and I think that's part of the problem 865 and it's on a Monday instead of Wednesday when we normally meet. Honestly when you're talking about going to 866 more meeting I wonder how many Planning Board members can really go to those neighborhood meetings. 867 868 Perdita Holtz: I'm a little fuzzy on a certain aspect of what you've discussed tonight; I hear that you want to attend 869 the public hearing whether those are quorumed or not quorumed that you want to attend to hear the public. 870 871 Lisa Stuckey: But if they change it and they're doing it six or eight times a year, are we really committed to that? 872 1 would be extremely skeptical. 873 874 Perdita Holtz: That is a question at this time, I don't really think they are going to be changing the frequency but 875 that's just my feeling from what we've heard. 876 877 Bonnie Hammersley: I will support Perdita on that. One of the things we have is for the November 241h quarterly 878 public hearing we don't have any agenda items and so it's difficult to try to justify adding more meetings so right now 1 879 don't see that being the will of the Board to change it. 880 881 Perdita Holtz: I hear that you want to attend the public hearing what I'm fuzzy on is I've also heard that you want to 882 do public meeting where the public can come to the Planning Board meeting and comment beforehand. There would 883 be an official agenda item, we would send out notices to any affected property owners and they could come and talk 884 with you. At that point, would you all make a recommendation at that Planning Board meeting and then attend the 885 public hearing or do you still want to wait to make the recommendation after the public hearing? We're just talking 886 about legislative not quasi - judicial for this. What I am trying to clear on, because I have to write something up for the 887 BOCC, is you want to attend the public hearing and you also want to have a pre- meeting where the public can come 888 and attend. If it involved a piece of property the public is going to get mailed notices and we are going to put notices/ 889 a sign saying come to the Planning Board meeting and let them know what you think. At that meeting will you all 890 make a recommendation prior to the public hearing or do you want to wait until after the public hearing to make a 891 recommendation? 892 893 Pete Hallenbeck: I think we can no more guarantee we can make a recommendation than the Commissioners can 894 guarantee they can make a decision at the quarterly public hearing much as happened with the solar project. I think 895 the best the Planning Board can do is to provide feedback based on our knowledge on the communities we come 896 from and maybe comment on what people say and yes there is a bit of a challenge there because there may be time 897 when all we can do is except that input and frankly there won't be a whole lot we can say that is terribly intelligent 898 other than thank you for the input. 899 900 Perdita Holtz: So after the public hearing you want to make a recommendation still so my concern is that on 901 legislative items, that do not have a neighborhood information meeting, you are now adding an additional meeting 902 before the public hearing that is going to make the process longer. I want to make sure that. 903 904 Pete Hallenbeck: I don't think I was saying it that way. 905 906 Perdita Holtz: You're having a Planning Board meeting that we are going to send out notices. 907 908 Craig Benedict: We'll send out the letter out and decide. 909 910 Perdita Holtz: No, they're saying they don't want to decide, I know that is what we talked about two weeks ago but 911 this is not what's being talked about tonight. They want to wait to decide until after the public hearing. 912 17 A Approved 11/5/14 913 Herman Staats: My own personal feeling about making a recommendation is what I said earlier, if you have 914 opportunity for public input but no one comes then yes we can make recommendations based on the written 915 guidelines but you still don't have public input. So the whole goal of us discussing this tonight was to increase and 916 have a better access to public input but if they don't come then we're not increasing public input. I thought this whole 917 process came up of how do we get more feedback from the public and how do we get them involved. 918 919 Perdita Holtz: That's one part of it. 920 921 Maxecine Mitchell: Right now, I'm going to go with leaving things the way they are right now. 922 923 Perdita Holtz: Increasing the public involvement, that's certainly one part of it Herman, about increasing the public 924 involvement however, the increasing of public involvement is really pertinent to quasi-judicial matters and so I am 925 trying to nail down more of what you are all thinking about the legislative matters and we're going to have to tackle 926 quasi-judicial at some other time. 927 928 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I agree, just talking legislative and I think I agree with Herman that if we can make a 929 recommendation or decision, we will but there may be circumstances where we just can't. 930 931 Michael Harvey: Is the concern that not enough citizens are interested in showing up and you're going to make a 932 recommendation in a vacuum. 933 934 Pete Hallenbeck: No, if nobody shows up and they have met all the requirements for what they are trying to do and it 935 meets the UDO, I say we make a decision and say yes, we're all for this. I think the times where we wouldn't make a 936 decision would be like the solar array. 937 938 Paul Guthrie: It's not judicial, we're not encumbered on that solution that we have something, nobody shows up, we 939 have a question about it, we could send that to the Commissioners and it could be incorporated in the call for the 940 public hearing. 941 942 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, all that is possible and again it's part of being an advisory board there 943 944 Tony Blake: Let me just suggest just opposing the whole thing forjust a second here. Why not add, and I think other 945 boards have this thing that they have sort of a County Commissioner liaison. Why not require that liaison to be here 946 for quasi judicial, no quasi - judicial right? Then they can carry that feedback back to the other County 947 Commissioners. 948 949 Pete Hallenbeck: We're going to stick with the legislative, quasi-judicial is a very strict process. 950 951 Perdita Holtz: There are reasons there's not a BOCC liaison for the Planning Board and I don't think there is going to 952 be. 953 954 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the changes we're talking about is we have the 45 days, we're just saying let the public 955 come and present input either in writing or verbally at the Planning Board meeting that's part of the notification they 956 get. We will discuss it there will be times when we can make a recommendation and there will be times when we'll 957 just throw our hands up and there will probably be times when we go, we don't really want to get near this thing and 958 we kick it back to the Commissioners. 959 960 Paul Guthrie: Would that be mandatory or just advisory? Could we simply say you may wish to come to a Planning 961 Board meeting prior to the public hearing? 962 963 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, but part of this is to explain the process, is that exact language. You're not required but if you 964 care to this is great as it gives us better input sooner, the Commissioners read your feedback before the quarterly 965 public hearing. That explanation should enough to let a citizen realize how the process works. 966 18 LIM Approved 11/5/14 967 Paul Guthrie: Probably a good idea. 968 969 Laura Nicholson: To me there is just some things that seem really cut and dried and there are some things that are 970 really squishy. Is there a way we can delineate that and say these things we agree on and bring a recommendation 971 on these things and these things we still want to talk about more, is that a possibility? 972 973 Pete Hallenbeck: Part of why I tried to say it's important to be at the QPH not wild about the quorum and you're 974 comments you really think the quorum will help. The Planning Board taking citizen input, it sounds like everybody is 975 good with that and more input is good. We realize this is legislative that is 88% of what we see, all Planning Board 976 members get notification of any neighborhood information meetings and we realize that the quasi-judicial is a 977 problem for another day we need more education as there are very strict rules. That's ok because we've just dealt 978 with 88% of what we deal with and I would say that's the summation of what we are putting before the 979 Commissioners along with this process. 980 981 Craig Benedict: Chair, based on the direction the Commissioners gave the manager and the attorney and staff is this 982 interim report is not going to make decision so, that interim report will say probably some things are easier to achieve 983 and some things are a little bit harder so I think in essence we are going to get some ideas on which way we can 984 move with it. Where's there's some clarity and which areas might need a little more time. That's why they said the 985 November 611 meeting wouldn't have everything done by then. We'll let them know where we are in the process that 986 we were getting consensus on some areas and we are also determining that there are differences, clear differences, 987 on how the Board's role is for quasi-judicial versus legislative and how we get community input that might take a little 988 longer. 989 990 Pete Hallenbeck: That's also why we're not going to vote tonight on this and what we recommend. We've talked 991 they get to sludge through it and see what we're thinking and it goes on from there. Ok, the last item on the agenda, 992 I'll entertain a motion to adjourn 993 994 995 AGENDA 11: COMMITTEEIADVISORY BOARD RTS: 996 a. Board of Adjustmen 997 998 999 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJO MENT: 1000 1001 MOTION by B arren to adjourn. Seconded by Hartley. 1002 VOTE: U MOUS 1003 1004 1005 Email from Lydia Wegman: 1006 1007 From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:lnwegman @gmail.com] 1008 Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:12 PM 1009 To: Perdita Holtz 1010 Subject: Re: October Planning Board Materials 1011 1012 Hi Perdita, 1013 1014 Thanks for that helpful explanation of the status of the recommendations on the public hearing process. I am very 1015 sorry to be missing the discussion tonight. As a new member of the Board, I feel I would benefit from hearing the 1016 views of the folks who have served on the Board longer than I. I do, however, have two thoughts to offer, which are 1017 laid out in the next paragraph. In addition to that, I plan to read the minutes of tonight's discussion and then offer my 1018 thoughts on the conclusions reached, if any. I know this is not the best way to engage in discussion, but given that I 1019 am out of town, I think it's the best I can do. 1020 19 Approved 11/5/14 1021 Here are my views on two issues for tonight's meeting: First, I do not think the Board of Adjustment should handle 1022 Class A SUPs. I think those should continue to come to the BOCC and to the Planning Board for a recommendation 1023 to the BOCC. I feel that decisions on these SUPs concern the way in which the county is using the precious land 1024 within its boundaries and those decisions should be left to the elected, not appointed, officials. I think it's important 1025 for the Planning Board to offer its views to the BOCC. My second thought is that the the Planning Board should 1026 make its recommendations to the BOCC after the conclusion of the public hearing, as is done now. I think the 1027 Planning Board should be required to attend the public hearing and am not sure why there has been such a problem 1028 with attendance at the quarterly hearings. Is there really such a problem? If so, I suggest that the Planning Board be 1029 asked to solve it. I don't think the solution is to cut the Board out of that process. But even if the Board is not 1030 required to attend the public hearing, it should be required to listen to the hearing before offering its views to the 1031 BOCC. The information at a public hearing is in my view essential to helping the Board thoughtfully consider what 1032 recommendation to make. 1033 1034 1 hope these views can be considered at tonight's meeting. Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing about the 1035 discussion at the meeting. 1036 1037 Lydia 1038 Pete Hallenbeck, Chair 20 LIM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Approved 12/3/14 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey (Vice- Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; Lydia Wegman -At -Large Chapel Hill Township; MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Planning Calendar for October and November b) inner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on Noolfilber 24, 2014 has been c) ChapNill ETJ Expansion Request Craig Benedict gave an overview of the J expansion request. Subject a JPA vs ETJ land use regulations and financial investment representation future Ion erm planning. Craig Benedict: There is an area of the Joint Plan 19,i, g Ar!aX Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the transition area. In order to fund certain infrastructure i ements, Chapel Hill would be able to contribute more if it was part of their ETJ. That request will be going to th 0 on November 18. Lisa Stuckey: I was on a committee that workp6to get the sidew s in with DOT and there were 3 jurisdictions, Chapel Hill, County and Carrboro as I recall d it was a mess. To me t ' seems to simplify things. Tony Blake: This goes from the towrXperation center all the way south. Craig Benedict: This is aboo 1,000 acre area and would include the whole section o e Joint Planning area that is norXte ap ill. Tony esidents have a say in this? Craig is a pub lic notice requirement that the City has put out and they have come forwar d said they a ith this proposal. 1 LIMA 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 MOTION made�o by Laura Nicholson. VOTE: Unanimous rk plan presented by Approved 12/3/14 rea Rohrbacher. Seconded AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To continue discussion and provide input on 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. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing and was discussed at the October 8 Planning Board meeting. Discussion is expected to focus on the quasi-judicial process. Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator Perdita Holtz reviewed PowerPoint Chart Paul Guthrie: If there is a different presentation at the BOCC from what was given to this Board, what would happen? Perdita Holtz: If it were significant, we could say this is a significant difference, you may wish to send it back to the Planning Board and the BOCC would decide. Paul Guthrie: If you want to catch up to speed on what happened, where would you get that? Perdita Holtz: It is on video and eventually minutes are done by the County Clerk's office but they are not done within two days. It usually takes a couple of weeks at least. Lydia Wegman: The Planning Board meeting would occur first. Most of the public will probably blow off the Planning Board meeting. If they come to the BOCC and make a presentation that the Planning Board didn't see or consider, how will the BOCC know they are seeing something the Planning Board didn't see that might be significant and change the recommendation? Perdita Holtz: There would be a report that tells the BOCC who spoke at the Planning Board meeting. Also, staff could let the BOCC know if something significant is being raised at the public hearing that wasn't at the Planning Board meeting. Then the BOCC could decide if it should go back to the Planning Board. Paul Guthrie: Worst case scenario, would it be possible for this Planning Board de nova after that decision to say we didn't hear any of that? Perdita Holtz: That would depend on if the BOCC made a decision the night of the hearing or not. Paul Guthrie: There are 99 times out of 100 you would never have a problem but it is that one time it could be sticky. Lydia Wegman: It says the public hearing will be closed at the conclusion and written comments would no longer be required for making comments after the hearing. If the public hearing is closed, what would be the forum for making comments? Perdita Holtz: On a legislative items, anybody can comment anytime. The current process is that the public hearing is left open for written comments. Lydia Wegman: It the public hearing is closed then what does it mean to submit comments in any form? Perdita Holtz: For legislative items, the public hearing is a statutory requirement that you hold a public hearing but you can receive comments before and after that formal hearing. il :. Approved 12/3/14 215 Lydia Wegman: If the BOCC has already made the decision, there is no opportunity for anyone to make comments. 216 217 Perdita Holtz: They should comment before the public hearing at the Planning Board or at the public hearing. 218 219 Lydia Wegman: What is the purpose of having this additional opportunity for comment after the public hearing is 220 closed. 221 222 Perdita Holtz: There isn't an additional opportunity via statutes, people can continue to comment. It is not like a 223 quasi-judicial process. 224 225 Craig Benedict: In the three cases the BOCC can decide, if they defer their decision, any input that comes from the 226 citizens can still be considered. If it gets referred back to the Planning Board, the citizen can still provide comment. 227 The only case it would not work is if the BOCC heard everything they thought they needed to decide that night. 228 229 Tony Blake: Where along this process line is the community information meeting? 230 231 Perdita Holtz: The information meeting 45 days ahead of time is associated with Special Use Permit applications 232 which are not legislative but are quasi-judicial. 233 234 Michael Harvey: Neighborhood meetings are also for major subdivision and fire stations. 235 236 Tony Blake: That is a localized place to make comments and the Planning Board rep should be notified and invited 237 to that meeting. This seems to cry out for a Neighborhood Information Meeting. 238 239 Perdita Holtz: We were kind of looking at it as the Planning Board meeting would be the prelude to the public 240 hearing. 241 242 Tony Blake: They are involved by the applicant. You are making the distinction that these are not text amendments. 243 The Neighborhood Information Meeting is more important for something like this that is not a text amendment than a 244 Special Use Permit. 245 246 Perdita Holtz: The whole point of having the Neighborhood Information Meeting for the Special Use Permit is so 247 people can understand that is a very special process and that you will have to hire experts to represent you. 248 249 Tony Blake: A concrete example is the Mountains to Sea Trail. I would think that sort of process would be valuable 250 there. 251 252 Perdita Holtz: I think that DEAPR is holding meetings on the Mountains to Sea Trail. 253 254 Tony Blake: I am getting pounded by this new gas pipeline. 255 256 Michael Harvey: The BOA held a public hearing on the gas line proposal which was advertised and notifications 257 were sent. We were on tenuous ground as to whether the hearing was required but we had the hearing and went 258 through the process. 259 260 Bonnie Hammersley: I met with PSNC's representatives with the Chair and Vice Chair and how we can inform 261 people better about those issues. 262 263 Paul Guthrie: Having managed the acquisition of trails for snow mobiles and hiking, etc. in Wisconsin I can tell you 264 that it would be good to keep a master file of all communications that come in whether the are timely or not for 265 information. 266 267 Lisa Stuckey: Going back to the discussion of the suggestion to change our process, if it's related to the change, 268 now is the time. Perdita, do you need a vote or consensus? LIM Approved 12/3/14 269 270 Perdita Holtz: For a consensus that says this flowchart captures the discussion at last month's Planning Board 271 meeting. 272 273 Laura Nicholson: I like the flowchart and I think it does capture what we have been talking about. When you get to 274 the last bubble it gets wordy. It says Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend, could we say 275 expected to attend so it sounds more like we care about being there. 276 277 Lisa Stuckey: In the description of the Planning Board's responsibilities and what people see when they are thinking 278 about applying to the Planning Board, it doesn't mention the quarterly public hearings, it mentions only the monthly 279 meetings. 280 281 Laura Nicholson: I agree. If it is in there as an expectation then the idea is that you should know that upfront. 282 283 Lisa Stuckey: Now there is a quarterly public hearing, people have been making comments at our meeting, the 284 process hasn't been explained to them, we are expanding the number of times a person can comment from only the 285 quarterly public hearing to our meeting in a more formalized way, the public hearing, they have another chance to 286 speak. We are expanding the number of times people can speak; do you think it will slow the process? 287 288 Perdita Holtz: On controversial items, possibly. 289 290 Buddy Hartley: I like the setup. It does do what we have talked about for years. 291 292 Lisa Stuckey: Is there a consensus? 293 294 Lydia Wegman: People need to understand if the BOCC makes a decision that night, it is over. People need to 295 understand upfront that is a possibility. 296 297 Tony Blake: I agree with the caveat that if you are changing zoning there should be a public information meeting. 298 299 Perdita Holtz: That would make the process longer. 300 301 Lisa Stuckey: In the letter that goes out, notifying the people of the Planning Board meeting, there could be a note of 302 encouragement that if you have questions or concerns, attend and make your feelings known. 303 304 Laura Nicholson: At the bottom bubble, it says the public hearing will be closed at the conclusion of the hearing and 305 written comments will no longer be made. You say hearing a lot and you are talking about written comments would 306 no longer be required, you might want to say solely written comments wouldn't be required. 307 308 Perdita Holtz: This flowchart is for people who are somewhat familiar with the process, so they can make decisions 309 about changes from the existing process, it's not to be distributed to lay people who know nothing about how the 310 process works. 311 312 Andrea Rohrbacher: From my experience, no matter how hard you try, you will have someone who says I didn't 313 know. 314 315 Perdita Holtz: Moving on to the quasi-judicial process. Reviewed abstract. Three questions that may frame the 316 discussion. One, do you think the Planning Board should make recommendation on quasi-judicial. Two, if you 317 decide you want to continue to make a recommendation, when would that occur? Three, if the Planning Board is no 318 longer attending the public hearings as an official board, what would the Planning Board meeting be? 319 320 Paul Guthrie: Does the BOCC feel they need a buffer? 321 322 Perdita Holtz: I don't know what the BOCC feels. 6 :: Approved 12/3/14 323 324 Paul Guthrie: It may be a little bit of a pain if we have to look at a million items but it could serve a useful purpose 325 and it could expedite the process. 326 327 Tony Blake: 99.99% of the time, staff is correct that it meets or doesn't meet....but there are cases where there is 328 something they are not aware of. 329 330 Lisa Stuckey: But we can't receive that information. 331 332 Tony Blake: If staff says it meets this checklist and you know otherwise, that is not testimony.... 333 334 Lisa Stuckey: When we go through the checklist, is that before or after the public hearing? 335 336 Perdita Holtz: After the public hearing. 337 338 Lisa Stuckey: The Planning Board is not allowed to take additional testimony so we can't insert things we have 339 heard. 340 341 Craig Benedict: You can ask questions. You can ask the applicant to provide information. 342 343 Lisa Stuckey: Can you ask a member of the public who spoke? 344 345 Craig Benedict: You have the right to cross examine anyone at the hearing. 346 347 Lisa Stuckey: If we don't have a quorum and we come back to our meeting, are we allowed to go forward with the 348 checklist? If a quorum of the Planning Board is not required at the public hearing, can we proceed? 349 350 Lydia Wegman: What would be the role of the Planning Board after the public hearing? 351 352 James Bryan: From a legal standpoint, the public hearing, as the trial, once that is closed, there will be no other 353 comments considered by the Board except for the Board talking among themselves and to their attorney. My belief 354 now is the current process, if we have a written comment after the hearing is closed, it should not be considered from 355 a legal perspective. 356 357 Lydia Wegman: The way it is set up now, any comment that comes in after the public hearing are a problem? 358 359 James Bryan: Yes. 360 361 Lydia Wegman: Your concern is whatever comments are coming in have to come in at the public hearing or before 362 the public hearing? 363 364 James Bryan: At the public hearing, at the trial because everything the Board hears, all the parties, which is a legal 365 term, anything the Board hears, I get to hear it being spoken to them, I get to question whoever speaks it to the 366 Board. 367 368 Paul Guthrie: Does that also preclude the BOCC in considering the trial of discussing it? You used the analogy of 369 the jury system. A jury can discuss in its own quarters. Who is the jury? 370 371 James Bryan: The BOCC. After the public hearing is closed, the only words they can hear are what they heard at 372 the hearing. As a practice, in some jurisdictions, there is no planning board meeting. Other jurisdictions have it set 373 up where it goes to the planning board first and they have a mock hearing. A dry run. 374 375 Lydia Wegman: Also an opportunity for citizenry to have information about what is required. 376 7 I Approved 12/3/14 377 James Bryan: Every jurisdiction is different. This place has a lot of educated folks and a lot of money which is 378 different than others that don't have those things. 379 380 Maxecine Mitchell: We are pretty much serving as a double check to the staff to make sure the applicant did 381 everything according to the rules and laws of the County who, if they meet them and let them move forward so if a 382 project happens in my area, I can know and prepare my neighbors. 383 384 Michael Harvey: Staff is preparing a script based on the evidence entered into the record and testimony at the 385 hearing. Some items are based soley on the testimony of the public hearing. 386 387 Bryant Warren: Being on the Hillsborough Planning Board, this is totally different. We met then the Planning Board 388 met and made recommendations. This sounds different and if we are not going to be in the public hearing, just the 389 BOCC, then they will have the final say then there is nothing we can do about it. We can have an information 390 meeting prior to that. I don't really see any place for a Planning Board in this process. 391 392 Perdita Holtz: Special Use Permits applications will have a Neighborhood Information Meeting 45 days ahead of the 393 public hearing. 394 395 Bryant Warren: What about having that informational meeting at the Planning Board meeting and let them be there. 396 397 Perdita Holtz: We will look at that but sometimes the way the schedule works in quarters and having ORC Ordinance 398 Review meetings sometimes, we might not be able to do everything in one night. There can be a scheduling difficulty 399 when you have more than one meeting. 400 401 James Lea: It sounds like there is plus to making recommendations or just having quasi-judicial meetings. 402 403 Tony Blake: In this way our role is to inform more than represent. 404 405 Perdita Holtz: Should that pre- meeting with the Planning Board be the Neighborhood Information Meeting together? 406 407 Lisa Stuckey: In these cases, the folks are hiring lawyers so this is more expense to them. Maybe the lawyer is at 408 the neighborhood meeting and then to our meeting and then they will do the public hearing. 409 410 Lydia Wegman: In your list you say if the Planning Board continues to make a recommendation so are you assuming 411 there is a room as a legal matter to make a recommendation if the Planning Board meeting occurs before the 412 meeting of the BOCC? 413 414 James Lea: It sounds like we are not making recommendations. 415 416 James Bryan: You have the public hearing. The first person to speak is staff who introduces it, reviewing the packet, 417 and one item will be the Planning Board recommendation. 418 419 Lydia Wegman: The Planning Board could hear whatever we are hearing from the public from the applicant and 420 make a recommendation prior to the public hearing that would go into the record that the BOCC would consider? 421 422 James Bryan: Right. The BOCC can't make a decision based on that recommendation. But it could prompt them to 423 ask the right questions. 424 425 Tony Blake: Wouldn't staff do that anyway? 426 427 Paul Guthrie: Prior to the formal legal hearing, could this group discuss the project and appear as a witness for 428 information at the legal hearing? 429 430 James Bryan: It depends on the facts but in general, no. I would object. L9.1 Ell Approved 12/3/14 431 432 Bryant Warren: You said if the Planning Board wanted to be at the informational meeting and they had questions 433 about it and they wanted staff to bring it to the BOCC during the quasi - judicial hearing, would that be a 434 recommendation? As long as it is presented to the BOCC. 435 436 James Bryan: There is a difference between hearing it and using it as a basis for the decision. 437 438 Lisa Stuckey: Do we clarify things or muddy the waters? They can hear it but not base anything on it. 439 440 James Bryan: Attorneys will do that. Give you background information, sort of context for it. 441 442 Tony Blake: Even presenting new facts that are not in evidence, that is not sufficient? 443 444 James Bryan: Right. 445 446 Lydia Wegman: A recommendation could be considered by the BOCC if I understand correctly. 447 448 Paul Guthrie: Are staff communications directly to the BOCC privileged? 449 450 James Bryan: No. 451 452 Paul Guthrie: So they are considered just another testifier? 453 454 James Bryan: Anytime that staff sends anything to the BOCC it is called a work product and under the public records 455 of law that is available. If it is quasi judicial, staff isn't supposed to be talking to the Board about the particular 456 question at hand. You deal with it by divulging the communication at the hearing so everyone knows. 457 458 Paul Guthrie: The recommendation of staff to the BOCC has to be done as a witness format? 459 460 James Bryan: Yes. Again, the statutes aren't the best in the world. The conventional thinking is that you have a 461 board that acts as judges and anyone there has to be a party to it. 462 463 Maxecine Mitchell: My understanding from what I've heard, legally we really have no say but we can put information 464 out that would make the BOCC look more in depth at what they are presented. I am ok to say if the Planning Board 465 makes the recommendation. I guess I would go with before. If the Planning Board continues to make 466 recommendations, we don't really need to be at the public hearing meeting. 467 468 Bryant Warren: If we get the information from the informational meeting, we make recommendations to staff and 469 they can give it to them. I don't see the need for us to be at the public hearing. 470 471 Andrea Rohrbacher: For question one, I would say, yes, we still should make a recommendation and for question 472 two it should be before the public hearing and attendance at the official meeting where all the testimony is being 473 presented would be optional for the Planning Board. 474 475 Paul Guthrie: On one hand, I think one of the positive roles of this Board is that it can begin to articulate the 476 sentiment of both itself and people it deals with on issues of public concern. On the other hand, the way this system 477 is set up the way we have been talking about, the only way we can do it is at a very early stages of the process or 478 outside the confines of this Board and this Board's responsibility. I don't think that helps the public decision process 479 at all. I have great problems with the recommendation but I am not sure there is anything else to do. 480 481 Buddy Hartley: In the process where we haven't got to the public hearing yet, we would have seen the application, 482 correct? 483 I 91 Approved 12/3/14 484 Perdita Holtz: You normally don't see the application until it goes out in the quarterly public hearing materials now. 485 We are 99.99% sure we are adding the neighborhood informational meeting 45 days ahead of time. 486 487 Buddy Hartley: I think it is fine to make it before. Basically we see if everything meets the criteria and we make the 488 recommendation. 489 490 James Lea: Item one I would say I would say yes and item number two I would say before and item three I don't 491 know. 492 493 Laura Nicholson: Yes on item one, before on item two, I just think we have a responsibility to our townships, the only 494 way we could influence or affect anything is before. 495 496 Tony Blake: We are not really making a recommendation but making a suggestion. I wouldn't mind having the 497 opportunity of making a recommendation. I would also like to say that the Planning Board needs to know about this 498 stuff earlier in the process so that when someone puts a sign out there and we get a call from someone in the 499 community we don't have to say we don't know what you are talking about. 500 501 Perdita Holtz: One of the things we could institute as part of the neighborhood information process is to email you all 502 the notice that is going out to the public. 503 504 Tony Blake: Even some more background on the project. 505 506 Perdita Holtz: I think there will start being information on the website and we can provide a link. 507 508 Tony Blake: Question one, yes; question two before; question three I think we need more information earlier. 509 510 Lydia Wegman: I do think the Planning Board should be making recommendations on quasi - judicial matters and I do 511 think the recommendation should occur before the public hearing along the lines of what we are talking about. I am 512 concerned about having an informed recommendation. There needs to be a process between the Neighborhood 513 Information Meeting and the public hearing for the Planning Board to make a recommendation. The only concern 1 514 have about the Planning Board not being at the public hearing is if the BOCC should want to take more time to 515 consider and continue the public hearing so if the BOCC wanted the Planning Board to offer more input subsequent, 516 there would need to be a way for the Planning Board members to hear what went on at the public hearing. 517 518 Perdita Holtz: There have always been issues where some people make it to the public hearing but the same people 519 don't make it to the Planning Board meeting. 520 521 Lisa Stuckey: I don't think we should make recommendations. I don't think going through that process up until now 522 has been productive, we rely on staff if they meet all the requirements, we have to recommend it be approved. It 523 seems a very artificial process. The real thing happens at the public hearing. 524 525 Paul Guthrie: Could a member or members of this group that have discussed this prior to any of the formal legal 526 steps be subpoenaed by the applicant to testify at the hearing. 527 528 James Bryan: Yes. It is very rare but the chair gets to decide and you get to appeal that to the whole Board and they 529 have subpoena power and if you don't show up, the Court of Justice can require you to get a contempt of court. 530 531 Tony Blake: Can we be deposed in the legal sense? 532 533 James Bryan: The subpoena will most likely require you to show up at the hearing and they you will be ask 534 questions. 535 536 Bonnie Hammersley: I wanted to say on behalf of the County Board of Commissioners that on the 241h there is not 537 going to be a quarterly public hearing because there aren't any items and also no dinner because there is no 10 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 Approved 12/3/14 meeting. They wanted to extend to you that at any time you want to schedule a meeting like that in 2015, they would love to spend that time with you. AGENDA ITE COMMITTEE /ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: a. eaW of Adjustment Michael Harvey: The BOA approved the PS residents are appealing a decision by the Co AGENDA ITEM 12: /AUJOURNMENT: 11 a meeting in December for an appeal. Local violation involving a gun range. Pete Hallenbeck, Chair 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Approved 2/4/15 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 3, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; Lydia Wegman -At -Large Chapel Hill Township; MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey (Vice- Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director; OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hauser DA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a) Planning Calendar for December and January • Elect Chair and Vice -Chair for the year in January. AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, Xthectober ETING MOTION by Bryant Warren to appr8, 2014 PZoard es with additional information. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. VOTE: UNANIMOUS AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction the Public Charge The Boar of County Commissioners, under the authority of h Carolina General Statute, appoi the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold th ritten land development la of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and acco lish coordinated and armonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which conside the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsi process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. he OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public rvices during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 1 93 • , Approved 2/4/15 162 Bon ' user: If I go to Mebane or another community versus Orange County what is the time to get 163 something ap in another place versus Orange County? 164 165 Steve Brantley: I think Mebane a ed Morinaga within 60 to 90 days and h ane not annexed Morinaga, it 166 still could have gone on here but it would ha en them longer to o gh the process which in Orange County 167 would have been.... 168 169 Craig Benedict: What Steve mentioned w e- zoning where zoning ertain uses permitted by right which 170 means review can be a staff functio if it was a staff function we would match me time frame that Mebane 171 would have. If they have hrough a rezoning process where they have to change or u e it from the base 172 zoning that is pro 4 to 5 months of process and a developer may not want to go through the si e rocess 173 concurre this legislative rezoning process. 174 175 176 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To continue discussion and 177 provide input on government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the 178 existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related items/ 179 amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing and was 180 discussed at the October 8 and November 5 Planning Board meetings. 181 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 182 183 Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract 184 185 Paul Guthrie: I think the flowchart pretty much portrays the conversation, I am still concerned about how some of this 186 will work. We may not find that out until we do it. 187 188 Pete Hallenbeck: I read the minutes and this certainly seems to align with it. The problem is that at the quarterly 189 public hearing the commissioners went in all different directions of opinions and at some point we have to just let 190 them decide. The other problem is the concept that some people only want to deal with the decision makers so no 191 matter what process you put in place some people will want to just wait and talk with the commissioners. We will at 192 least have a system where people can come to the Planning Board and express their concerns early; we can only do 193 as good as the feedback we get from people. 194 195 Lydia Wegman: How do you reconcile that with you hearing that the County Commissioners want the Planning 196 Board to attend the quarterly meetings? 197 198 Pete Hallenbeck: That's a decision they have to make. My interpretation of that is because it is currently a joint 199 meeting and if the rules change on that then they'll have to give us guidance. 200 201 Lydia Wegman: Then what is the point of the Planning Board? How significant has this quorum problem been? 202 203 Pete Hallenbeck: We've had two events in the last year of so where the meeting was held up and one 3 or so years 204 ago there was over a 30 minute hold up. 205 206 Lydia Wegman: Isn't it a simpler solution to make sure the Planning Board members know they are expected to 207 attend rather than change the whole process. 208 209 Perdita Holtz: It depends a lot on who is on the Planning Board and what commitment they have. Some people had 210 jobs where they had to travel a lot and that Monday night meeting was difficult for them. It varies depending on who 211 is on the Planning Board. 212 213 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the fact that we've had two problems in the last year or so and we made it clear and it 214 happened again so I don't know what more could be done. 215 4 95 Approved 2/4/15 216 Laura Nicholson: I brought it up in a previous meeting and the consensus was it is easier to fix it this way. Judging 217 by the push back I think there are things going on the new members don't always get. 218 219 Lydia Wegman: I am stating for the record my main problem is having the Planning Board offer its view before the 220 public hearing is problematic. The Planning Board will never be sufficiently informed to offer a well- considered view 221 without having heard the presentations at the BOCC meetings. 222 223 Pete Hallenbeck: I understand, we are all wrestling with this problem. At least this mechanism has a way where the 224 Commissioners can identify that this one is going to take a while, etc. 225 226 Perdita Holtz: In this process it would also allow the lay person to actually speak to the Planning Board, in a lot of 227 communities if you are not an expert at the quasi-judicial hearing, you don't get to speak. If Orange County were 228 ever to perhaps be sued over that, we might adopt that type of attitude about it too. This process would allow the lay 229 person to come to the Planning Board and speak their concerns and why. 230 231 Lydia Wegman: You're right Perdita but I'll just note that because of the public hearing, the layperson's testimony is 232 irrelevant. It would have to be made very clear to the lay person that while they might speak at the Planning Board 233 that because it is quasi judicial, by the time it's before the Board of County Commissioners, only expert witnesses 234 can give testimony. 235 236 Pete Hallenbeck: Again, with the solar project as a reference, if there were interaction with the Planning Board while 237 the developers were here there are a lot of questions, answers, interchanges that just can't happen at a quasi-judicial 238 setting and the resident have an opportunity to get better organized so that when you went quasi - judicial and you 239 have to swear in you have experts and it's much more focused. 240 241 Lydia Wegman: The three most critical elements in that was the staff could not make a recommendation. 242 243 Craig Benedict: Nor the Planning Board. 244 245 Lydia Wegman: Nor the Planning Board, they are the most critical ones and they are the only ones in fact which the 246 case if it ever went to court would be considered. The key one was `the use will maintain or enhance the value of 247 contiguous property'. In the case of the solar application, there was an appraisal offered by the solar company and 1 248 bet that appraiser, even if he showed up, would have come and said whatever he was going to say to the Planning 249 Board and at the public hearing they have a new appraisal and a new appraiser which no one had seen before. And 250 there would be nothing that could have been done. 251 252 Pete Hallenbeck: There's another example, they showed this picture of these panels that were further away than 253 what was planned with trees there and claimed that was equivalent and so to have that opportunity to do that in 254 advance... 255 256 Lydia Wegman: The advance doesn't necessarily stop the applicant from showing up with new information that is 257 crucial to the decision. 258 259 Pete Hallenbeck: I think it is a great way to think through the ramifications of the process because we have an 260 example to look at. Those are the discussion you can have when you're not constrained by the quasi-judicial 261 process and the benefit there if we had this discussion is the residents would have an opportunity to see and get 262 feedback from the Planning Board and staff and all of that would help them to make a better presentation. 263 264 Lydia Wegman: It is disingenuous to the community to pretend that what the Planning Board and staff can offer an 265 opinion on the 3 most crucial elements. I think that is a flaw in the process. 266 267 Perdita Holtz: That's under state law, it's not something we can change. In some communities the Planning Board 268 doesn't hear the quasi-judicial matters at all. 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 Approved 2/4/15 Paul Guthrie: It seems to me that if this process will work at all, this Board may have a bigger responsibility because we have one shot to raise the critical questions that need to be considered in the decisions and that doesn't happen in the joint session now where we sit there and listen to something until 11 o'clock at night and then by the time it's over we can't even remember what the questions are that you really think need to be considered. I think we have an obligation if this becomes practice to think through how we communicate through staff to the Board of County Commissioners on issues that need to be dealt with by the Commissioners at the time of testimony. The Boards that I have seen operate in this County only occasionally rise to that level. The staff rises to it but I'm not sure the boards do and we need to think about that as a Board. Perdita Holtz: Probably what will happen is that the Planning Board minutes will become part of that public hearing packet. Craig Benedict: We would accent anything different that occurred in the application from the original material. We do accent any new information, any change in information that has occurred from the original application and evidentiary material that comes forward. Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, so the action for tonight is? Perdita Holtz: Is there consensus that this flowchart captured the quasi-judicial discussion. MOTION by Paul Guthrie that the flowchart captured the Planning Board discussion of the quasi-judicial process. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Lydia Wegman: Let me clarify. I am voting to say the flowchart captures what we've talked about, I am not saying I agree with it just to be clear. AGENDA IT COMMITTEE /ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: Board of Adjustment AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNM MOTION by Bryan ren to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. VOTE: UNANWOUS Pete Hallenbeck, Chair M.