HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-12-2015 - 2
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:May 12, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No.2
SUBJECT: Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process
DEPARTMENT:PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
Planning and InspectionsNo
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT:
A.Process Flow Charts Recommended Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 919-245-2578
by the Planning BoardCraig Benedict, Director, 919-245-2592
B.Excerpt of September 8, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing Minutes
C.Excerpt of November 6, 2014 BOCC
Meeting Minutes
D.Excerpts of Planning Board Meeting
Minutes – October 8, November 5,
and December 3, 2014
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.
BACKGROUND:
This topic was heard at the September 8, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearingand
additional background is available in the agenda materials:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/September_8__2014.pdfwith the minutesexcerptincluded in
Attachment Bof this abstract.The public hearing was adjourned to November 6, 2014 to allow
time for staff and the Planning Board to consider the matter. The agenda materials for
November 6 are available at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/November_6__2014.pdfandthe
minutes excerptincluded in Attachment C. At the November 6 meeting, the BOCC received a
progress report and closed the public hearing since it became evident that a new public hearing
process would have to be started if changes to the existing public hearing process are desired.
The Planning Board extensively discussed this matter at its meetings on October 8, November
5, and December 3, 2014. Meeting Minutes excerpts for these meetingsare included in
Attachment Dand agenda materials for Planning Board meetings are available at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/planningboard.asp.The flow charts included in Attachment
Adepict 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
2
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 Ahas several advantages
overthe 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:
Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be listed on
o
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.
o
Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing (thiswould allow the current
o
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 hearingfor 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 consideredin 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 Areflects 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.
The discussion at the Planning Board meeting could highlight areas for interest for
o
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:
Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (would be necessary if additional
o
information was requested by the BOCC at the public hearing).
3
Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review.
o
Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing (thiswould allow the current
o
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(S):
The Managerrecommends the Boarddiscuss whether the existing
public hearing process should be revised and, if so, give clear direction to staff on the desired
process.
AttachmentA-ExistingProcess
4
Existing Review Process for non-County-initiated actions that require a
BOCC public hearing
Requiredfor SUP, CUD, CZD, and Major
Pre-Application Conference
Subdivisions
Strongly recommended for all other projects
Generally ~8 weeks prior to QPH, except
Application Submittal
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
Generally ~3 weeks prior to QPH, except
BOCC Approve Legal Ad for
August QPHlegal ad which is approved at
QPH
last BOCC meeting in June
Normally held the last Monday of the month in
Joint BOCC/Planning Board
February, May, August, and November
Quarterly Public Hearing
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
Board meeting after the QPH (e.g., month+
delay).
Unless directed to a date/time certain by the
BOCC Decision
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).
The timeframe from Application Submittal to BOCC Decision is similar for the Existing Process
and ProposedProcess (a minimum of 4-5 months). From a time perspective, the primary
difference between the existing process and the proposedprocess is the greater number of
application due dates per year. There are currently 4 due dates per year, which means that if
someone is ready to apply and the application due date is still 2 months away, the application
can be submitted but action towards a decision would be on hold for 2 months. If there were a
more frequent application deadlineand public hearing schedule, the process would be more
efficient for some applicants.
In recent years, Orange County’s timeframe from application deadline dates to decision
compares favorably to most local governments in North Carolina. One of the main differences
is that most other local governments have a monthly public hearing cycle rather than the
quarterly public hearing cycle Orange County adheres to.Additionally, the practice of having
the BOCC approve the legal ad for the public hearings adds additional time (approximately 3
weeks, much more for the August QPH) to the front-end of the schedule since the application
deadline date must be early enough to place the legal ad approval item on a BOCC agenda
prior to newspaper ad deadline dates.
Attachment 1 Planning Board RecommendedProcess
A
5
PossibleReview Process for Legislative Items
Requiredfor rezonings to Conditional Zoning
Pre-Application Conference
Districts.Strongly recommendedfor 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 projectsearly in the process.
Staff Representatives of various County
Application Submittal
departments and other agencies, as needed
This is a proposed new step in the process to
accommodate the ability of the Planning Board to
hear from the public prior to making a
recommendationand to involve the public in the
process earlier.
DAC (Development Advisory
Committee) Review/Comments
The public could comment at the meeting where the
Planning Board reviews legislative items (the existing
requirement for written comments only would be
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 mailabout the Planning
the BOCC will send the item back to the
Board meeting to
Planning Board for further review and a
adjacent/nearby property
potential new recommendation.
ownersand post sign(s) on
property
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 Directorresolvingany conflicting
comments.
Planning Board Meetingto
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
but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order
Publish Legal Ad/ Mail
to hold the hearing.
Notifications forPublic
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
following:
Quarterly Public Hearing
(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).
2.Refer an application back to the Planning Board for
BOCC Decision*
further review.
3.Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
* = Public could speak
Attachment 1 Planning Board Recommended Process
A
6
PossibleReview Process for Quasi-JudicialItems
Requiredfor all Special Use Permit applications
Pre-Application Conference
The Planning Department intends to begin posting a
list of applications received and deemed sufficient
on itswebsite so members of the public can be
informed about projectsearly in the process.Staff
also intends to produce and provide planning
Application Submittal&
process brochures outlining how input is provided
by the public and applicant.
Posting *
Staff Representatives of various County
departments and other agencies, as needed
DAC (Development Advisory
Committee) Review/Comments
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
Neighborhood Information
the regular Planning Board meetings so that Planning
Meeting (minimum of 45 days
Board members can more easily attend the NIM.
prior to public hearing)*
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 Meetingto
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 forPublic
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 Directorresolvingany conflicting
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 hearingunless 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 applicationback to the Planning Board for
further review.
* = public participates
3.Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
7
AttachmentB-Excerptof
Sep.2014QPHMinutes
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
AttachmentC-Excerptof
Nov.6,2014BOCCMinutes
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AttachmentD-ExcerptsofOctober,November,
25
andDecember2014PlanningBoardMinutes
Approved 11/5/14
1
MINUTES
2
OCPB
RANGE OUNTY LANNING OARD
3
O8,2014
CTOBER
4
RM
EGULAR EETING
5
6
Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill
MP:
EMBERS RESENT
7
Township Representative;James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar
8
Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;Laura Nicholson,Eno Township Representative;
9
Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Buddy Hartley,
10
Little River Township Representative;Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township;BryantWarren,Hillsborough
11
Township Representative;
12
13
14
Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
MA:
EMBERS BSENT
15
16
17
:Craig Benedict, Planning Director;Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri,
SP
TAFF RESENT
18
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, TinaLove,Administrative
19
Assistant II
20
21
22
:Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Andrew Vanard
OP
THERSRESENT
23
24
25
HG:
(email from Lydia Wegman concerning Item 10 which is attached at
ANDOUTS IVEN
26
27
28
AI1: CORC
GENDA TEM ALL TO RDER AND OLL ALL
29
30
31
AI2: II
GENDA TEM NFORMATIONAL TEMS
32
a)Planning Calendar for Octoberand November
33
b)Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on November 24, 2014
34
35
36
AI3: AM
GENDA TEM PPROVAL OF INUTES
37
S3,2014RM
EPTEMBER EGULAR EETING
38
39
byPaul Guthrieto approve theSeptember, 2014 Planning Board minutes.Seconded byBuddy Hartley.
M
OTION
40
:
VU
OTENANIMOUS
41
42
43
AI4: COATA
GENDA TEMONSIDERATION FDDITIONS OGENDA
44
45
46
AI5: PC
GENDA TEM UBLIC HARGE
47
48
Introduction to the Public Charge
49
The Boardof County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
50
appoints the Orange County Planning Board(OCPB) to upholdthe written land development
51
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
52
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
53
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
54
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
1
26
Approved 11/5/14
325
byBryant Warren to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey.
M
OTION
326
:
VU
OTENANIMOUS
327
328
329
To either provide input or make
AI10: UDO(UDO)TA:
GENDA TEM NIFIED EVELOPMENT RDINANCE EXT MENDMENT
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, andZoning Atlas related
332
items/ amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing.
333
Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator
Presenter:
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 havethejoint 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 throughsomething 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 thePlanning
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. I
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 liketo 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 Ireally 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. I
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 islegitimate concern in terms of the quorum/non-quorum issue. It seems to me we ought to be able to
7
27
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 timelinethat 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’tbeen 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 aregiven 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 outor 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 thinkthere’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
withsome 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 ison 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. I
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 regardingthe 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 thinkwhat 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, ifthey
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 itand 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 thatshow 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 thatis 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 thatwe 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
8
28
Approved 11/5/14
431
with input earlier, we can get a better feel of what is going on. The Commissioners can see that whenthey 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 andthey 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 crystalball. 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 wayif 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 remaina 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. Ifyou 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 daynotice 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
29
Approved 11/5/14
485
Craig Benedict: Maybe it doesn’t have togo here afterwards. There are differences between the legislative and
486
487
Lisa Stuckey: But wait, because they weresaying 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 chooseto 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 wherethey
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 todo thatat 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
This would not be a formal, this isn’t the formal public hearing here, it’sjust a point where we can
(referring to board)
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’swhat 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 Boardcombined.
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 aboutwhat 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 thatpoint 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 benotices 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
30
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 fora 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
552
to adjacent property owners and a sign would be posted on the af
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 bepart ofthe 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 pointout, 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’snot 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 governingboard- the deciding body that is the judge. From a legal
592
perspective, for planning boards’ involvement, it’s dangerous. Especially, how we have itwhere you close the public
11
31
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 youalso 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 isa 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
I 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 thathelps 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 haveto 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 Iwant to find the best way to say that in the decisions we make. I try mybest 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 theBoard 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
32
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 opinionsthat 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 andso 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 NIM 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
33
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 toeliminate 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 thebig 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 I
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
I 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 thinkof 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 geton 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
34
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 youfor 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 fromthe
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 howwecan’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 I
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
35
Approved 11/5/14
807
to the meeting and for whatever reason, andthings 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 Isay 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 havenot 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. I
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 toit. 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
36
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
I 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 isfor theNovember 24quarterly
th
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 I
879
don’t see that being the will ofthe 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
37
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 for just 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 isto 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
38
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’sthe 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 alittle more time. That’s why they said the
985
November 6meeting wouldn’t have everything done by then. We’ll let them know where we are in the process that
th
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
AI11: C/ABR:
GENDA TEM OMMITTEEDVISORY OARD EPORTS
996
a.Board of Adjustment
997
998
999
AI12: A:
GENDA TEM DJOURNMENT
1000
1001
byBryant Warrento adjourn. Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
M
OTION
1002
:
VU
OTENANIMOUS
1003
1004
1005
Email from Lydia Wegman:
1006
1007
Lydia Wegman [mailto:lnwegman@gmail.com]
From:
1008
Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:12 PM
Sent:
1009
Perdita Holtz
To:
1010
Re: October Planning BoardMaterials
Subject:
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
39
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
I 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
40
Approved 12/3/14
1
MINUTES
2
OCPB
RANGE OUNTY LANNING OARD
3
N5,2014
OVEMBER
4
RM
EGULAR EETING
5
6
7
Lisa Stuckey(Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove
MP:
EMBERS RESENT
8
Township Representative;Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative;Laura Nicholson,Eno Township
9
Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
10
Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative;Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township;Bryant
11
Warren,Hillsborough Township Representative;Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
12
13
14
Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar
MA:
EMBERS BSENT
15
Grove Township;
16
17
18
:Craig Benedict, Planning Director;Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz,
SP
TAFF RESENT
19
Special Projects Coordinator, TinaLove, Administrative Assistant II
20
21
22
:Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney;
OP
THERSRESENT
23
24
25
AI1: CORC
GENDA TEM ALL TO RDER AND OLL ALL
26
27
28
AI2: II
GENDATEM NFORMATIONAL TEMS
29
a)Planning Calendar for October and November
30
b)Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on November 24, 2014 has been
31
cancelled
32
c)Chapel Hill ETJ Expansion Request
33
34
and
Craig Benedictgave an overview of the ETJ expansion request. Subject area JPA vs ETJ land use regulations
35
financial investment representation future long termplanning.
36
37
Craig Benedict: There is an area ofthe Joint Planning Area of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the
38
transition area. In order to fund certain infrastructure improvements, Chapel Hill would be able to contribute more if
39
it was part of their ETJ. That request will be going to the BOCC on November 18.
40
41
Lisa Stuckey: I was on a committee that worked to get the sidewalks in with DOT and there were 3 jurisdictions,
42
Chapel Hill, County and Carrboro as I recall and it was a mess. To me this seems to simplify things.
43
44
Tony Blake: This goes from the town operation centerall the way south.
45
46
Craig Benedict: This is about a 1,000 acre area and would include the whole section of the Joint Planning area that
47
isnorthand west of Chapel Hill.
48
49
Tony Blake: Do those residents have a say in this?
50
51
Craig Benedict: There is a public notice requirement that the City has put out and they have come forward and said
52
they are in agreement with this proposal.
53
1
41
Approved 12/3/14
161
madeto approve the report and work plan presented by Craig Benedict by Andrea Rohrbacher. Seconded
MOTION
162
by Laura Nicholson.
163
: Unanimous
VOTE
164
165
166
To continue discussion and
AI8: UDO(UDO)TA:
GENDA TEM NIFIED EVELOPMENT RDINANCE EXT MENDMENT
167
provideinput on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the
168
existing public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related
169
items/amendments. This item was heard at the September8, 2014 quarterly public hearing
170
and was discussed at the October 8 Planning Board meeting. Discussion is expected to focus
171
on the quasi-judicial process.
172
Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
Presenter:
173
174
Perdita Holtz reviewed PowerPoint Chart
175
176
Paul Guthrie: If there is a different presentation at the BOCC from what was given to this Board, what would
177
happen?
178
179
Perdita Holtz: If it were significant, we could say this is a significant difference, you may wish to send it back to the
180
Planning Boardand the BOCC would decide.
181
182
Paul Guthrie: If you want to catch up to speed on what happened, where would you get that?
183
184
Perdita Holtz: It is on video and eventually minutes are done by the County Clerk’s office but they are not done
185
within two days. It usually takes a couple of weeks at least.
186
187
Lydia Wegman: The Planning Boardmeeting would occur first. Most of the public will probably blow off the Planning
188
Boardmeeting. If they come to the BOCC and make a presentation that the Planning Boarddidn’t see or consider,
189
how will the BOCC know they are seeing something the Planning Board didn’t see that might be significant and
190
change the recommendation?
191
192
Perdita Holtz: There would be a report that tells the BOCC who spokeat the Planning Board meeting.Also, staff
193
could let the BOCC know if something significant is being raised at the public hearing that wasn’t at the Planning
194
Board meeting. Then the BOCC could decide if it should go back to the Planning Board.
195
196
Paul Guthrie: Worst case scenario, would it be possible for this Planning Boarddenova after that decision to say we
197
didn’t hear any of that?
198
199
Perdita Holtz: That would depend on if the BOCC made a decision the night of the hearing or not.
200
201
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.
202
203
Lydia Wegman: It says the public hearing will be closed at the conclusion and written comments would no longer be
204
required for making comments after the hearing. If the public hearing is closed, what would be the forum for making
205
comments?
206
207
Perdita Holtz: On a legislative items, anybody can comment anytime. The current process is thatthe public hearing
208
is left open for written comments.
209
210
Lydia Wegman: It the public hearing is closed then what does it mean to submit comments in any form?
211
212
Perdita Holtz: For legislative items, the public hearing is a statutory requirement that you hold a public hearing but
213
you can receive comments before and after that formal hearing.
214
4
42
Approved 12/3/14
215
Lydia Wegman: Ifthe BOCC has already made the decision, there is noopportunity for anyone to make comments.
216
217
Perdita Holtz: They should comment before the public hearing at the Planning Boardor 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-judicialprocess.
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 timeis associated with Special Use Permitapplications
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 Boardrep should be notified and invited
237
to that meeting. This seems to cry out for a NeighborhoodInformation Meeting.
238
239
Perdita Holtz: We were kind of looking at it as the Planning Boardmeeting 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 Meetingis 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 Meetingfor the Special Use Permitis 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 thatDEAPR is holding meetings on the Mountains to Sea Trail.
253
254
Tony Blake: I am getting poundedby 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?
5
43
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 Boardmembers 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 mentionthe quarterly public hearings, it mentions only the monthly
279
meetings.
280
281
Laura Nicholson: I agree. If itis 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 bea 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 Boardmeeting, 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 Boardshould 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 Boardis no
318
longer attending the public hearings as an official board, what would the Planning Boardmeeting 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
44
Approved 12/3/14
323
324
Paul Guthrie: Itmay 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 gothrough the checklist, is that before or after the public hearing?
335
336
Perdita Holtz: After the public hearing.
337
338
Lisa Stuckey: The Planning Boardis 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 Boardis not required at the public hearing, can we proceed?
349
350
Lydia Wegman: What would be the role of the Planning Boardafter 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 Boardexcept for the Boardtalking 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, itshould 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 Boardhears, all the parties, which is a legal
365
term, anything the Boardhears, 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 discussin 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 planningboard meeting. Other jurisdictions have it set
373
up where it goes to theplanning board first and they have a mockhearing. A dry run.
374
375
Lydia Wegman: Also an opportunity for citizenry to have information about what is required.
376
7
45
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 basedsoley 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 Boardin this process.
391
392
Perdita Holtz: Special Use Permits applications will have a Neighborhood Information Meeting45 days ahead of the
393
public hearing.
394
395
Bryant Warren: What about having that informational meeting at the Planning Boardmeeting 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-judicialmeetings.
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 Boardbe the Neighborhood Information Meetingtogether?
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 Boardcontinues to make a recommendation so are you assuming
411
there is a room as a legal matter to make a recommendation if the Planning Boardmeeting 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 Boardrecommendation.
418
419
Lydia Wegman: The Planning Boardcould hear whatever we arehearing 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.
8
46
Approved 12/3/14
431
432
Bryant Warren: You said if the Planning Boardwanted 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 communicationsdirectly 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 Boardabout the particular
456
question at hand. You deal with itby 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’veheard, 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 Boardcontinues 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 Boardis 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 Boardand 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 elseto 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
9
47
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 Iwould 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 Boardneeds to know about this
498
stuff earlier in the process sothat 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 Boardshould 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 Meetingand the public hearing for the Planning Boardto make a recommendation. The only concern I
514
have about the Planning Boardnot 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 Boardto offer more input subsequent,
516
there would need tobe a way for the Planning Boardmembers 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 Boardmeeting.
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 beenproductive, 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 Boardand 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 24there isnot
th
537
going to be a quarterly public hearing because there aren’tany items and alsonodinner because there is no
10
48
Approved 12/3/14
538
meeting. They wanted to extend to you that at any timeyou want to schedule a meeting like that in 2015, they would
539
love to spend that time with you.
540
541
542
AI8: C/ABR:
GENDA TEM OMMITTEEDVISORY OARD EPORTS
543
a.Board of Adjustment
544
545
Michael Harvey: The BOA approved the PSNC pipeline. We will have a meeting in December for an appeal. Local
546
residents are appealing a decision by the County to rescind a notice of violation involving a gun range.
547
548
549
AI12: A:
GENDA TEM DJOURNMENT
550
551
________________________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair
11
49
Approved 2/4/15
1
MINUTES
2
OCPB
RANGE OUNTY LANNING OARD
3
D3,2014
ECEMBER
4
RM
EGULAR EETING
5
6
Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar
MP:
EMBERS RESENT
7
Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative;Tony Blake, Bingham Township
8
Representative; Laura Nicholson,Eno Township Representative;Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
9
Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township;Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative;Bryant
10
Warren,Hillsborough Township Representative;Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
11
12
13
Lisa Stuckey(Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative;Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large
MA:
EMBERS BSENT
14
Bingham Township;
15
16
17
:Craig Benedict, Planning Director;Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado,
SP
TAFF RESENT
18
Special Projects Planner;TinaLove,Administrative Assistant II; Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director;
19
20
21
:Bonnie Hauser
OP
THERSRESENT
22
23
24
AI1: CORC
GENDA TEM ALL TO RDER AND OLL ALL
25
26
27
AI2: II
GENDA TEM NFORMATIONAL TEMS
28
a)Planning Calendar for December and January
29
Elect Chair and Vice-Chair for the yearin January.
30
31
32
AI3: AM
GENDA TEM PPROVAL OF INUTES
33
N5,2014RM
OVEMBER EGULAR EETING
34
35
byBryant Warrento approve theOctober 8, 2014 PlanningBoard minuteswith additional information.
M
OTION
36
Seconded byLaura Nicholson.
37
:
VU
OTENANIMOUS
38
39
40
AI4: COATA
GENDA TEM ONSIDERATION FDDITIONS OGENDA
41
42
43
AI5: PC
GENDA TEM UBLIC HARGE
44
45
Introduction to the Public Charge
46
The Boardof County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
47
appoints the Orange County Planning Board(OCPB) to uphold the written land development
48
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
49
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
50
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
51
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
52
will make every effortto uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
53
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
54
1
50
Approved 2/4/15
162
Bonnie Hauser: If I go to Mebane or another community versus Orange County what is the time table to get
163
something approved in another place versus Orange County?
164
165
Steve Brantley: I think Mebane approved Morinaga within 60 to 90 days and had Mebane not annexed Morinaga, it
166
still could have gone on here but it would have taken them longer to go through the process which in Orange County
167
would have been….
168
169
Craig Benedict: What Steve mentioned was pre-zoning where zoning has certain uses permitted by right which
170
means review can be a staff function and if it was a staff function we would match the same time frame that Mebane
171
would have. If they have to go through a rezoning process where they have to change or up zone it from the base
172
zoning that is probably 4 to 5 months of process and a developer may not want to go through the site plan process
173
concurrent with this legislative rezoning process.
174
175
176
To continue discussion and
AI8: UDO(UDO)TA:
GENDA TEM NIFIED EVELOPMENT RDINANCE EXT MENDMENT
177
provideinput 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
Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator
Presenter:
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 andat 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
51
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 bemade 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 companyand I
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’thear the quasi-judicial matters at all.
269
5
52
Approved 2/4/15
270
Paul Guthrie: It seems to me that if this process will work at all, this Board may have a bigger responsibility because
271
we have one shot to raise the critical questions that need to be considered in the decisions and that doesn’t happen
272
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
273
over we can’t even remember what the questions are that you really think need to be considered. I think we have an
274
obligation if this becomes practice to think through how we communicate through staff to the Board of County
275
Commissioners on issues that need to be dealt with by the Commissioners at the time of testimony. The Boards that
276
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
277
do and we need to think about that as a Board.
278
279
Perdita Holtz: Probably what will happen is that the Planning Board minutes will become part of that public hearing
280
packet.
281
282
CraigBenedict: We would accent anything different that occurred in the application from the original material. We do
283
accent any new information, any change in information that has occurred from the original application and evidentiary
284
material that comes forward.
285
286
Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, so the action for tonight is?
287
288
Perdita Holtz: Is there consensus that this flowchart captured the quasi-judicial discussion.
289
290
byPaul Guthrie that the flowchart captured the Planning Board discussion of the quasi-judicial process.
M
OTION
291
Seconded by Buddy Hartley.
292
:
VU
OTENANIMOUS
293
294
Lydia Wegman: Let me clarify. I am voting to say the flowchart captures what we’ve talked about, I am not saying I
295
agree with it just to be clear.
296
297
298
AI9: C/ABR:
GENDA TEM OMMITTEEDVISORY OARD EPORTS
299
a.Board of Adjustment
300
301
302
AI10: A:
GENDA TEM DJOURNMENT
303
304
byBryant Warrento adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake.
M
OTION
305
:
VU
OTENANIMOUS
___________________________________________
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair
6