Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-19-2007-4ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 19, 2007 Action Agen a Item No. ~° SUBJECT• Report on Courtesy Review DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Planning Board Minutes - 7/11/07 2. Courtesy Review Abstract & Attachments from 7/11/07 Planning Board Agenda INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245- 2592 Jay Bryan, Planning Board Chair Gene Bell, Planning Systems Coordinator 245-2589 PURPOSE: To apprise the BOCC of recent Planning Board discussions on courtesy review and seek BOCC direction and possible concurrence concerning the future direction of courtesy review activities. BACKGROUND: Early this year, the Planning Board had questions about its degree of involvement in Joint Planning Area (JPA) and Hillsborough area development project activity. The Board members were concerned that their level of involvement was less than sufficient. Therein, the members directed staff to explain the specifics of the various agreements and how the involvement is written. At its March 7, 2007 meeting, the Planning Board received a staff presentation on current courtesy review practices and procedures. A document titled "Points for Courtesy Review" was distributed by the Planning Board Chair and it served as the focus of a follow-up report to the Planning Board on July 11, 2007. Staff recommended that courtesy review be an item for discussion at the November 13 (rescheduled to November 19) BOCC and Planning Board Work Session as several of the "points" would require BOCC direction/action. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive as information and provide direction to staff concerning possible enhancements to courtesy review activities. 2 Approved 8/1/07 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JULY 11, 2007 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At Large, Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice- Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large; MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative (Resigned); Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large,' STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning ~ Supervisor; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II, Perdita Holtz, Michael Harvey, Gene Bell, Jennifer Leaf OTHERS: Steve Yuhasz Agenda Item 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Agenda Item 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Next Regular Planning Board Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 1, 2007 b. Planning Calendars for July and August c. Comprehensive Plan Update -July 31 Open House and August 7 Public Informafion Meeting Agenda Item 3: Approval of Minutes June 6, 2007 Bernadette Pelissier: On page 3, line 54 should read, "I have highlighted". Renee Price: On page 6, line 186 should read, "I have a problem" instead of program. Sam Lasris: On page 8, line 291 through 329 didn't make sense. Jay Bryan: It may help if some parts were in quotes. On page 8, line 292 should read "high quality of life". On page 8, line 310 should read "accessible". On page 8, line 316 should read "public accessible". Craufurd Goodwin: I would like to suggest that everyone bring their written changes in with them to save time. Jay Bryan: We need to check with Geoff Gledhill to make sure there will not be a problem. Approval of the minutes. MOTION made by Jeffrey Schmitt. Seconded by Renee Price. VOTE: Unanimous Agenda Item 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Agenda Item 5: PUBLIC CHARGE Approved 8/1/07 Craufurd Goodwin: Is this the place for it? Jay Bryan: That is a good point. My interest and experience is that we don't have guidance on this general issue. Bernadette Pelissier: I was on that task force and that was a very big issue. I went through the task force report and what we may have missed. It is a global people relationship goal. I see it as an overarching goal. We want to have people to have a sense of community. Brian Crawford: My concern is, based on the words that require definition itself; it is whole education process so that everyone can understand what we are saying. This sounds like a principle which should be our approach for every element. We strive for a community process. Jay Bryan: I appreciate your time and thoughts. It's mentioned in one of the principles. Renee Price: I understand what you are trying to accomplish. Tom did try to incorporate many of them into the process. We may want to address that when we get into the process. There is another level which is human relations. Sandra Quinn: I know that community character is mentioned but the way it is mentioned is buildings. This is a feeling and that is why it is hard to define. It is matter of coming together as a community of people versus only buildings. Jay Bryan: I could get another copy of the article to you if needed. Donna can email a copy to you. We can check into adding it to the Comprehensive Plan website. Agenda Item 10: COURTESY REVIEW Presenter: Gene Bell, Planner III Gene Bell: Tonight's report is afollow-up to a courtesy review discussion at March 7, 2007 meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Board Chair handed out copies of "Points for Courtesy review" (pages 61-62). I have tried to address the 10 points in tonight's report. An issue intertwined in courtesy review discussions is annexation and to a lesser extent, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or ETJ. In the short term, we feel it would be helpful for the Planning Board to receive a report on these issues. Staff could prepare with review by the County Attorney's ofFce. It might be advisable to have the County Attorney or his assistant at an upcoming meeting when these issues are discussed. Several points mention incorporating Courtesy Review requirements into our ordinances and this could be done with a series of steps. Basically, a recommendation from the Planning Board, review by the Board of County Commissioners, referral to staff to draft appropriate language, review by the County Attorney, draft reviewed by the Planning Board, referred back to the Board of County Commissioners, to Public Hearing and then back to the Planning Board for recommendation, and Board of Gounty Commissioners for approval. Finally, as mentioned in the abstract, an expanded system of courtesy review would be good topic for discussion at a BOCC/Planning Board work session. The next joint meeting is scheduled for November 13~. Renee Price: Are you trying to get a change in our Courtesy Review Process? Jay Bryan: Yes. ` Renee Price: Would you hope to talk to the Board of County Commissioners and work with them on it? 7 4 Approved S/1/07 Jay Bryan: That may be the best way to address it. This issue affects citizens around you. These are upcoming issues. Renee Price: I'm concerned especially with the Hillsborough Orange County Strategic Growth Plan going forward, the widening of Highway 70. We were talking about community building and I'm seeing community breakdown and staff or the agency is not allowing communities to speak in a timely way. I am in favor of doing something different. Jay Bryan: One option suggested was to discuss these questions or suggestions with the Board of County Commissioners at our meeting on Tuesday, November 13. There were two things; the annexation issue (number 6 on page 54) could be reviewed by the County Aftorney and the idea of transition area planning boards (number 10 on page 55). You had questions about how they might function. I could answer some of these questions. That is an important part of helping individuals in these transition areas whose lives are being affected but have no ability to vote. If you have a transition area board, you could formulate responses to items. It provides a valuable piece to those individuals. I am hearing that it is okay to move this to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners at the joint work session on November 13~. Craufurd Goodwin: There will be a special board meeting for each transition area? Jay Bryan: I'm not sure how that would work. Joel Knight: The board is a nice idea but the ETJ transitional areas should be given a vote. Agenda Item 11: QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING REFERRALS a. LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENT -10-YEAR TRANSITION AREAS Presenter: Perdita Holtz Perdita Holtz: Reviewed amendment. Craufurd Goodwin: Is it necessary to do this in advance of the Comprehensive Plan or can we wait? Perdita Holfiz: The reason we are doing this in advance is that the Efland-Mebane plan has been adopted and since the whole comprehensive plan process was derailed, there is desire to move forward on the adopted small area plan. Renee Price: Why can't it happen in the Efland Mebane Small area only? Perdita Holfz: The Land Use Element designates the area as a 10-year transition area so we need to modify the definition because only residential uses are allowed now. The definition would apply to any 10-year transition area of the County. We have written the language so that it applies but you have the other implementing regulations before you could actually do anything. We feel it is a good way to protect the areas around Hillsborough from unintended non-residential uses. Jeffrey Schmitt: What do you mean by protect? Perdita Holtz: Renee had a concern at the Quarterly Public Hearing that she feels that it would allow non-residential uses around Hillsborough which is not the case unless there was a small area plan adopted for the 10-year transition area around Hillsborough and implementing regulations were adopted. Renee Price: Why can't you do it the other way around? Perdita Holtz: It would require an amendment to the Land Use Element map. 8 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: July 11, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. 10 SUBJECT: Courtesy Review DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Staff Response to "Points for Courtesy Review" 2. Excerpt from 3-7-07 Draft PB Minutes 3. Handouts from 3-7-07 PB Meeting INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Phone: 2592 Gene Bell, Planning Systems Coordinator, 245-2589 PURPOSE: To continue the Courtesy Review discussion from the March 7, 2007 Planning Board meeting and provide a response to "Points for Courtesy Review" distributed by the Chair at that meeting. BACKGROUND: On March 7, 2007, Planning Staff presented a short report on Courtesy Review practices currently in effect in the County. To help frame discussion and identify key issues, The Planning Board Chair distributed "Points for Courtesy Review." The time to adjourn was reached before all points were addressed -and staff was asked to bring Courtesy Review back in May. For this meeting; staff has provided a response to the 10 points for Board discussion. In drafting the response, it became obvious that the assistance of the County Attorney's office is needed for some questions. Likewise, Courtesy Review should be considered as topic for an upcoming BOCC/Planning Board work session. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1) Work toward consensus on as many issues as possible; 2) determine if County Attorney and/or assistant should be invited to future Planning Board meeting; and 3) decide if Courtesy Review should be recommended as a topic for discussion at future BOCC/Planning Board work session. S iPtarrune 3oat:3'~0!i ; I'B h~lertirgs.?-I 1 ~~i r •.t'oucical R: tii~1v`douticst~ !'czY•ie!~.~ I':.llawvp Ahs ~~-~~-~}?.doc Attachment 1 g POINTS FOR COURTESY REVIEW (Handout by Planning Board Chair on 3-7-07 with Responses by Planning Staff) 1. Courtesy review, including with Hillsborough, needs to be required by ordinance. The process and public involvement should be spelled out in the County's ordinance in general and in any joint planning agreement ' specifically. Response: This sounds straightforward and doable. However, the potential impacts on staffing and established schedules for ongoing plans, projects, and functions needs careful assessment. 2. There needs to be requirements that allow the same notification normally afforded County residents for similar projects in the County be afforded to residents in transition areas who are still County residents. a. These projects should include any and all plan amendments, requests for rezoning, SUP/CUP, and any proposed annexations. There should not be any limitations on notifications to the size of residential projects. b. There might be courtesy review for site plans. Response: Public hearing notice requirements are governed by NC General Statutes and there is little, if any, difference between town and County procedures. For other notifications such as the County requirement for a neighborhood information meeting for Flexible Development concept plans, there needs to be a review of town ordinances to see if there are similar requirements for Transition Areas where courtesy review agreements are in effect. If not, a formal request needs to come from the County asking that the'towns amend their development ordinances to incorporate such a provision. 3. There should be an established process for allowing public input on all such projects. This should include opportunity for County Planning Board Review with public comments as well as public hearings in front of the Commissioners. Response: This adds an additional layer of review -not that it isn't necessary. The best that might be accomplished is perhaps joint town/County Planning Board meetings when such projects are considered. Unless it is a case like Joint Planning which requires a public hearing attended by both the BOCC and town board(s) and joint approval, the situation is probably not workable. The BOCC holding a public hearing on a project it did not have approval authority over would seem to be a moot point. A compromise position might be including such items as informational items at the end of regular BOCC/Planning Board Quarterly Public hearing agendas. ~~.K'nar~nt~e.ui:~e Csl~nn.in~ L~ii~GP.NG'r'lsnning f~:ar;.~'•'OL~,~'ninta'orC'(t-1ia~,^.c!rJc 4. The process should not be triggered by a "request" by the town, but by way of required notification of any and all applicable projects that have been received and are being considered. Although it may be more efecient 'for the county staff to wait until the town has completed its review, in fact the county should have more input if its comments were made during the process as well as at the end. Response: County review cannot begin until the receipt of application materials and a town usually doesn't send these until it has completed a preliminary review to insure completeness. A possible middle-ground solution could be an informal "heads-up" (perhaps on a one-page form) from a town that they've received a proposal for x number of units at location y with application materials and additional details to follow. 5. There needs to be codified that no applicable project shall be voted on by any town's governing body until the County's response and comments have been forwarded to the staff and are made fully available to the governing board at public hearing by a staff member. Response: Town and County Attorneys need to chime in on this one. It is questionable whether towns would be agreeable to granting the County this degree of influence in areas where their ordinances govern. There seems to be potential for the County to delay things so the towns would likely require strict adherence to schedule for submission of County comments. 6. The issue of the absence of effective, legal review after annexation of a property which was previously subject to an agreement that provided for review needs to be revisited and explored by the county attorney. If in fact it is a legal reality that annexation trumps a joint planning agreement, then future as well as current Joint Planning Agreements need to be structured or restructured to strengthen the courtesy review process and opportunities for input from county residents living in those joint planning areas. Response: Agree! County attorney input is needed. Also recommend preparation of a staff report (with County Attorney review/input) on.annexation and extraterritorial planning jurisdiction in North Carolina as they can have a major impact on courtesy review. 7. The role of the County Commissioners needs to be strengthened. One idea is to allow the Planning Board to determine at its review whether or not it would recommend for any project to be also reviewed by the County Commissioners. Response: The Planning Board has this prerogative now. Of course, the BOCC has the final say as to whether or not they wish to consider the project. G:1;'bmpret~eusi~e [~L•tnuing C.7i-•~Ci.NG`'t'lsn~~ing Aoar.!L'•Ui~'V'ntnt ii>ri'K-fey"_.duc 8 8. County staff should attend any public hearing at which such projects are being reviewed and County comments are being considered. Response: This is current practice unless the staff member's presence is required at a meeting of greater importance to the County. Please note that there are so many `last second' amendments .made by the developer that it is difficult to stay concurrent with the proposal. 9. The County's opinions should be required to be considered and to be given full legal weight by any town board considering them. Response: Town boards would have to agree to this proposal and indicate their level of commitment by adopting as policy or incorporating as an ordinance requirement. This would ensure that there is an expected County comment section on each pertinent item. 10.The idea of transition area planning boards should be considered by the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. Response: This idea should be an item for discussion at a future B000- Planning Board wor~C session. A short, but not inclusive, list of questions needing to be addressed include: ® Where or how would a Transition Area Planning Board (TAPE) fit into the existing Planning Board-8000 structure? m Who appoints TAPB (and who does it report to)? ® Will it lengthen current review/approval schedules for plans, projects, and development proposals? ® Would it have a role in public hearings? ® Can current staff handle the additional meeting attendance, and preparation of agendas and minutes required by a TAPB? • a Will the work of other boards be impacted? • Staff suggested to the previous manager training and consistency among the various county-wide planning advisory boards including transition area appointments. In conclusion, if we are able to create a new system of joint planning with Hillsborough, we have the opportunity to correct some weaknesses in the existing courtesy review .system. ~i:,Cna~~r~.t~eusiee Vlsnain~ l~i:••.C,LNLi~Piam~ing Lnarc'13~.4:11'ninLefo~C~~L;41F•y^_.dr,c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 DRAFT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD . MARCH 7, 2007 REGULAR MEETING Attachment 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township, Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At Large (Vice-Chair), Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large Judith Wegner, Bingham Tawnship At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative; Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Karen Markovics, Planner ll; Michael Harvey; Gene Bell, Planner III; Glenn Bowles, Planner ll; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II Jay Bryan: Welcome. AGENDA ITEM #11: OVERVIEW COURTESY REVIEW PROCESS Jay Bryan: The last item is the Courtesy Review Process Craig Benedict: Gave an overview of the Courtesy Review Process. Gene Bell: I'll try to keep this brief. Please turn to page 55. Michelle Kempinski: Regarding Mebane, have there been any plans to work out an agreement? Craig Benedict: Yes. Each. year, we take steps to formalize agreements. The only agreement we have now is that they would not'do any involuntary annexations in Orange County and they would notify us more in advance before they accepting any voluntary petitions. We meet with them on an annual basis and dialogue continues on a variety of issues.. Gene Bell: We have done some reviews. Jeffrey Schmitt: All the children in the 1,500-unit development go to Orange County Schools? Craig Benedict: Yes, 1,500 units spread between several projects. Jeffrey .Schmitt: How does this work out with the school capacities and things they may not be approved because of zoning but Mebane brings in 1,500 kids in the schools? Craig Benedict: The 1,500 units can bring potentially 500 kids. Once the children show up in the schools, they are tracked as part of our schools adequate public school facility system to 9 DRAFT 51 project capital improvement needs but Mebane is not subject to deferring their development if 52 capacity was an issue. 53 54 Michelle Kempinski: One of the issues with the Efiland-Mebane task force was annexation. Is 55 there any agreement as how far Mebane can come into Orange County? 56 57 Craig Benedict: State laws allows liberal municipal annexation rights. 58 59 Renee Price: Who initiates the project and when does citizen input come in? 60 61 Craig Benedict: The interesting part of the North Carolina law is that areas in the ETJ area are 62 not necessarily part of the city at some point in the future. A development can ask for 63 annexation but the town can actually approve the entire proposal from a zoning and subdivision 64 standpoint and never annex it. 65 66 Renee: What about taxation? 67 68 Judith Wegner: Whose decision? Sometimes it's the developer. 69 70 Craig Benedict: That is correct. As far as developed properties, it is Hillsborough's decision. . 71 72 Renee Price: This is part of the ETJ that extends into the county, which is not part of the ETJ so 73 this is an area that should get a Courtesy Review. 74 75 Craig Benedict: This part will get Courtesy Review. 76 77 Jay Bryan: I have a concern that the Courtesy Review does not afford citizens that are 78 members of the county living in the transition areas adequate protection, input, etc. It is implied 79 that Courtesy Review is some form of protection. I have 2 handouts to share with you. There 80 are a couple of problems. This is nat a legitimized process but it is not spelled out in an 81 ordinance. My emphasis is to find out how we can strengthen this process for the citizen that is 82 affected.. There should be a way to allow Public Hearings in situations where there is a rezoning 83 of significant extent. There could be a mini planning board to comment on different rezoning. 84 85 Michelle Kempinski: You are referring to projects where there is a special or condition use 86 permit, correct? $7 88 Jay Bryan: In item #2 on page 55. As far as what can be reviewed, you can see the range of 89 the types of projects. 90 91 Michelle Kempinski: I was thinking of the zoning tax that would be different so if the County had 92 something to say it would be the municipality-zoning ordinance that would apply. It is more 93 flexible when you are talking about conditional and special use permit. 94 95 Jay Bryan: That is true so when you have strong Courtesy Review process that involves 96 community input. 97 98 Brian Crawford: Even in those cases, they still have an opportunity to voice their concerns. 99 10 2 DRAFT 100 Jay Bryan: They can. An example of what happened in Carrboro is they annexed a portion of 1.01 the Northern Transition Area and under their rules, the citizens who were annexed could not 102 vote in the election in the same year they were annexed. 103 104 Judith Wegner: Because of the effective date? Are there appointees to the Carrboro ETJ? 105 106 Brian Crawford: My concern was constitutional issues. 10'7 108 Jay Bryan: As part of these plans that are being shared with people and asked for their~input, 109 ~ there is an underlying process that may be why they would agree or no. I am not clear as how I10 they could affect citizens. 111 112 Brian Crawford: Fayetteville was a good example. 113 114 Jay Bryan: Carrboro has reached out to those citizens. 115 116 Craufurd Goodwin: This is a big subject. We have many rights. We have privilege but we don't 117 pay taxes so we can't vote. 118 119 Jay Bryan: ETJ is different. 120' 121 Judith Wegner: There is something different -prospective growth. 122 123 Jay Bryan: Your plan has transition areas. I am addressing what it is like to be a citizen in 124 those areas. Gene, I appreciate your time. Is there any sense that we can consider some of 125 these ideas? 126 127 Judith Wegner: When will we next look at this? 128 129 Craig Benedict: The next phase, which will include an interlocal agreement with Hillsborough, 130 will be done by another consultant. We can review the previous JPA agreement and see if we 131 can make changes to better it. 132 133 Judith Wegner: There will be lots of consultation. What is you best estimate on the timeframe? 134 135 Craig Benedict: I would say by the end of the year. 136 137 ~ Judith Wegner: How do you see that relating to the Comprehensive Plan process? 138 139 Renee Price: I don't think we can wait for the Comprehensive Plan to~solve address some of 140 these issues. 141 142 Judith Wegner: How does that fit into the next phase of the Hillsborough/Orange County 143 process that will dictate what mad, density, etc. 144 145 Craig Benedict: We could plot something out. There are probably three scenarios. We had 146 looked at a global, countywide view and now we are working on small area analysis and now we 147 have to see how that fits into the comprehensive plan dynamics. 148 149 Jay Bryan: Can you bring back your thoughts on the Courtesy Review on the May meeting? 150 11 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 DRAFT Craig Benedict: Yes AGENDA ITEM #12: ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Judith Wegner to adjourn. Bernadette Pelissier seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Jay Bryan, Chair Tina L. Owen, Minutes Preparer 4 12 Attachment 3 13 Points for Courtesy Review: 1. Courtesy review , including with Hillsborough, need to be required by ordinance. The process and public involvement should be spelled out in the county's ordinance in general and in any joint planning agreement specifically. 2. There needs to be requirements that allow the same notification normally afforded county residents for similar projects in the County be afforded to residents in transition areas who are still county residents. a. These projects should include any and all plan amendments, requests for rezoning, SUP/CUP, and any proposed annexations. There should not be any limitations on notifications for'the size of residential projects. r~ '~~ b. There s~'d be courtesy review far site plants. 3. There should be an established process for allowing public input on all such projects. This should include opportunity for County Planning Board Review with public comments as well as public hearings in front of the Commissioners. 4. The process should not be triggered by a "request" by the town but by way of required notification of any and all applicable projects that have been received and are being considered. Although it may be more efficient for the County staff to wait until the town has completed its review, in fact the County would have more input if its comments were made during the process as well as at the end. 5. There needs to be codified that no applicable project shall be voted on by any town's governing body until the County's response and comments have been forwarded to the staff f and are made fully available to the governing board at public hearing by a staff member. 6. The issue of the absence of effective, legal review after annexation of a property which was previously subject to an agreement that provided for review needs to be revisited and explored by the County attorney. if in fact it is a legal reality that annexation trumps a joint planning agreement, then future as well as current Joint Planning Agreements need to be structured ar restructured to strengthen the courtesy review process and opportunities for input from county residents living in those joint planning areas. 7. The role of the County Commissioners needs to be strengthened. One idea is to allow the Planning Board to determine at its review whether or not it would recommend for any project to be also reviewed by the County Commissioners. 14 8. County staff should attend any public hearing at which such projects are being reviewed and county comments are being considered. 9. The County's opinions should be required to be considered and to be given full. legal weight by any town board considering them. 14. The idea of transition area planning boards should be considered by the Plannin Board and the Board of Commissioners. 15 Section 15-27 Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee (AMENDED O5/.?5/991 (a) There shall be a Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee consisting of five members, three appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners and two by the Board of Aldermen. If the •Board of Commissioners fails to make these appointments within ninety days after receiving a resolution from the Board of Aldermen requesting that they be made, the Board of Aldermen may make them. All members shall be residents of the Northern Transition Area. For the purposes of this section, the Northern Transition Area shall include those unannexed portions of the Northern .Study Area. The Northern Study Area is defined as follows: The boundaries of this area are Carrboro's joint planning jurisdiction line to the north and Carrboro's Town limits to the south. The Carrboro/Chapel Hill joint planning jurisdiction line,serves as the boundary,to the east. It begins north of Eubanks Road, follows Rogers Road to Homestead, then proceeds southwest on Homestead road to High Schoal Road and finally turns south and east to the railroad right-of--way. A primary ridge line serves as the northwest boundary line just east of Union Grove Church Road down to Dairyland Road, where the road serves as the boundary heading southeast until it intersects, and Old NC 86 serves as the boundary then turning southeast and running along Hillsborough Road to Greensboro Street. (b) Members of the committee shall be appointed for three year staggered terms, but members may continue to serve until their successors have been appointed. Initially the terms of all membership seats on the committee shall expire on January 31, 2000. Thereafter, one county appointee and one town appointee shall be appointed for three-year terms, one county appointee and one town appointee shall be appointed for two-year terms, and one county appointee shall be appointed for a term of one year. All members shall thereafter be appointed for terms of three years but shall be limited to no more than two consecutive three-year terms. (c) The same provisions that govern the removal of planning board members (Subsection 15-21(e)) shall apply to committee members. (d) The committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule. Minutes shall be kept of all meetings. (e) A quorum for the committee shall consist of three members. A quorum is necessary for the committee to take official action. (f) All actions of the committee shall be taken by majority vote, a quorum being present. (g) The committee shall designate one of its members to serve as chair and one member to serve as vice-chair. These officers shall be selected annually at the committee's .r first regular meeting in February and shall serve for terms of one year unless their terms of appointment. to the committee sooner expire. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired terms only. The chair and vice-chair may take part in alI deliberations and vote on alI issues. (h) The committee shall have the following powers and duties: (1) Review zoning amendment requests and special and conditional use permit applications for developments within the Northern Transition Area and make recommendations on the same to the board of adjustment or Soard of Aldermen, respectively. (2) Initiate studies related to the special character of the Northern Study Area. a) Inventory of areas of cultural, archaeological, or historical significance. b) Inventory of open space character and scenic qualities. c) Inventory of agricultural uses 1. Land in Use`Value a. Horticultural b. Agricultural c. Timber 2. Farming as business a. Large field crops b. Metro farms, specialty crops d) Inventory of biological value 1. Tree species diversity, exceptional tracts of forest land 2. Rare occurrences (i.e. Upland Depression Swamp) 3. Wildlife a. Audubon annual bird count b. Deer population (3) Use the studies above as the basis of its development of, and recommendations for, additional policies, objectives, goals, plans, ordinances, and administrative actions that will preserve and enhance that special character, and relate to its growth. 16 17 -- (4) Develop and recommend to the Board of Aldermen policies, ordinances, administrative procedures and other means for carrying out plans in an efficient and coordinated manner. (5) Track and review other studies and plans that will have an impact on the Northern Study Area -including those of the Chapel Hill Town Council, The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and their appointed committees -and give feedback to the originating governing body. (6) Meet annually with the Carrboro Planning Board for a joint planning session. (7) Submit regular reports to the Orange County Board of ' Commissioners (8) Perform other duties as assigned by the Board of Aldermen.