HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-07-2015 - 6-k - Text Amendment to the JPA – Revise Existing Language Regarding Transition Area Resident Representation of the Chapel Hill Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 7, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-k
SUBJECT: Text Amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement— Revise Existing Language
Regarding Transition Area Resident Representation of the Chapel Hill Planning
Commission and Board of Adjustment
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Resolution of Approval Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 245-2578
2. Minutes from October 15, 2015 Joint Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2592
Public Hearing
3. Excerpt of Minutes from November 4,
2015 Planning Board Meeting
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's recommendation and consider an amendment to
the Joint Planning Agreement proposed by the Town of Chapel Hill regarding Transition Area
resident representation on the Town's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments were heard at the October 15, 2015 joint
planning public hearing. Materials from the hearing, which include additional background
material, are available at-
http://www.orangecountync.gov/doc ment center/ OCCAenda inutes/151015 .pdf and
minutes from the hearing are included in Attachment 2. The Town of Chapel Hill proposed two
options for consideration:
• Option A, recommended by the Town's Planning Commission, would replace the
Transition Area seat with a Town of Chapel Hill resident. The ETJ (Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction) seat would remain since it is required by Statutes but it could be designated
to represent both the ETJ and Transition Area (although the representative would have to
reside in the ETJ in order to be in compliance with Statutes).
• Option B would replace the Transition Area seat with either an ETJ or Transition Area
resident who would represent both types of areas. The Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) would have 90 days to appoint a representative, after which the seat could be
filled by the Town Council with a Chapel Hill resident. The BOCC would have the
opportunity to request more time to fill a vacancy if an appointment could not be made
within 90 days. This seat would be in addition to the statutorily required ETJ seat.
Orange County's Planning Board considered this item at its November 4t" meeting. Planning
Board meeting materials, including Orange County Planning Staff's synopsis of main points, the
Town of Chapel Hill's PowerPoint presentation used at the hearing, and a resident comment
received are available for viewing at:
2
ht!p-://www.oranqecountvnc.qov/PB Full Agenda Package 110415.pdf. The Planning Board
voted (6-2) to recommend approval of Option B. An excerpt of minutes from the Planning Board
meeting are included in Attachment 3.
Amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement require a joint public hearing and approval by the
three governing boards of the jurisdictions that are parties to the agreement. The Town of
Chapel Hill's Council considered the matter on November 9th and approved Option B on its
Consent agenda. The Town of Carrboro's Board of Aldermen considered the matter on
November 24th and unanimously voted to approve Option B.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Necessary work has been accomplished using existing local government
staff. Enactment of the amendments is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the
local governments.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Social Justice Goal is applicable to this item.
GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation; and
2. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment 1 which approves "Option B".
3
Attach
Resolution # 2015-066
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT REGARDING
TRANSITION AREA RESIDENT REPRESENTATION ON THE TOWN OF CHAPEL
HILL'S PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro
entered into a Joint Planning Agreement originally dated September 22, 1987 and
amended from time to time, and
WHEREAS, the Joint Planning Agreement calls for Transition Area resident
representation on the two Towns' Planning Board/Commission and Board of
Adjustment, and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, the Town of Chapel Hill enacted an Ordinance
expanding the Town's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) area by reducing the Joint
Planning Area (JPA), and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has proposed amendments to the Joint
Planning Agreement regarding Transition Area resident representation on its
Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, and
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing regarding the proposed Joint Planning Agreement
amendments was held on October 15, 2015, in accordance with the requirements of
the Joint Planning Agreement, and
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby resolves
that the Joint Planning Agreement be amended as follows:
(Underline indicates proposed new text, strike through indicates proposed deleted text)
Section 27 Representation of Transition Area Residents
Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill shall revise its Land Use Development Ordinance to
provide that in addition to one Extraterritorial Jurisdiction representative
on the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment that the County
Commission appoints one additional representative from the Joint
Planning Area or the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. If an appointment by
the County Commission is unable to be secured within 90 days of a
vacancy, the Town Council may fill the vacant seat with a Chapel Hill
resident. Chapel Hill shall notify Orange County of any vacancies for
which Orange County is to make an appointment, within ten days of a
vacancy. At the request of the County Commission, the Town Council
may extend the 90 day time limit.
4
Carrboro: Carrboro shall revise its Land Use Ordinance to provide that at least
one resident of Town's Transition area shall be appointed to the Town's
respective planning board and board of adjustment, in the same manner as
representation of extraterritorial planning area residents is provided for in the
Town's ordinance.
(DELETED TEXT)
Section 27 Representation of Transition Area Residents
Chapel Hill ch-Il reVice itc L--And DeVelepmeRt 0Fdi aRGe and Garrhere chpll reiice
itc Land I Ice QFdiY aRGe to PFGVidP thAt At erne reciiJARt of a-Anh tAIM l'C
i
heerr! end- heaFd of adj 16 eRt in s-AMe maRRer as reffeGeRtatiep of
�crrr-rrr �amc�rranrrcr-aarcPr�.rcrrccr��vrr-vr
evtr�territnri�l planning area recideRtc is PFG_VidP_d fer in Te 1A9A'c er_ji.A_;;A
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement
shall become effective upon adoption by the governing bodies of Orange County,
Chapel Hill, and Carrboro.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted this
day of 2015.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of
said Board at a meeting held on , 2015 as relates in any
way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the
minutes of the said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2015.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
5
Attachment 2
APPROVED 11/17/2015
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
October 15, 2015
JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) PUBLIC HEARING
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill and
Carrboro for a Joint Planning Area (JPA) public hearing on Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:00
p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia
Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Staff Attorney Annette Moore
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt,
Jim Ward, Lee Storrow, George Cianciolo, Maria Palmer, Sally Greene and Town Manager
Roger Stancil
CHAPEL HILLTOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Donna Bell and
Council Member Ed Harrison
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Lydia Lavelle,
Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Randee Haven O'Donnell, Sammy Slade, Bethany
Chaney and Town Manager David Andrews
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Alderman Michelle Johnson
Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR AND MAYORS
Mayor Lavelle said Alderman Johnson was not feeling well and might arrive late.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said Council Members Harrison and Bell would not be attending.
Chair McKee said that Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price had conflicts and
would not be attending tonight.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair McKee dispensed with the reading the Public Charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Text Amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement— Consider revisions to existing
language regarding Transition Area resident representation on the Town of Chapel Hill's
Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
Mayor Kleinschmidt reviewed the following background information:
PURPOSE:
To receive public comment on two proposed options to amend the Joint Planning
Agreement to revise existing language regarding Transition Area resident representation on the
Town of Chapel Hill's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
6
BACKGROUND:
In the mid-1980s Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted a
Joint Planning Land Use Plan and accompanying Agreement that provided land use planning
for the area of the county commonly referred to as the Rural Buffer and for areas designated as
"Transition Areas" adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Transition Areas were
defined as areas in transition from rural to urban and were projected to be provided with urban
services (public utilities and other town services). The full plan and agreement is available at:
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/Documents.asp.
In October 2014, the Town of Chapel Hill enacted an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
expansion ordinance that changed most of the Town's designated Transition Area to ETJ.
Because there is relatively little Chapel Hill Transition Area remaining, the Town of Chapel Hill
has proposed two options for potential amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement regarding
Transition Area resident representation on its Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
The attached Town staff report provides further details on the options. Amendments to the Joint
Planning Agreement require a joint public hearing and approval by the three governing boards
of the jurisdictions that are parties to the agreement.
Gene Poveromo, Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department Development Manager,
made the following PowerPoint presentation:
October 15, 2015
Joint Public Hearing
Amending the Joint Planning Area Agreement
Recommendation
• Consider the amendment
• Continue the Public Hearing
• Chapel Hill Town Council
❖ November 11
• Carrboro Board of Aldermen
❖ November 24
• Board of Orange County Commissioners
❖ December 7
Joint Planning Area Agreement Amending JPA Resident Membership on Town of Chapel
Hill
• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• JPA Resident Membership
• "...at least on resident of each town's respective Transition area shall be appointed
...planning board and board of adjustment..."
• TRANSITION AREA = JOINT PLANNING AREA
Chapel Hill Planning Jurisdiction (map)
Chapel Hill Planning Commission Recommendation
• Amend the JPA Agreement and replace the JPA seat on the Planning Commission and
Board of Adjustment with a Chapel Hill resident seat
• Planning Commission
7
• "...current ETJ/JPA population (6.7%) as compared to current Planning Commission
member percentage (22%)."
Other Options...
• Make no changes to membership...retain JPA seat on Planning Commission & Board of
Adj.
Another Option...
• Change the JPA seat to an ETJ or JPA seat
o County Commission appointment
• Seat can be filled by a Chapel Hill Resident if unfilled for 90 days
o Town Council appointment
Recommendation
• Consider the amendment
• Continue the Public Hearing
• Chapel Hill Town Council
❖ November 11
• Carrboro Board of Aldermen
❖ November 24
• Orange County Commission
❖ December 7
Town Council Member Palmer said the slides did not reflect the current membership that
shows the enormous contrast between the less than 1 percent of the population being in the
joint planning area, yet being 20 percent of the representation on the Planning Board.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said if another column was added to show the percentage of
representation on the Chapel Hill Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, a huge
disparity would be evident between the population and the representation.
Alderman Seils asked if the Chapel Hill Planning Commission had permitting issuing
authority.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said this Commission is a quasi-judicial group, depending on the
type of permit that is being sought.
Alderman Seils said the Carrboro Planning Board does not have such authority.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Debbie Masquela read an email that she had sent to all boards:
1 live in the JPA Chapel Hill map area. I would like to suggest a good compromise on
the Option B for the Joint Planning Area Membership. Please consider this compromise.
If we are to use Option B but to retain the title on the individual seats on the Chapel Hill
Planning Commission and Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment as having JPA/ETJ status. Which
means the persons filling those seats, if they do remain vacant after 90 days of being available
to JPA or ETJ residents, those people would be responsible to represent the interests of
JPA/ETJ residents. The seat would retain their titles as JPA/ETJ representatives, even if after
this 90-day vacant period lapsed and the seats were then filled by Chapel Hill residents.
If you do not agree with this compromise, 1, plus my neighbors would like to know why
we would be denied this representation in our own Town's government; and not just because
we are outnumbered in population and acreage. Our countryside landscapes of rolling hills of
farms, woods, forest, fields, creeks, streams, ponds add immeasurably to the aesthetic value
and harmony of our Chapel Hill Community as a whole. These peaceful lands cannot be held in
comparison to the Town's lands that are weaved with shops, traffic lights, cookie cutter
neighborhoods upon a mixture of asphalt and cement. JPA/ETJ areas are greatly different in
8
form, and function than Chapel Hill In-Town Limits. The interests and environments of the
JPA/ETJ people need to have their own representative, because unless you live there, you just
don't get it and you won't understand what we want and why we want it."
Debbie Mesquela asked for her comments to be put on the Chapel Hill website. She
said the request is that the names of the seats remain the same, and whoever holds these seats
would represent the needs of the JPA/ETJ.
Mayor Kleinschmidt clarified that the only seat to be eliminated was the JPA seat, which
would be replaced with a Chapel Hill resident. He said the ETJ seat would remain the same.
Commissioner Jacobs said the proposal from Chapel Hill is reasonable, and the County
has a similar process for addressing seats that are vacant for 180 days. He suggested a period
between 90 to 180 days.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said that suggestion is different than the Town of Chapel Hill's
Planning Commission's recommendation.
Alderman Chaney asked if two seats would be reduced to one seat and would represent
this small percentage of the population.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said yes.
Commissioner Rich clarified that the ETJ position would not be done away with, but
rather the JPA seat would be combined, or if it goes unfilled by an ETJ/JPA person in a
specified time period, that the seat would go to a Chapel Hill resident.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said the Planning Commission's recommendation is to morph the
JPA seat into a Chapel Hill resident seat, but there are other options to consider and he
reviewed them.
Commissioner Rich asked if the Planning Commission has a definite number of
membership slots or can the numbers be increased.
Gene Poveromo said State statute requires that there be at least one person from the
ETJ on Board of Adjustment and Chapel Hill Planning Commission. He said the Planning
Commission is made up of nine members, and the JPA agreement says there must be one JPA
position.
Town Council Member Palmer said Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion of 180 days is a
long time and explained the appointment process and Advisory Board schedules. She said
even the 90 days could be problematic. She said there are only 298 residents that live in the
JPA area, which is a small number from which to find a representative to serve on these boards.
Councilman Ward said he believed that the JPA still needs representation, and he
supports the "another option" choice.
Gene Poveromo said there is one seat dedicated to the ETJ, and it would be possible to
have a second ETJ seat.
Councilman Ward asked if it is possible to transform the remaining ETJ seat into one
that could also be filled by a JPA resident.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said that is not be possible, because there must be an ETJ
representative.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said another option would be to consider bringing the small JPA
area into the ETJ or releasing it to the County. He said the latter option would be a longer
process.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said when this was created years ago, there was a lot more
transition area and a lot more residents in the JPA area.
Councilman Ward said he hoped that if the shorter time frame was chosen, Chapel Hill
would be able to help Orange County fill these positions as the Board should be fully staffed
with membership. He said a time extension could be requested if need be.
Alderman Slade asked if this potential change would affect Carrboro.
Gene Poveromo said the proposal does not include changing Carrboro's jurisdiction.
9
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Ms. Masquela could apply for this position through
the Orange County Clerk's office.
Mayor Kleinschmidt referenced the recommendation below and said all three elected
boards will discuss and recommend an option from their entity by the suggested dates below, or
whenever they chose to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Staffs recommend that the governing boards:
1. Hear public comment on the proposed options to amend the Joint Planning Agreement.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Refer the matter to the local governments for decision in accordance with the following
schedule:
a. Orange County
Orange County Planning Board for recommendation — November 4, 2015
Board of County Commissioners for possible action — December 7, 2015
b. Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill Planning Board for recommendation —done on September 1, 2015
Town Council for possible action — November 11, 2015
c. Carrboro
Carrboro Planning Board for recommendation — November 5, 2015
Board of Aldermen for possible action — November 10 or 24, 2015
ADJOURNMENT OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
The Joint Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The Town of Chapel Hill left at 7:36 p.m.
10
Attachment 3 DRAFT
Excerpt of Draft Minutes
1 MINUTES
2 PLANNING BOARD
3 NOVEMBER 4,2015
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At-
7 Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove
8 Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill
9 Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township;
10 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative;
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Herman Staats,At-Large;
13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz,
15 Special Projects Coordinator, Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner, Meredith Pucci,Administrative Assistant II
16
17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
19
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 8: JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on
22 amendments to the text of the Joint Planning Agreement initiated by the Town of Chapel
23 Hill regarding membership of Transition Area residents on the Town's Planning
24 Commission and Board of Adjustment. This item was heard at the October 15, 2015 Joint
25 Planning Public Hearing.
26
27 PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
28
29 Note: Peter Hallenbeck(Chair)left the meeting for a prior engagement and turned the meeting over to Lydia
30 Wegman (Vice Chair)
31
32 Perdita Holtz reviewed the abstract.
33
34 Paul Guthrie: A number of years ago the County Board of Commissioners sent my name to the Town of Chapel Hill
35 to represent the ETJ and rather than appoint me the Town of Chapel Hill's Planning Department redistributed the
36 seats and eliminated the position that I would have been in without any consultation with the County. I like option B
37 but one thing that should be done is to make sure they can't play games with that procedure.
38
39 Tony Blake: I think it's very important that people from the neighborhoods be represented well on these boards.
40 Chapel Hill has been doing away with affordable housing and they seem to be pushing that responsibility more and
41 more on the county.
42
43 Lisa Stuckey: So by state law the ETJ areas have to be represented by at least one person and that person is
44 appointed by the county commissioners, so we are talking about 200 acres and whether or not there should be an
45 appointed person to represent the two purple areas?
46
47 Perdita Holtz:Yes,although it would be ETJ or Transition Area resident.
48
49 Tony Blake: It's just to give them a bigger pool of people to choose from.
50
51 Lisa Stuckey: ETJ is still under 7% of the population and has 2/9 of the representation, I kind of get why it's a
52 problem. I don't think they need one person for the two purple areas.
53
1
11
DRAFT
54 Tony Blake: I'm interested in the additional representation because I think there are some very critical decisions
55 coming up in those areas.
56
57 Andrea Rohrbacher: I am tending towards what Lisa said. I don't think we need the two seats. I think the one seat
58 would be adequate.
59
60 Lydia Wegman: Paul wanted to speak so after he speaks we will go around and hear from everybody.
61
62 Paul Guthrie: I personally don't think that one or two makes a lot of difference. I have lived in the ETJ for eleven
63 years and I have never had any communication on anything they are doing in that district. They do not communicate
64 at all so it seems to me that one of the issues is going well beyond what we are talking about.
65
66 Lydia Wegman: So that sounds like something we will want to convey potentially to the Town of Chapel Hill.
67
68 Perdita Holtz: It will be a part of the minutes and the BOCC reads those minutes and they might want to bring it up at
69 one of the joint meetings they have.
70
71 Lydia Wegman: Okay so let's go around, Buddy you can start.
72
73 Buddy Hartley: I'm okay with option B.
74
75 Paul Guthrie: I think I've said about all I need to say. When it comes time to vote I'll support option B. I do think it's a
76 bigger issue than just this issue.
77
78 James Lea:Are we up for a vote on this tonight?
79
80 Lydia Wegman: I think we are supposed to make a recommendation to the BOCC in time for their December
81 meeting.
82
83 James Lea: Based on what I have heard I think option B is a great option.
84
85 Maxecine Mitchell: I had a personal experience when a decision was being made in my area and we left feeling that
86 we were not represented. We went to Carrboro and Chapel Hill and it seemed like they didn't really care. I can
87 understand where Paul is coming from. I would support option B.
88
89 Lisa Stuckey: I am sticking with option A. I think one person for 6.7% is sufficient.
90
91 Andrea Rohrbacher: I am going to stick with option A for the same reason. I would like to also ask that both the Board
92 of County Commissioners and the Town of Chapel Hill be more proactive in recruiting in these areas.
93
94 Tony Blake: I'm going to go with option B from the same reasons I stated and exactly for the reasons Paul and
95 Maxecine said.
96
97 Lydia Wegman: I can see the virtues of option B and I would support option B for the reasons that have been
98 previously stated.
99
100 MOTION made by Tony Blake to recommend Option B to the County Commissioners. James Lea seconded.
101 VOTE: 6—2 (Lisa Stuckey and Andrea Rohrbacher opposed)
102
103
2