Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20091123 QPH APPROVED 12/15/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 23, 2009 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, November 23, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. in the Central Orange Senior Center, 103 Meadowlands Drive in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie Foushee and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian Crawford and Members May Becker, Peter Hallenbeck, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Tommy McNeill, Jeffry Schmitt, Judith Wegner, and Larry Wright. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Bobbitt-Cooke and Samantha Cabe A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR The meeting was called to order at 7:37 PM. Chair Foushee said that comments from Barry Jacobs would be entered into the record (purple sheet). B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Rezoning — Intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road: To receive public comments on a proposed rezoning of a parcel of property at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M 1 PIN 9749-40-0293) from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2). Michael Harvey presented this item. He said that this is the same Vernon Davis rezoning application that was originally presented last November. As the Board will recall, staff recommended denial of the petition, given the fact that it did not comply with the various provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 that capped the total cumulative amount of non-residential land that could be located within a Node. This property is within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node and the node was, at that time, at the established limit. Since that time, staff, the Planning Board, and the Board of County Commissioners processed an ordinance amendment to increase the total cumulative amount of non-residential zoned property permitted within a node to ten acres for both Local Commercial I and Neighborhood Commercial II zoning designations. Mr. Davis was then informed that his petition could receive a favorable recommendation and Mr. Davis resubmitted. The purpose of S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc this petition is to rezone one acre of the 4.7-acre parcel because that is where the septic system and repair field are located for an adjacent commercially-zoned property. Mr. Davis will recombine this one acre into the existing adjacent parcel of property so that it is all in one parcel. AGENDA ITEM: Cl PUBLIC HEARING Review of a petition to REZONE a portion property at 3010 White Cross Road (approximately 1.04 acres) from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) Property Vicinity Map: APPLICATION SPECIFICS: •Applicant: Vernon Davis •Address: 3010 White Cross Rd •TMBL 1 PIN: 6.30..7M 19749-40-0293 •Size of Parcel: 4.7 acres •Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR), •Township: Bingham •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: White Cross Rural Community Activity Node •Proposed Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) — 1.04 acres Surrounding Land Uses: •NORTH: •Across NC 54: several commercial operations and residential land uses •SOUTHIEASTIWEST: •Predominately single-family residential land uses with a commercial land use to the east Node Boundaries: Request: •There is a septic system, and required repair area, located on the subject parcel that supports an adjacent commercially zoned parcel of property owned by Mr. Davis, •Mr. Davis is concerned about his continued ability to have the septic system supporting his commercial operation on the AR zoned parcel of property. *Mr. Davis is seeking to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of the subject parcel to NC-2 and then recombine the property with his adjacent NC-2 zoned property, •If the request is approved, the septic system supporting the existing commercial operation will be properly zoned and could be recombined with the adjacent commercially zoned parcel of property Zoning Officer Analysis: According to Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum amount of land zoned NC-2: ` ... at any node shall not exceed ten acres.' There is a similar prohibition on the amount of Local Commercial One (LC-1) zoned property within an established Node contained within Article Four (4) of the Ordinance. Zoning Officer Analysis: In completing an assessment of the existing non-residentially zoned property within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, the Zoning Officer has determined: S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc There is approximately four point five (4.5) acres of existing property zoned Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) within the Node, and There is approximately four point two (4.2) acres of existing property zoned Local Commercial One (LC-1) within the Node. Zoning Officer Analysis (continued): Staff recommends approval of the request as there is available land are to allow for the rezoning to occur. Staff Recommendations: Receive the rezoning petition, Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties, Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no later than February 16, 2010 Adjourn the Public Hearing until February 16, 2010 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. Commissioner Yuhasz requested to be excused from the vote for this item when it comes back to the Board. PUBLIC COMMENT: Blair Pollock said that he does not know Mr. Davis. He said that he agrees that the County is at an important crossroads for being able to expand the commercial base. Every time there are so many limitations, it is counterproductive to this goal of more commercial development. He said that some years ago, The Wizard's Cauldron was in the same situation and could not quadruple its size because of the septic field being on an AR parcel, so it moved to Caswell County. He hopes that this opportunity will be used to open up the rural nodes more and give the Fiesta Grill a chance to expand. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 16, 2010 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until February 16, 2010 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. 2. Sign Ordinance Amendments — Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards): To receive public comments on a proposed text amendment to Article Nine (9) Signs of the Zoning Ordinance to develop language outlining the County's limitations on the regulation of outdoor advertising signs (i.e. billboards). Michael Harvey presented this item. He said that this amendment would revise and clarify existing regulatory standards as they relate to outdoor advertising structures or billboards. At the September 10, 2009 work session, the County Attorney and Planning Director presented an abstract providing information on the current regulation of billboards. Specifically, this abstract detailed the limitations of local governing bodies to regulate billboards as the State and Federal government regulations preempted local zoning law. This abstract is included as Attachment 2. At that time, staff asked for direction on how to address an existing billboard dispute within the 1-40/1-85 corridor. The Board voted 6 to 1 to direct staff to prepare an S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc amendment to clarify what the County can and cannot regulate, specifically that County standards are not applicable where there is a State or Federal regulation, and also to provide a historical synopsis of the review and adoption of the major transportation corridor, the MTC Overlay District, with specific focus on the rationale behind the County's approach to billboard regulations. Further, the Board voted unanimously for the staff to engage in dialogue with NCDOT to get more information on the regulation of digital billboards. This information is still pending. In talking with representatives of NCDOT, he said that NCDOT's stance has not been to allow existing non-conforming billboards or any billboard within the MTC to be replaced with digital billboards. County staff will bring forward an amendment to the sign ordinance to address some of the concerns referenced in the work session. As soon as NCDOT provides a written response, this will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed amendment is to Article 9 to an existing reserve section that stipulates that any time there is a conflict between State and Federal law with respect to the regulation of outdoor advertising, that the State and Federal law will take precedent. In cases where there is no standard or there is no conflict, local regulation will take precedent. Commissioner Jacobs' written comments: "I have two concerns that I hope are either addressed elsewhere in our sign ordinance or will be acknowledged as matters to be addressed later. First, it remains unclear whether Orange County residents and passing motorists are protected from the distractions and extraordinary illumination of digital signs. This is increasingly an issue in other jurisdictions around the country, but it is not yet addressed here as far as I can tell. Second, I hope we somewhere add an encouragement to owners of existing illuminated billboards to switch as soon as practicable to solar-powered lighting. Staff recently presented materials on such lighting to representatives of NCDOT. Also, on page 2 of this abstract, on the second line of the paragraph that begins `The rationale for this amendment,' the appropriate word is `expeditious,' not `expedient,' which has an implication of facile convenience rather than speed." A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 16, 2010 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until February 16, 2010 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Telecommunication Wireless Support Structures (Telco Towers): To receive public comments on the proposal by the County to use certain County properties as potential sites for Telco Towers. The process to enroll these sites as part of the zoning code's Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) does not require a formal public hearing. However, since possible future tower development to serve the needs of public safety, information technology, and economic development on behalf of citizens and businesses, Orange County is bringing this provision forward for public discussion. Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. Designation of Specific Public Sites to be part of the County's Master Telecommunication Plan November 23, 2009 S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING Item C-3 PURPOSE '1. Consideration of certain County owned properties as candidate sites for telecommunication tower placement. 2. Designation of specific publicly owned properties as being eligible for the MTP. BACKGROUND Federal Telecommunications (Telco) Act of 1996 —Promotes `Information Highway.' Limited the authority of local governments to regulate towers. •In 2007 NC General Assembly allows local governments to permit `Spec. Towers.' Times Have Changed •Public Safety Response, 'Information Technology Info. Exchange, •Economic Development, •Enable core competency of government through improved service delivery, 'Spanning the `Rural Divide,' and •Broadband. Solution Zoning Ordinance Requirements -- Section 6.18.5 —Master Telecommunications Plan —Administrative Approvals •Funding Opportunity through ARRA •County Owned Sites •Proposed Public/Private Partnership •Comprehensive Plan Consistency PROPOSAL for BOCC •Identify suitable public sites, •Add these sites to the MTP for telecommunication development, •Authorize staff to apply for ARRA grants in the next cycle, and •Seek technical partnership, and •Later BOCC contract approval. County-Owned Tower Sites Other Non-Public Candidate MTP Sites OWASA, 'Orange County School Sites, 'Volunteer Fire Departments, and S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc 'Other sites. Future Partnership •We have the land, •We determine the size, shape, and location, and •We receive a revenue stream. They have: —Detail each tower and supporting facilities design, —Tower installation specifications, —Tower maintenance responsibilities, —Tower marketing responsibilities, —Contract management for each co-locator, —Tower bonding and insurance responsibilities, —Financial considerations, —Long-term tower management responsibilities, and —RF engineering expertise RECOMMENDATIONS Receive this abstract. Conduct a Public Hearing and accept all public comments on the subject. Approve the staff recommendation by: —Selecting the County Properties —Enrolling the Candidate Sites into the MTP, and —Approving the Attached Resolution Authorize staff to begin application for ARRA grants for the project. The six candidate sites are: '1. Northeast Park along Mincy Road 2. ABC Store (very small site) 3. Cedar Grove Park 4. Millhouse Road property 5. Eurosport Soccer Center 6. Lake Orange Reservoir Commissioner Yuhasz asked if Craig Benedict was planning on looking at some topographically advantageous sites where there are no public facilities. Craig Benedict said that the focus of this item was to see if the County wanted to be part of the MTP process. After the consultant is hired, more sites can be added and non-public partners can get sites enrolled. Commissioner Pelissier asked how many towers were needed and Craig Benedict said maybe about ten towers. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarity of what is being proposed — six or nine sites. Craig Benedict said that the proposal is for six sites to go into the MTP. When a grant is put forth, sites 7, 8 and 9 will be included. These are in Chapel Hill's and Carrboro's jurisdictions. Commissioner Gordon suggested adopting the six sites and doing nothing about the Chapel Hill and Carrboro sites. She said we should consult with Chapel Hill and Carrboro before S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc placing sites in their planning jurisdictions. Craig Benedict said that the approval for sites 7, 8 and 9 is just to proceed with a discussion with the local governments. Frank Clifton said that the reason that sites 7, 8, and 9 are there is because those are gaps with Emergency Services coverage. Commissioner Gordon noted that sites 7, 8, and 9 were in the same general geographic area. Commissioner Nelson said that he understands that the County has no co-location towers. Craig Benedict said that Cedar Grove Fire Department has a tower and some public safety equipment has been located on this. At the Emergency Services location, the County put up its own tower. Commissioner Nelson said that Chapel Hill gets income from its towers and he would like to tap into that income source. He said that he does not think it would be bad form to proceed and communicate with a letter to Chapel Hill and Carrboro immediately. Earl McKee made reference to site 2, which is the ABC Store site on NC 49. He said that this is on the surplus property list and it should be removed from the surplus property list before a bid is put on it. Written Comments from Commissioner Jacobs: "I have for years advocated improved cell coverage in Orange County, and most especially the provision of broadband access, particularly in Economic Development Districts. Thanks to staff for this effort to expedite siting telecommunication towers. Still, as a matter of form, we should state at the outset that we are applying the same standards and review to locating towers on county property that we would apply on private property. This assurance is especially important because, unfortunately, the abstract does not include materials relevant to reviewing the regulations. Staff states the plan may be administratively approved `as long as the proposed tower complies with the various department standards, location requirements, testing, and plan submittal details as contained within Section 8.8.17a.' But no such section is provided for review. The lack of documentation is vexing; it's easy to recognize that newer members of the BOCC, not to mention the public, are not conversant with the details of the telcom plan. Prior to making a decision, consideration of this item should be augmented by a copy of the appropriate regulations, including the rationale the county adopted for a more modest level of review for towers standing less than 150 feet tall. While it may seem to go without saying, Orange County needs to make an affirmative commitment to minimize the visual impact of tower placement on our properties— particularly as they affect the aesthetic appeal of parks— and to prohibit their siting in environmentally sensitive areas or in such a manner as to disrupt bird flyways. These matters may be covered by the ordinance, but unless I'm missing something, neither a decision-maker nor a member of the public has any way to reach such a conclusion based on the materials presented tonight. Also, a few questions: What opportunity will neighbors have to comment on these pre- approved sites? Is this it? If so, what notice was provided for proximate property owners? What, if any, effort has been made to investigate distributed antenna systems rather than towers? Do our unrevealed standards include requirements to remove towers when and if they become abandoned or obsolete?" PUBLIC COMMENT: Ben Lloyd said that he has no problem with a County-owned site, but his question is if there is a more suitable site on private property would the private property owner be precluded from negotiating with the tower to locate on their property. S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc Frank Clifton said that they would not be precluded, but the issue would be the tower company spending the money to build the tower. It would have to go through the public process. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to formally remove the three sites—7, 8, and 9—from the resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the staff recommendation by: selecting the County properties identified on the attached map (Attachment 1) for potential tower locations; enroll the list of candidate sites (Attachment 2 —sites 1-0 only) into the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP); and approve the attached resolution enrolling the aforementioned public properties into the MTP program (Attachment 3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING E. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. State of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: November 18th is the first anniversary of the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with Plan recommendations for monitoring and evaluation, staff is providing a status report to the BOCC. Status reports are to occur every other year beginning one-year after Plan adoption. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri said that this is the first anniversary of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The status report is to be given to the boards every other year, beginning one year after plan adoption. He said that staff sees this first report as a report from which to build. Multiple County departments have been involved in this reporting process. He clarified that the page numbers in the table of contents reference numbers at the bottom of the page and not the top. He summarized the sections of the report. Section 4 has concluding remarks. He said that the key take-away from this report is that plan implementation has started. On page 50, there are some ideas on how to improve the reports. Commissioner Pelissier said that she liked the recommendations on the last page on how to improve the report. She said that it is misleading for some items to be checked off the list as completed because they are ongoing. She said that she would like to see the report emphasize that several departments have worked on some related objectives. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 49 and Transportation and mentioned State legislation concerning funding of transit system. She said that it is time to plan systems. 2. Census 2010 Complete Count Committee (CCC) Update: Staff will provide a brief update on the activities of the Committee, formed to help build awareness about the census, why it is important, and encourage participation. Tom Altieri presented this item. April 1st is Census day in 2010. The questionnaires will be mailed to County residents in mid-March. He said that the Census is important as the data are used to determine congressional seats and federal funding —Title I grants to schools, Head Start programs, and public transit. In May, the Board of County Commissioners appointed a Complete Count Committee and invited representatives from local government agencies, school systems, Chambers of Commerce, religious organizations, and the media to serve. The sole purpose of the committee is to promote the Census and to help maximize participation and mail S:1Minutes12009 1 1 23 QPH.doc response and to minimize the door-to-door collection of questionnaires by the federal government. The committee has held three meetings and is working to complete the action plan, which will be carried out in February or March of next year. None of the agencies have funds available for elaborate notification or publicity. Staff will make a more detailed presentation to the Board of County Commissioners closer to the Census day. Craig Benedict said that everyone will be getting the short form. However, there is a random long form that will be distributed to some people. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board S:\Minutes\20091123QPH.doc