HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-18-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 18, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
September 12, 2016 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
September 20, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 September 12, 2016
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a
10 Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building
11 in Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
14 Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
24 add a closed session at the end of the meeting for the purpose of:
25 [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)] To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of
26 business in the area served by this body.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 Note: The Legal Advertisement for the Quarterly Public Hearing is included in the agenda
31 packet immediately following the agenda.
32
33 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
34
35 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
36 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
37
38 C. PUBLIC HEARING —QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS
39
40 1. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review a Special Use Permit
41 application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on a 52 acre parcel of
42 property (PIN 9835-02-9137, no address assigned yet) which is accessed via an
43 easement from 6519 U.S. Highway 70 West within the Cheeks Township.
44
45 Chair McKee said for the project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows:
46 To review a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar
47 array/public utility station on a 52 acre parcel of property further identified utilizing PIN
48 9835-02-9137, which is accessed via an easement from 6519 U.S. Highway 70 West
49 within the Cheeks Township.
50
2
1 The purpose of this hearing will be to gather evidence to determine whether the
2 ordinance's standards have been met. The Board must base its decision with respect to
3 the approval or denial on the application solely on the competent, material and
4 substantive evidence presented during the hearing. The Board must exclude from
5 consideration both their personal and the public's opinions with respect to the disposition
6 of this request.
7
8 1. Chair will declare the public hearing open and ask all parties intending to offer testimony
9 and/or evidence to come forward and be sworn by the Clerk.
10
11 The clerk will administer the oath indicating that the testimony the individual is about to
12 give is the truth, the whole, truth, and noting but the truth to their knowledge. Any
13 individual offering testimony (i.e. staff, the applicant, members of the public, Planning
14 Board, etc.) has to be sworn.
15 ** NOTE: Unlike public hearings on legislative matters there is no time
16 limit as individuals are presenting sworn evidence/testimony on the
17 merits of the application.**
18
19 The clerk swore in the following individuals providing testimony:
20
21 Chris Sandifer
22 Chris Bishop
23 Brian Quinlan
24 Rich Kirkland
25 Merrick Parrot
26 Patrick Mallett
27 Michael Harvey
28
29 Patrick Mallett, Planner II, presented this item, and entered the items and all
30 attachments in the agenda packet and binder, into the record, and made the following
31 PowerPoint presentation:
32
33 SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
34 AGENDA ITEM: C.1
35 BOCC
36 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING:
37 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
38 DEVELOPMENT OF A
39 SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
40
41 PROPERTY INFORMATION
42 PIN(s): 9835-02-9137
43 Size: Approximately 52 acres (leased area +/-27 acres)
44 Zoning: R-1 (Rural Residential)
45 Overlay(s): Back Creek Protected Watershed/ Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Overlay District
46 Future Land Use Map Designation: 10-Year Transition Area
47 Growth Management System Designation: Urban Designated
48
49 REQUEST:
50 • Solar array facility on 27 acres of a 52-acre parcel of property.
3
1 • Typical array is between 7-9 feet in height, with approximately 2-3 feet of ground
2 clearance and approximately 50-75 feet in length.
3 • Arrays will be screened by:
4 - 100-foot setbacks;
5 - 65-80 foot wide stream buffers; and
6 - 50 feet wide Type D Land Use Buffer.
7 • 8-foot high chain link (with barbed wire) security fence shall surround the perimeter.
8 • Gravel paths/drives will permit access by technicians to service the panels.
9 • Vehicular access to the site is restricted by an access entry gate and gravel drive via a
10 30-50 foot wide easement (via PIN 9835-10-3858) to an existing driveway onto US
11 Highway70.
12
13 SITE PHOTO —SURVEY OF PROPERTY
14
15 SITE PLAN (map)
16
17 REVIEW PROCESS
18
19 Step ONE: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
20 Held on Wednesday July 27, 2016.
21 Approximately 6 people attended.
22 Attendees asked questions about solar facilities in general, the proposed layout, potential for
23 noise, visibility, and landscaping along perimeter.
24 STAFF COMMENT: The required NIM was held on July 27, 2016 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. in
25 accordance with the UDO.
26
27 STEP TWO: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
28 Review the request and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
29 (BOCC) on the project's compliance with specific development standards (Section 5.9.6) and
30 the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO.
31 STAFF COMMENT: On August 3, 2016, Planning Board members gave their
32 unanimous recommendation(s)for approval by the BOCC.
33
34 REVIEW PROCESS
35
36 STEP THREE: PUBLIC HEARING
37 The BOCC holds a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to provide
38 sworn testimony related to the proposal.
39 STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing will be held at the September 12, 2016.
40
41 STEP FOUR: DECISION
42 The BOCC will review the Planning Board recommendation as well as any other evidence
43 presented at the hearing, deliberate, certify the record, close the public hearing, and then render
44 a final decision.
45
46 STAFF INITIAL REVIEW:
47 • The applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project.
48 • The applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit
49 (i.e. required by Section 2.7.3).
4
1 • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to
2 the viability of this proposal.
3 • There is currently no information demonstrating the applicant does not comply with the
4 standards of the UDO allowing for the issuance of the permit
5
6 RECOMMENDATION:
7 The administration recommends the Board
8 1. Receive and consider the findings of fact and evidence entered into the record for the
9 Class A SUP;
10 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and Staff sworn
11 testimony; and
12 3. Approve the application.
13
14 BACKUP SLIDES
15
16 SITE PHOTO —OAKWOOD SOLAR FARM LLC
17
18 Chair McKee: Before we get started with that, let's see if the Board has any questions on your
19 presentation. Seeing none does the applicant have a presentation? Welcome.
20
21 Merrick Parrot: Thank you very much for your time this evening. My name is Merrick Parrot. I
22 am with Parker, Poe, Adams, and Bernstein, located at 301 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, and
23 have been sworn in this evening. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Oakwood Solar
24 Farm, LLC. I have with me the applicant representative, Brian Quinlan, as well as two expert
25 witnesses: Chris Sandifer and Richard Kirkland who will give their expert testimony on Public
26 Health, Safety, General Welfare, Property Value and Harmony in support of the three findings of
27 fact that you must make tonight. First, I would move that the binder—the request for Special
28 Use Permit—that you have in front of you be entered into the record. It's comprised of fifteen
29 tabs. At this time, I would ask that the Board allow Mr. Quinlan, who is here tonight on behalf of
30 the Applicant, to run through his presentation, which is located behind tab 1 of the booklet that
31 have here with me, that I will hand up, and also ask that this be entered into the record. I will
32 have Mr. Quinlan come up.
33
34 Brian Quinlan: Good evening. Thanks for having us this evening. My name is Brian Quinlan. I
35 was sworn in earlier. I will cover most of the details of the presentation, and then I will bring up
36 Chris and Rich to focus on their specialties.
37
38 Brian Quinlan presented the following PowerPoint slides:
39
40 Calvert Energy, LLC
41 Oakwood Solar Farm, LLC Class A Special Use Permit
42 September 12, 2016
43
44 Calvert Energy
45 Calvert Energy
46 ➢ Over 30 years of project development, power plant operations and finance experience
47 ➢ Extensive solar power experience
48 • Developed over 10 MW of solar PV projects
49 • Managed portfolio development in excess of 25 MW in U.S. and Canada
50 • Developing 45 MW of solar projects in NC
5
1 ➢ Broad energy/electricity background
2 • Power plant operations
3 • Solar, gas turbine, coal, hydro and nuclear plant development
4 • Electricity wholesale markets
5 • Transmission & distribution construction
6 ESA
7 ➢ Over 30 years of experience in solar project development, construction, management
8 and long term operation of solar systems
9 ➢ Global development and construction of over 500 solar and thermal installations; ranging
10 from large scale solar farms to commercial rooftop installations
11 ➢ Development, construction, and operation of 55 MW, and approximately 20 independent
12 projects, in North Carolina
13 ➢ Current North Carolina projects are in the following counties: Clay, Cherokee, Johnston,
14 Richmond, Moore and New Hanover
15
16 ➢ Mace family has owned the property for over 50 years
17 • Family supports the installation of solar project
18 • Project is a beneficial use of property that has limited other uses and is
19 compatible with long term plans of landowner
20 o Location off main roads with limited access
21 o Wetland areas surrounding site
22 o Sewer and water not available on site
23 o Land is not utilized for agriculture or forestry and uses are not considered
24 highest and best use by the landowner
25 o Solar project is compatible use with Mace Trucking and Finish Grade
26 business on the property
27 • Provides income from a stranded asset
28 • Contributes to the property tax base with no cost to the County infrastructure
29 ➢ Request Class A Special Use Permit from the County for the installation of a solar facility
30 • Property currently zoned R1 (Rural Residential)
31 o Land appropriate for low density and low intensity development not
32 dependent on urban services
33 o Solar project is low intensity and does not require urban services
34 • County allows installation of a utility scale solar project on R1 zoned property
35 with Class A Special Use Permit
36 • Project Reviewed by:
37 o Planning & Inspections Department
38 o Solid Waste Management
39 o Department of Environment and Park and Recreation
40 o Erosion Control Officer
41 o Fire Department
42 o NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
43 o Planning Board
44 Unanimous recommendation for approval on August 3rd
45 Public hearing held with no opposition
46
47 Permitted Use (chart)
48
49 Site Plan (map)
50
6
1 Findings of fact
2 ➢ Findings of fact for special use permit (UDO § 5.3.2(A)(2))
3
4 Commissioner Rich: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair?
5
6 Chair McKee: Yes.
7
8 Commissioner Rich: Can you remind me how this contributes to the property tax base?
9
10 Brian Quinlan: In North Carolina, solar projects have 80 percent abatements, so 20 percent of
11 the property value will be contributed to the local tax base.
12
13 Commissioner Rich: So Orange County will be getting additional tax off of this property.
14
15 Brian Quinlan: Correct. Yes.
16
17 Commissioner Rich: Thank you.
18
19 Brian Quinlan: And then the use of the land will change so there will be an incremental
20 amount of changes.
21
22 Merrick Parrot: Thank you very much. Board I would like to call me next witness. Can you
23 please state your name and business address?
24
25 Chris Sandifer: Good evening. My name is Chris Sandifer. My address is 3118 Green Road,
26 Spring Hope, NC.
27
28 Merrick Parrot: And have you been sworn in this evening?
29
30 Chris Sandifer: I have been sworn in.
31
32 Merrick Parrot: Ok. How are you employed?
33
34 Chris Sandifer: I'm self-employed consultant.
35
36 Merrick Parrot: What kind of consulting?
37
38 Chris Sandifer: I do electrical engineering consulting.
39
40 Merrick Parrot: Do you have any professional licenses?
41
42 Chris Sandifer: I have professional license. I am a registered North Carolina Engineer, among
43 other states. I'm also a licensed Electrical Contractor in North Carolina, with unlimited
44 classification.
45
46 Merrick Parrot: Approximately when did you receive these licenses?
47
48 Chris Sandifer: Oh gosh. Back in the 80s.
49
50 Merrick Parrot: Good enough. And how long have you been practicing as an electrical
51 contractor? Since the 80s?
7
1
2 Chris Sandifer: Yes.
3
4 Merrick Parrot: Please describe your experience with solar development.
5
6 Chris Sandifer: I have almost focused totally on solar for the last seven years.
7
8 Merrick Parrot: What is your role in the project?
9
10 Chris Sandifer: I do a lot of site evaluations. I determine if they are compatible with the utility
11 interconnections; also other aspects of compatibility. I look at the design for efficiency, and
12 review a lot of the designs for that. Also I do the medium voltage installs as the electrical
13 contractor.
14
15 Merrick Parrot: Were you engaged by the Applicant to testify this evening?
16
17 Chris Sandifer: I was.
18
19 Merrick Parrot: Thank you. I would now tender Mr. Sandifer as a qualified expert witness in
20 the field of Mechanical Engineering, and development of solar farms.
21
22 Chris Sandifer: Good evening Chairman McKee and the members of the Commission. I want
23 to describe a little bit about what a solar farm is, and if at some point in time you want to raise
24 your hand, I can speed up. Basically the main components are solar panels and they are
25 mounted on racks and the racks are mounted to steel posts, which are driven into the ground.
26 The output of those solar panels go to an inverter, which converts the output of the solar panel,
27 which is a DC direct current, into an AC current, which you would have at your house. Then
28 there is a transformer which matches the output of the inverter to the —whatever the local utility
29 distribution voltage would be.
30
31 Basically, I just wanted to tell you that's what we're doing. We're using mono-crystalline, or
32 poly-crystalline silicone panels. They are safe and they don't have any toxic chemicals in them.
33 They don't leach. They can be disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner at the
34 end of their life. The facility will be not be lit so there will be no light trespass. These panels are
35 coated with an anti-glare coating to make them more efficient. What we are trying to do is
36 capture the light, and turn it into electricity, not have light bounce off and wasted. These are
37 very efficient for doing that. These panels - and the nature of them - they don't take light from
38 somewhere else. They just use the light that would naturally fall on that area of the ground —
39 that would be intercepted by these panels. These —they have a fan and they do make noise
40 when they are at full load, but that noise is dissipated to undetectable in the background where
41 this one is. I did the math on this one, and it's — it would be one-eighth the noise that would
42 normally be in the background during the day. And, of course, they don't make any noise at
43 night. There is no smell, there is no dust, there is no radiation. These panels use no nuclear
44 radiation.
45
46 I would like to address the EMF (electromagnetic force) because sometimes that is a concern.
47 There are actually two different kinds of EMF, that's electromagnetic force that would be around
48 these devices. The first one is a DC, which would be very similar to a battery that is in your car.
49 It will be a higher voltage, but that would be the analogy. I have gone around these panels —
50 three, fifteen watt panels— and taken my boy-scout compass. And they always point north.
51 The electromagnetic field of the earth is a lot strong than these panels produce. They do
8
1 produce a — but it's not enough to deflect the needle on my compass. That's what I use as my
2 gauge. That may not be technical, but it makes sense. The AC—once the DC goes into the
3 inverter, and comes out—the AC side also has an electromagnetic field that— about it as well.
4 But it would be on the same scale on the lines that are coming into it. I always say when you
5 put 100 amps in a piece of wire, it does have an electromagnetic field, but if you had — if the
6 utility has 200 amps in that wire before, and this facility puts 100 amps — it actually takes away
7 100 amps that would be going to substation to this point. So the net effect of having local
8 generation is to reduce the overall electromagnetic fields that would be surrounding the
9 conductors that would leave this facility and go across public land, or other people's property.
10
11 The piles that we mount the racks on will be driven into the ground. We try to do the minimum
12 amount of ground disturbance that we have. But there would be a sediment and erosion control
13 plan, and it would be approved by the County before any construction starts. There is no
14 pollution, radioactive spent fuels, coal ash, fracking or chemicals. This is probably the most
15 benign, safest way we can produce electricity that we know of now on this utility scale.
16
17 I would just like to say, the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission has issued a certificate of
18 Public Convenience and Necessity for this project, so it would not have gotten to this point if the
19 North Carolina Utilities Commission did not think that it was a necessary production for
20 renewable energy. I'm here to answer any questions.
21
22 Merrick Parrot: I just have one follow up question for you. Did you prepare an affidavit for
23 this?
24
25 Chris Sandifer: I prepared an affidavit.
26
27 Merrick Parrot: Ok. And Commissioners that is the affidavit that's located behind tab 3 of your
28 booklet.
29
30 Chris Sandifer: And my testimony tonight is the same as that affidavit. Are there any
31 questions?
32
33 Chair McKee: Questions from the Board?
34
35 Commissioner Jacobs: How often do you have occasion to review a site and find it not
36 suitable for a solar array?
37
38 Chris Sandifer: I would say most of the time—90 percent of the time—they're not suitable. In
39 my experience, they— a lot of folks want them, but they're just not compatible.
40
41 Commissioner Jacobs: And are you aware of any hazard to wildlife that might land on, or
42 otherwise touch, the panels.
43
44 Chris Sandifer: I'm not aware of any study that causes wildlife any problem.
45
46 Chair McKee: Follow up?
47
48 Commissioner Jacobs: No. He probably won't want to answer this question, but which
49 elected official was it who claimed that the solar panels were stealing the sunshine from the
50 adjoining jurisdictions?
51
9
1 Chris Sandifer: I think I won't answer that question.
2
3 Commissioner Rich: I have a question.
4
5 Chair McKee: Follow up, reasonable question.
6
7 Commissioner Rich: How long are the solar panels useful?
8
9 Chris Sandifer: The manufacturer guarantees them to 97 percent of issue to 25 years. They
10 probably have a 30-year contract here, so even if they depreciate more than that— in thirty
11 years they would still have a tremendous value in place if they were 95 percent efficient. But
12 the history is showing that they're actually exceeding those depreciation rates right now.
13 They're tracking them.
14
15 Commissioner Rich: So they're tracking them in Europe. They're not tracking them here,
16 correct? Because we haven't had them here.
17
18 Chris Sandifer: I understand, but the degration schedule they were on —what they were
19 anticipating —they're actually are exceeding that. They're actually doing better than what we
20 had first anticipated they would do. They're guaranteed for 95 percent for 25 years.
21
22 Chair McKee: Follow up?
23
24 Commissioner Rich: I'm good.
25
26 Chair McKee: Other questions?
27
28 Chris Sandifer: Thank you.
29
30 Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
31
32 Public Health, Safety and General Welfare
33 ➢ Solar projects are safe for the community
34 • Low voltage
35 o Array at much lower voltages than substations and power lines
36 o System output voltage same as existing power line
37 • All wiring and electrical equipment are covered/sealed
38 • Design and construction meets all local electrical requirements as well as
39 national electric codes
40 • All equipment certified Underwriters Laboratories standards
41 • Facility fenced with locked gate to prevent unauthorized entry
42 • Solar panels are fully encapsulated/sealed with multiple layers including a glass
43 cover and aluminum frame
44 • Within 6 months of end of term of lease— components of the solar facility
45 removed, site fertilized and reseeded with native grass
46 o Decommissioning plan filed with the County Planning Dept.
47 ➢ Testimony by Chris Sandifer, PE
48 ➢ Review of publicly available information indicates no known archaeological, cultural or
49 historical resources
10
1 ➢ Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity review process has been completed by
2 State and Federal agencies and CPCN approved for the project
3 ➢ Phase I environmental assessment has been completed with no findings
4 ➢ Project does not use any groundwater or have any impact on groundwater or water table
5
6 Commissioner Price: With regard to the environment, I know it says —well, the Wildlife
7 Resources Commission had recommend native species and all — and also, so my question is
8 will you be using native species as they recommend? And also pesticide usage to maintain
9 growth in weeds. Do you have a low pesticide maintenance plan?
10
11 Brian Quinlan: We will not use pesticides. We don't use pesticides.
12
13 Commissioner Price: Thank you.
14
15 Brian Quinlan: We will remove the trees. There are small trees and shrubs in the vicinity of
16 the leased area itself. The balance of the trees on the outside perimeter, we will not touch. And
17 then for landscaping maintenance I would say we generally will have guys come in spring
18 through fall, on a regular basis, kind of a rotating basis because it's pretty large facility to keep
19 the weeds below the bottom level of the panels. And they'll just use mowers, and essentially,
20 weed whackers to do that.
21
22 Brian Quinlan: When we decommission it? We won't plant—we will do the landscape buffer,
23 we'll plant indigenous species that are required to meet the buffer standards. And then in the
24 decommissioning, we'll come in, we'll pull everything out, and then we will reseed with, you
25 know, local seed as well.
26
27 Commissioner Price: I was thinking mostly with the landscaping while it is in operation. This
28 also gets to maintenance. I know I might sound like I'm going off track, and I know our attorney
29 might reel me in, but who is the actual owner of the public utility that is going to be using this
30 power? And it gets more to who's going to be responsible for maintaining this site? Is it who
31 you're selling the energy?
32
33 Brian Quinlan: I guess there are two components to that. So the actual solar panels
34 themselves, up to the transformer, will be owned by up to the inverter will be owned by us,
35 basically. Then it transitions the ownership —the transformer will be installed by the utility— by
36 Duke. And then from that point on —which basically then hooks into their distribution line —
37 that's all their responsibility. So downstream is us, upstream is them.
38
39 Commissioner Price: Thank you.
40
41 Commissioner Jacobs: And who is responsible for cleaning up the abandoned barrels, and
42 things like that, that are on the site? Is that part of your due diligence, or is that outside the
43 scope?
44
45 Brian Quinlan: What abandoned barrels?
46
47 Commissioner Jacobs: Did I not see photographs?
48
49 Chair McKee: There were some photographs and some documents we have, of some trash
50 and barrels, I think was on the property.
51
11
1 Commissioner Jacobs: Some of the area where it had been logged.
2
3 Brian Quinlan: It was on the entrance of the property, it wasn't in the leased area, I don't think.
4 In any event, in the leased area it would be our responsibility to remove it, once we—we have
5 the lease in place —so that's ours.
6
7 Commissioner Jacobs: So staff has worked out what is the leased area and whether or not
8 there's any materials discarded there that need to be removed.
9
10 Brian Quinlan: There aren't any. Because the environmental assessment that was done —
11 they went in and looked at the entire area. Those barrels and such were outside of the leased
12 area.
13
14 Patrick Mallet: That's part of the furnished parcel that is a current commercial operation, so
15 once you get into the area that's proposed —the 27 acres of the 52-acre site to the rear—that's
16 pretty well cleared, and doesn't contain any known debris, or any items for cleaning up.
17 Obviously if they're going to utilize it, it's in their interest to have it ready to do the solar
18 development.
19
20 Commissioner Jacobs: So there are ponds and streams that are not part of this parcel, and
21 there are discarded barrels of something on that part—with which this Applicant has no
22 concerns under the law—what about the owner of the property, are they going be required to
23 remove any of those barrels? Is anybody testing to see whether those barrels are polluting? As
24 long —or is that irrelevant to our— I know it's irrelevant to this Applicant— but is that irrelevant to
25 the County?
26
27 Patrick Mallett: Well, it may or may not be. It depends on where the barrels are and what may
28 or may not be located within them. The 52-acre parcel is part of a Special Use Permit with
29 specific commitments to the utilization of a portion of that site and we also have, obviously, our
30 Unified Development Ordinance that governs stream buffers, and other items if there were other
31 elements that needed to be dealt with that made them complaint with our ordinance, then we
32 would certainly do so. That's our obligation, regardless of this request.
33
34 Commissioner Jacobs: Ok, so we see photographs that may indicate that there are materials
35 on the rest of the property that could be hazardous. Is anybody going to follow up?
36
37 Patrick Mallett: This went through the state clearing house system, and there were no known
38 contaminants. There was an environmental assessment that was conducted on the property,
39 which I believe evaluated the entire 52-acre site. The EPA is part of that clearinghouse. There
40 are some facilities that are located within two miles that are on the other side of US 70, that
41 believe are brown field sites that have monitoring wells associated with them. But they're not
42 part of this property. They're on the other side of the highway, and not contiguous.
43
44 Chair McKee: Let's ask the Attorney to weigh in on whether this on whether the barrels on an
45 adjacent property—or on this property, on an adjacent piece, are relevant to this discussion.
46
47 James Bryan: It would depend on the permit. I think that this permit is applying for just the
48 leased area, not the entire parcel. If that's the case, then you would treat them separately. In
49 fact, there's a recent case, within the last year or two that made it explicitly clear that jurisdiction
50 cannot withhold a permit on one property because of non-compliance in another one. So we
12
1 may become aware of this through this process —and that's good to illicit that information, and
2 that's all fine— but the ultimately force on this permit is irrelevant.
3
4 Chair McKee: Ok. Thank you.
5
6 Patrick Mallett: I understand that there was some history with regard to the adequate
7 inspection of those barrels, both by building inspections, and the Fire Marshal. They came back
8 — and you'll see in your packet that the Fire Marshal came back, and everything's clear, and
9 we've resolved any past concerns that we had, and they're meeting their needs and standards.
10
11 Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint:
12
13 ➢ Solar energy is generated with no emissions
14 • Area of Orange County designated as transitional attainment area — area that
15 has difficulty meeting/maintaining federal standards for ozone
16 • Orange County has Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Action
17 Plan
18 • Comprehensive plan supports locally generated alternative energy sources
19 ➢ Solar development has significant positive impact on the NC economy and environment
20 • Duke University reported in 2015 that 450 solar companies employ 4,300
21 workers statewide and have invested $2 billion across 55 counties, with every
22 dollar spent on state incentives returning $1.93 in benefits
23 • Generates property taxes with no burden on infrastructure (roads, electrical,
24 water or sewer) or schools
25 • NC has had significant recent issues with coal fired plant including 2014 coal ash
26 spill in Dan River
27 • Solar energy generates electricity with no environmental impact
28
29 Value of Contiguous Property
30
31 ➢ Solar facilities have no effect on the valuation of surrounding property
32 • Property appraisal report has been performed indicating no impact to adjacent
33 home values.
34
35 Merrick Parrot: Mr. Chair I would like to present out next witness to address this point. Would
36 you please state your name and business address, for the record.
37
38 Richard Kirkland: Rich Kirkland. 9408 Northfield Court, Raleigh.
39
40 Merrick Parrot: And have you been sworn in this evening?
41
42 Richard Kirkland: I have.
43
44 Merrick Parrot: How are you employed?
45
46 Richard Kirkland: I'm self-employed with Kirkland Appraisals.
47
48 Merrick Parrot: Do you have any professional licenses?
49
13
1 Richard Kirkland: I am state certified general appraiser in North Carolina, and I also have my
2 MAI designation.
3
4 Merrick Parrot: Approximately when did you get these?
5
6 Richard Kirkland: I've been appraising in North Carolina for twenty years, and it's been about
7 thirteen years since I got my MAI.
8
9 Merrick Parrot: How long have you been practicing as an appraiser?
10
11 Richard Kirkland: Twenty years.
12
13 Merrick Parrot: Please describe your experience with solar development.
14
15 Richard Kirkland: I've been looking at impact study analysis around solar farms for the last
16 four or five years. Over that time, I've looked at over 200 solar farms.
17
18 Merrick Parrot: Were you engaged by the Applicant to testify this evening?
19
20 Richard Kirkland: I was.
21
22 Merrick Parrot: Thank you. I would now tender Mr. Kirkland as a qualified expert witness in
23 the field of real property valuation and land use impacts.
24
25 Chair McKee: Ok. Mr. Kirkland.
26
27 Richard Kirkland: Good evening. I appreciate the time here tonight, and I'll try to be quick as I
28 can while still explaining what I'm doing here. If you have any questions afterwards,just let me
29 know.
30
31 Chair McKee: And we may interrupt you also, as we go along.
32
33 Richard Kirkland: That's perfectly fine. Again, I've been looking at this question on impact
34 analysis. I do impact analysis for a number of different uses but I have been looking at solar
35 farms, in particular, over the last four to five years, as I've been going across the state. I've
36 visited over 200 solar farm sites across North Carolina, and been quantifying what uses are next
37 to them. I do this to identify where solar farms are located in North Carolina.
38
39 Merrick Parrot: My apologies, I meant to ask you, did you prepare an affidavit.
40
41 Richard Kirkland: I did.
42
43 Merrick Parrot: And you also prepared a report this evening?
44
45 Richard Kirkland: I did.
46
47 Merrick Parrot: Yes. Both of those are located behind tab 4. Thank you.
48
49 Richard Kirkland: Thank you. I'll start with the subject property. I looked around it, identified
50 all the parcels, and looked at what those adjoining uses are. In the same manner, I've been
51 doing that same breakdown of adjoining uses for all 200 solar farms I've been looking at across
14
1 the State. I have charted those adjoining uses across the state. You can find that on page 16 of
2 the report. I think at the point that I generated this report I had 173 solar farms in that break
3 down. And it shows what those adjoining uses are. The vast majority are agriculture and
4 residential uses, with a minority of about 5 to zero percent, depending on how you look at it,
5 going commercial-industrial adjoining uses.
6
7 I looked at all these properties adjoining it, based on number of parcels, as well as total by
8 acreage. If you look at it just by total acreage, a large farm next to it could distort numbers, but
9 if you look at it just by parcels —so you have to look at both. This subject property is very
10 similar to this. There's a little bit of highway commercial along 70. Other than that it's primarily
11 residential, with a little agricultural next to it. So it's very consistent with what I've seen across
12 the state. I've looked at this breakdown whether it was the coastal plains or the piedmont,
13 mountains; I get the same breakdown. If I look at it by different counties, I still get that same
14 breakdown. It's very consistent across the state. So this is a very similar location where solar
15 farms across North Carolina are being located.
16
17 The other thing I've been doing while I've been quantifying these adjoining uses is looking for
18 sales of land next to solar farms, or sales of homes next to solar farms. That's the start of doing
19 what's called a paired sale, or match pair analysis. And it's really a straightforward idea. You
20 look at something that sold next to the solar farm, and compare it something that's identical, as
21 much as possible, in every way, but not next to a solar farm, to measure for the impact.
22
23 There's really a textbook example of this on page 6, there's a solar farm that was developed
24 next to a sub division that was going in in Goldsboro. Homes were under construction, and
25 being sold, before the solar farm was announced. So there was no anticipation of a solar farm.
26 Then after the solar farm was announced and built, homes continued to be built. So there is a
27 breakdown continuing on the following pages, through pages 7 and 8, showing homes sales in
28 that area, before and after the solar farm was announced, and also showing homes that
29 happened adjoining the solar farm, and those that were down the street, not adjoining the solar
30 farm. Same size, same style home, selling for the same price per square foot, regardless of it
31 was before or after the solar farm, or whether it adjoins the solar farm, or is down the street.
32 There are identical homes, actually the exact same floor plan, selling for the same price,
33 regardless — again —whether it was before or after, adjacent or down the street. I talked to the
34 builder-developer team who were dealing with this. They indicated that the solar farm presence
35 had no impact on how quickly they sold out. So it had no impact on timing of sales. There has
36 been a resale of one of those homes that the builder sold to an end user. Sold it in 2013, it
37 resold again in 2015. It showed appreciation consistent with what you'd expect in the area, so
38 it's had no impact on appreciation on homes sales in that area either. So there's a multitude of
39 match pairs that can be looked at it that one development.
40
41 On the following pages after that, I've got a couple other match pair analysis from some other
42 subdivisions, and some agricultural land that I've looked at. They again show no impact on
43 those sales. So it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm — it is going to be
44 located in a place very similar to this — and the match pairs show no impact on value.
45 therefore conclude there is no impact on value on the adjoining properties at this location, here
46 in Mebane. And again, that's consistent with the fact that this is where solar farms are located
47 in North Carolina, and it's also consistent with my experience looking at other impacts. Again,
48 do a lot of impact analyses — not just for solar farms —and when you find an impact, there tends
49 to be sort of categories where things kind of happen. If you can measure an impact, the biggest
50 impacts come from anything that's dealing with hazardous materials. You know, if there's any
15
1 concerns over ground water, or anything like that—that's always going to be a big impact. And
2 there are no concerns like that with solar farms.
3
4 Next, is the odor. I actually appraise poultry farms, and things of that nature. I've done impact
5 analysis on those as well as looking at solid waste facilities, and wastewater treatment plants.
6 And there are measurable impacts. Those tend to be the next highest category of impact on
7 adjoining properties. And again, there are no odors associated with solar farms. There is no
8 out-gassing, or anything that would cause those concerns.
9
10 Next would be noise impact levels. Again there are no noise impacts coming off the solar
11 farms. At night, they're silent. During the day—from the fence line, I've never been able to hear
12 the inverters. I understand there's a fan going somewhere in the solar farm, but I've never really
13 been able to hear them over background noise. So, there's no impact off that.
14
15 You now come down to stigma and that is the next category, which is normally like concerns
16 over, say adult establishments near residences, or things of that nature. There are no stigma
17 associated with solar farms.
18
19 The last category is appearance. And that's the only area where solar farms really talk about—
20 again, when I talk about these categories, appearance, typically, is going to fall on a very small
21 range of impact. When I have determined impact before, it's been looking at things like water
22 towers, looking at billboard signs, things that are up high and are very visible and hard to
23 obscure. The solar panels in this case, are going to be less than ten feet tall. There's going to
24 be landscape buffers and they are going to be hard to see and they are going to be very well
25 screened. They re really well consistent with areas, and I really don't project any impact due to
26 appearance. So again, it's my professional opinion, that not only will this have no impact on
27 adjoining property values, but it's also a harmonious location for a solar farm. I'd be happy to go
28 back over any of this, or answer any questions.
29
30 Chair McKee: Questions? I believe not. Thank you sir.
31
32 Richard Kirkland: Thank you very much.
33
34 Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
35
36 ➢ Project to maintain existing trees and shrubs on perimeter and supplement as necessary
37 to provide buffer meeting Type D requirements (Option 1)
38 • 50' landscape buffer surrounding the site
39 o Provides visual separation/screening
40 o Project will not be seen from surrounding properties
41 • Prevents any potential glare from project to surrounding properties and streets
42 ➢ NC Utilities Commission has determined that the project is a public necessity (issuance
43 of CPCN)
44
45 Landscape requirement (chart)
46
47 Landscape plan (sketch)
48
49 Harmony and compliance
50 ➢ County planning process acknowledges that solar projects can be compatible in R1
51 zoning
16
1 ➢ Project does not require water or sewer
2 ➢ Traffic study performed
3 • Less than one car per day during operation
4 • No employees on site
5 o Two scheduled maintenances annually
6 o May through September more activity to maintain landscaping
7
8 Chair McKee: Now you say twice a year for scheduled maintenance— and you mentioned a
9 little earlier about the "mowing". Scheduled maintnenace is not including the mowing, I'm
10 assuming.
11
12 Brian Quinlan: Correct.
13
14 Chair McKee: Ok.
15
16 Brian Quinlan: There will probably be different groups that we hire to do that. More technical
17 guys to go in and actually make sure the system is working, and then more landscapers to
18 actually do the landscaping.
19
20 ➢ Solar facilities have no significant impact on the permeability of the land and do not
21 require permanent storm water management
22 • Panels are supported on direct driven piles — no cement pilings
23 • Land is not paved and any civil site work is minimized
24 ➢ Low intensity development of solar facility with minimal impact on land
25 maintains/preserves the existing surrounding wetlands and significant amount of
26 woodland
27 ➢ Wetlands have been delineated by environmental engineers and confirmed by USACE
28 • Wetlands are delineated on surveys and construction drawings
29 • Project construction and operation has no impact on wetlands
30 • Buffer maintained between project and wetlands
31 ➢ Site designated 10-year transition area in County land use plan
32 • Transition from rural/low density to higher density uses
33 • Solar project consistent with plan
34 o Beneficial use of site with limited/no capacity for higher density uses
35 o Provides tax base to support transition with no impact on infrastructure
36 o Location of project and design are compatible with low and high density
37 Not visible
38 No noise
39 + No traffic
40 ➢ County plan emphasizes sustainable growth balancing social, economic and
41 environmental factors
42 • Solar project supports all factors
43 ➢ County land use plan encourages locally generated alternative energy resources and
44 promotes alternative and sustainable fuels
45 ➢ Landscaping requirements and location of project will make it not visible from nearest
46 residence and street
47 • Prevents glare from the project
48 ➢ Decommissioning plan submitted to County to remove all equipment and restore
49 property
50
17
1 Chair McKee: May I ask a question — I hate to keep interrupting —on the decommissioning. Is
2 decommissioning after 25 —after the lease term —a given, or is there an option for refurbishing,
3 and a continuance?
4
5 Brian Quinlan: So, the way it's set up in North Carolina is there is a 15-year contract with Duke
6 Energy. So essentially we're locked in for that 15-year period. And at the end of that 15-year
7 period, who knows what's going to happen in the industry. I mean, what I do know, we'll be able
8 to produce power at a lower rate than anybody because we don't have any variable costs,
9 because we get it from the sun. So, if we can find either Duke wants to buy the product— and
10 the market evolves, like in the northeast— and PJM you can sell wholesale —you can't do that
11 here yet, but at that point you might. And we have 5-year options after that to extend the plan.
12 And like we mentioned earlier, the panels will last for a really long time, easily fifty years. The
13 system really is designed to be a very long life asset.
14
15 Chair McKee: Ok.
16
17 Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
18
19 ➢ Solar Project meets all County land use goals:
20 Land Use Goal 1:
21 Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the
22 provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life.
23 Land Use Goal 2:
24 Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and
25 that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character.
26 Land Use Goal 3:
27 A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits
28 sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts,
29 supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system.
30 Land Use Goal 4:
31 Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or incentives that promote
32 the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals.
33 Land Use Goal 5:
34 Life, health, and property safe from hazards.
35 Land Use Goal 6:
36 A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive.
37
38 ➢ Solar project meets all County standards for a Solar Array (UDO § 5.9.6(C))
18
(C) Standards for Solar Array— Public Utility (Class A Special Use Permit)
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following shall be
submitted as part of the application:
(a) A site plan showing all existing structures on the property, any proposed
buildings or structures that are necessary to support the proposed array,
existing and proposed storage areas, parking and access areas,
topography at a contour interval of five feet, any officially designated
floodpllains or alluvial soils.
(b) Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and arrays as well as
descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials.
(c) Landscape Plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing
and proposed trees, shrubs,, ground cover and other landscape material
(d) A soils report denoting the types of soil on the property including detail
on the compaction necessary to support the proposed development.
(2) Standards of Evaluation
(a) All on-site utility and transmission lines shallll, to the extent feasible, be
placed underground.
(b) The height of proposed arrays and support structures shall not exceed
40 feet..
(c) Individual arrays/solar panels shall be designed and located in order to
prevent reflective glare toward any inhabited buildings on adjacent
properties as well as adjacent street rights-of-way.
(d) A clearly visible warning sign concerning voltage must be placed at the
base of all pad-mounted transformers and substations,
(e) All mechanical equipment of principal solar energy systems including any
structure for batteries or storage cells, shall be completely enclosed by a
minimum eight (8)foot high fence with a self-locking gate, and provided
with screening in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.8.
1
2
3 Specific Standards
4 ➢ Specific Standards for Special Use Permits (UDO § 5.3.2(B))
5 • (1) Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste,
6 and water
7 o There will be no on-site personnel, so the Facility will not require sewage
8 disposal facilities, solid waste, or water services
9 • (2) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection
10 o Orange County Emergency Service staff and Sheriff's office have
11 indicated the project can be served
12 • (3) Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions
13 around the site
14 o Facility will be accessed by a driveway constructed to NCDOT standards
15 o Traffic study found site would be accessed by less than one car per day
16 during operation
17 • (4) Other use specific standards as set forth herein
19
1 o As previously addressed, project meets all County standards for a Solar
2 Array
3
4 Conclusion
(a) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated
according to the plan as submitted;
(b) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property
(unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not
maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); and
(c) The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan
submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be (located)
and the use its in compliance 'with the plan for the physical development
of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive
Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners,
5
6 Chair McKee: Questions from the Board on any of this presentation, either by staff or by
7 Applicant? Commissioner Dorosin.
8
9 Commissioner Dorosin: So if this permit gets approved, what is the timetable from starting
10 construction to it being up and running.
11
12 Brian Quinlan: It's about a six-month process, basically, to build the finished design, and then
13 build the system. So the construction period is about six months. It's actually the shortest
14 period of all the process that we go through.
15
16 Chair McKee: Other questions? Commissioner Rich.
17
18 Commissioner Rich: Are the panels made in America?
19
20 Brian Quinlan: These panels —we haven't finalized selection — but I would say probably they
21 will not be made in America. There are only two panel manufacturers in the US at this point.
22
23 Commissioner Rich: That is sad.
24
25 Brian Quinlan: It is.
26
27 Chair McKee: Does that conclude everyone that you all had that you wished to speak?
28
29 Merrick Parrot: Yes, that concludes our testimony for this evening. As Mr. Quinlan stated, we
30 believe we have met all of the applicable standards of the UDO. We believe that we have met
31 our burden as the Applicant to provide competent material and substantial evidence here this
32 evening, and ask that you do approve the Special Use Permit in front of you. I understand that
33 there may be additional people speaking tonight, and want to reserve the right to rebut or ask
34 cross-examination as needed. In addition, we are, of course, available for any additional
35 questions you may have.
36
20
1 Chair McKee: Before we move to any other individuals intending to provide testimony I would
2 ask if there are further questions from our Board. I would also ask our Attorney that this
3 information will be automatically entered into the record; or do we need a formal motion to
4 accept the material and enter it into the record, as presented?
5
6 James Bryan: It would not hurt to have a clear motion on the record
7
8 Chair McKee: Because this is quasi-judicial, I think I'll go with the more formal approach. Do I
9 hear a motion to accept the evidence into the record?
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
12 accept the evidence into the record.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 Chair McKee: I will now ask if there are other individuals intending to provide testimony and
17 evidence on this project. Yes sir, if you'll come forward, and state your name and have you
18 been sworn.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT:
21
22 Chris Bishop: Hello everyone. My name is Chris Bishop, and I've been sworn in. In late
23 2013, with the goal of preventing my family's farmland in rural northern Chapel Hill from being
24 turned into residential development— also attempting to provide a modest income for my great-
25 aunt who'd just suffered a stroke— I sought alternatives for the use of our family's farm land,
26 and one of those alternatives was solar. I began exploring possibilities of putting a solar array,
27 much like the one being proposed here tonight on our family land, and worked with Sunlight
28 partners in conducting many feasibility studies for putting this solar array in northern Chapel Hill.
29 It was found that our site met a litany of requirements for a successful solar array, including
30 proximity to high voltage power lines.
31
32 This solar array—the proposed Binks solar array—was to power 500 homes in northern Chapel
33 Hill, and would have prevented houses from being developed on the land for 15 to 20 years.
34 For those impacted by this current proposal I just want to make the point that Lydia Wegman,
35 now the Planning Board Chairman, and her husband Robert Cantwell, whose land was adjacent
36 to our family's land — since we sold them land to build their house in the 90s — lead a successful
37 protest of their neighbors against my solar farm, encouraging everyone to go out and get
38 appraisals on the impact of a solar farm would have to their property.
39
40 I would like to just bring up the fact that the impact study, conducted as part of the Oakwood
41 Solar Farm (current applicant), found that solar farms do not have any negative impact on the
42 property values of adjacent properties. On May 27, 2014, Lydia's neighbors came to the public
43 hearing and voiced their concerns late into the night; about five and a half hours of testimony
44 about how bad solar farms are. Some things that were voiced at the public hearing are that
45 solar farms would harm home values —the primary reason of their opposition; it would increase
46 traffic in the neighborhood; the solar panels would leak chemicals into the soil; the solar array
47 would be too loud; solar panels would increase the water run off; and the solar company was
48 from Arizona, and is thus questionable not being from North Carolina. These statements were
49 all refuted by qualified engineers at the time. As a result of this opposition, sunlight partners
50 withdrew its application for the Binks Array, leaving Orange County with one less solar farm.
51 Had that not happened, this would be the fifth solar farm in Orange County. My question tonight
21
1 is simple—why I'm here, and what I'm trying to understand is —what's so different about the
2 current proposal —the Binks proposal —other than being adjacent to the Chairwoman's own
3 property?
4
5 Chair McKee: Sir, I understand your frustration, I understand that the project was voluntarily
6 withdrawn. I'm not sure it is relevant to this discussion tonight. I don't have an answer for you.
7
8 Chris Bishop: Ok. Thank you.
9
10 Chair McKee: Are there other individuals that would like to provide testimony and evidence on
11 this project? Any questions from our Board at this point. Then I would ask staff to review the
12 recommending findings for the project in attachment 8 in our packet.
13
14 Patrick Mallett: Attachment 8 outlines the findings of fact. That is on page 217 of your packet.
15 The cover page is basically a summary of the general and specific findings that are applicable to
16 the Special Use Permit Class As, and then this specific type of request for a solar array. If you
17 move onto the second page, items in section 2 articulate the application components.
18 Determinations from both staff and the Planning Board were that they met all those
19 requirements. If you turn to the next page, that articulates all the notification requirements for
20 the public notice.
21
22 Chair McKee: Mr. Mallett, you've mentioned 217 in our packet that we received.
23
24 Patrick Mallett: Attachment 8 is, I believe, on 217.
25
26 Commissioner Jacobs: 224.
27
28 Patrick Mallett: Page 224. There in green are the application components: the conditions
29 were met, the notification requirements are articulated on the next page, which is the public
30 notice, the newspaper ad, the sign, and the mailed notice to adjacent property owners within
31 1000 feet. Just as a parenthetical, we meet or exceed the State requirements for Special Use
32 Permits; specifically our notification to property owners. The next page outlines specific
33 standards with regards to waste disposal, safety, and vehicular access. The determination was
34 that they met all of those standards. The next page outlined in grey, is specific standards for
35 solar array public utility. The determination was that they met all of those standards. The next
36 page is the three specific findings and standards that are to be met. These are the items that
37 you would need to, of course, read out verbatim, and make a motion on each item. Then the
38 last item in your packet are the recommendations, which outline conditions of approval 1-11.
39 Items 2-11 are fairly standard. Those are typical of all the other solar arrays, class A special
40 use permits that you've reviewed and approved; and/or considered. Item number 1 is unique in
41 the sense that we've asked for a conservation easement on the special flood hazard overlay
42 portion of the property, which is in the northeastern corner—there's a portion of the property
43 that's not only contained within the stream buffer, but it has a 100 year floodplain. Felt like it
44 was appropriate to preserve that area with a conservation easement.
45
46 Chair McKee: Any questions for this portion (of the packet)for staff? The Planning Board
47 Chair, or Vice-Chair, are not present. I believe we do have one person with the Planning Board.
48 Does that person wish to add any information from the Planning Board discussion? (planning
49 board member indicated she did not have anything to add) Thank you very much.
50
51
22
1 The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings
2 of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or
3 deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
6 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's
7 compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified
8 Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm
13 the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance
14 with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as
15 detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
20 affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's
21 compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified Development
22 Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm
27 the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance
28 with the provisions of 5.9.6 (C) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as
29 detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 Chair McKee: A motion will (now) need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2
34 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to find
37 there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the
38 UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if
39 located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and
40 based on the following evidence entered into the record:
41
42 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan,
43 presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing.
44 • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO.
45 • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing.
46 • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including
47 the following:
48 o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33)
23
1 o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment demonstrating there are no
2 environmental impacts associated with the project (pages 34 through
3 110)
4 o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals LLC indicating the project
5 would not impact adjacent property values (pages 111 through 134)
6 o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn (page 135)
7 o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2.
8 • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
9 And
10 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record
11 demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
12 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find
13 the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the
14 Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is
15 absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the
16 claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A)
17 (2) (a).
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
21 Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to make the 11 conditions be
22 entered, and this was accepted by the motioner and the seconder.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to find
27 there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the
28 UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property based on competent material
29 and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including:
30
31 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan,
32 presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing.
33 • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO.
34 • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing.
35 • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including
36 the following:
37 o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33)
38 o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals LLC indicating the project
39 would not impact adjacent property values (pages 111 through 134)
40 o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn (page 135)
41 o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2.
42 • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
43 And
44 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record
45 demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
50 find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c)
24
1 of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is
2 in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these
3 regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan based on competent material and evidence entered
4 into the record of these proceedings, including:
5
6 • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan,
7 presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing.
8 • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO.
9 • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing.
10 • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including
11 the following:
12 o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33)
13 o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2.
14 o Staff review comments as contained in Attachment 4.
15 • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
16 And
17 • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record
18 demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve
21 the Special Use Permit including the imposition of the conditions detailed within Attachment 8 of
22 the abstract package.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 Commissioner Jacobs: Mr. Chair, may I bring up a few things that arose, that are not a part of
27 this particular process, but were related? Does staff have pictures of pages 86 and 87? I don't
28 know if the Maces are here. But these pictures— it's pretty disturbing to think we're just leaving
29 all this —these leaking barrels and plastic containers and piles of garbage for eternity on this
30 site, without any remediation in the works. Do we have pictures?
31
32 Chair McKee: If the owners are here, I would be willing to give you the pictures as we have it in
33 our packet.
34
35 (A family member in the audience came forward and received pictures from Commissioner
36 Jacobs.)
37
38 Commissioner Price: Page 90 also.
39
40 Commissioner Jacobs: thank you. I just wanted to tell Mr. Sandifer that it was the Town of
41 Woodland. They had 3 solar arrays, and the citizens opposed a fourth. The Town got accused
42 of saying that they would suck up all the energy from the sun, but it was actually the husband of
43 a science teacher that testified, who said that. It wasn't the Town. It became a big national
44 story.
45
46
47
48
49
25
1 D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
2
3 Note: Items D.1, 2, and 3 are related but separate, stand-alone, items. Because public
4 comment may address aspects of the three items, staff's presentation will encompass all three
5 items before opening the public comment portion for each item, as well as Board actions for
6 each item.
7
8
9 Tom Altieri and Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, presented these items within one
10 PPT and one presentation for all three items.
11 Tom Altieri did the first portion and then I followed up the next portion for Perdita Holtz in Item 2
12 and 3-it was one continuous presentation.
13
14 1. Town Of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use
15 Plan Amendment -To review government-initiated amendments to the Land Use Plan,
16 involving five parcels south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86.
17 • Four parcels totaling approximately 166.2 acres are proposed to be changed from
18 "Suburban Office Complex" to "Employment".
19 • One parcel totaling 34.58 acres is proposed to be changed from "Mixed Residential
20 Neighborhood" to "Suburban Office Complex".
21
22 Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, presented the
23 following information:
24
25 BACKGROUND: The County is currently working on plans to invest approximately $1.5 million
26 to extend water and sewer infrastructure within the Hillsborough Economic Development District
27 (EDD). Amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan (JLUP) map are proposed to better promote
28 economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve planned sewer capacities for
29 non-single-family residential uses. The amendments clarify the intent for primarily nonresidential
30 mixtures of uses within this EDD. Amendments to the JLUP need to be approved by the Town
31 and County governing boards and the processes are running concurrently. An
32 interlocal utility service agreement between Orange County and Hillsborough is also being
33 prepared for the October 2016 regular Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting that
34 will have linkage to the JLUP and further describe desired land uses within the Hillsborough
35 EDD.
36
37 The Amendment Outline Form in Attachment 1 in the agenda packet provides additional
38 information, including the details of the proposed map amendment.
39
40 County Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the proposed
41 amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the meeting.
42
43 On July 21, 2016, the Town of Hillsborough Planning Board unanimously recommended
44 approval of the proposed amendment to the Town Board of Commissioners. The Town Board is
45 expected to take action on September 12.
46
47 Summary of Amendment Process:
48 County Amendment Outline Form Approved April 19
49 Hillsborough Planning Board voted to schedule hearing June 16
50 County Planning Board info item July 6
26
1 Hillsborough Town Board public hearing July 21
2 County Public Information Meeting July 26
3 County Planning Board recommendation August 3
4 Hillsborough Planning Board recommendation August 18
5 Hillsborough Town Board action September 12
6 County BOCC public hearing (possible action) September 12
7
8 Orange County is also proposing amendments to its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
9 which is not part of the joint planning construct, that pertain to the Hillsborough Economic
10 Development District. These UDO text amendments, as well as related Zoning Atlas (map)
11 amendments, are also on tonight's September 12 public hearing agenda.
12
13 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
14 proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County JLUP map amendment.
15
16 Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to
17 recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Draft minutes from this meeting are
18 included in Attachment 4 in the agenda packet. Additionally, the Ordinance Review Committee
19 (ORC), a subcommittee of the Planning Board, reviewed the proposed amendment at its July 6
20 meeting and approved notes from this meeting are included in Attachment 3.
21
22 Tom Altieri made the following PowerPoint presentation:
23 Hillsborough Economic Development District—Joint Land Use Plan, UDO, and Zoning
24 Atlas Amendments
25 Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public Hearing
26 September 12, 2016
27 Presenters: Tom Altieri, AICP and Perdita Holtz, AICP
28
29 Joint Presentation Overview
30 • Land Use Plan (Agenda item D. 1)
31 - General Guidance for Future Uses
32 • Zoning Text (Agenda item D. 2)
33 - Development Standards
34 - Permitted Uses
35 - Processes for Review
36 • Zoning Map (Agenda item D.3)
37 - Applies a specific zoning district to a geographic area
38
39 Joint Presentation but Separate Hearings and BOCC Actions
40 1. Joint Presentation
41 2. Public Hearings
42 - Agenda item D.1 - Open, Take Comments, and Close
43 - Agenda item D.2 - Open, Take Comments, and Close
44 - Agenda item D.3 - Open, Take Comments, and Close
45 3. BOCC Actions
46 - Agenda item D.1 - Discuss, Consider, and Take Action
47 - Agenda item D.2 - Discuss, Consider, and Take Action
48 - Agenda item D.3 - Discuss, Consider, and Take Action
49
50 Hillsborough EDD established in 1994 along with two other EDDs (Buckhorn and Eno).
51 Formerly Transition Areas (1981 Comprehensive Plan)
27
1
2 Purpose of Amendments
3 • County is currently working on plans to extend water and sewer infrastructure to parcels
4 south of Interstate 40.
5 • Desire to better promote economic development opportunities, especially high-tech
6 research and development/manufacturing .
7 - By-right approvals important to enhance competitiveness during site selection
8 process.
9 Site selection specialists send detailed questionnaires to potential
10 communities.
11 o Used to weed out communities that don't have sites ready-to-go.
12 • Continued interest to simplify and shorten review processes, where feasible.
13 • Ensure standards are in place to promote development that will have minimal impacts on
14 surrounding properties.
15
16 Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan
17 Map Amendment
18
19 History of Joint Planning with Hillsborough
20 Hillsborough/OC Urban Transition Area Task Force (2004)
21 Hillsborough/OC Strategic Growth Plan Phase ! (2006)
22 Phase II — Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement (2009)
23 Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan (2013)
24 Joint Resolution Amending Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement
25 (2014)
26 Proposed JLUP Amendment (Current 2016)
27
28 Land Use Plan vs. Zoning
29 Land Use Plan (LUP)/Future Land Use Map:
30 • About the future
31 • Long-term vision of how and where growth will occur
32 • Broad categories of proposed uses
33 • Text and map form the "Plan"
34 Zoning:
35 • Prime tool for implementing LUP
36 • About what is allowed today
37 • More specific zones and rules governing uses that outline design and development
38 standards (setbacks, minimum lot size, buffering, etc.)
39 • Text and map in an "Ordinance" (Unified Development Ordinance)
40
41 166-Acres (4 parcels)
42 From: Suburban Office Complex-
43 • Office and employment enterprises
44 • Limits walk in customers and manufacturing components
45 To: Employment
46 • Business, light industrial, office, research and development, restaurants, retails and
47 convenience shopping/services
48
49 35-acres (1 parcel)
50 From: Mixed Residential Neighborhood
28
1 • Residential dominant
2 • Variety of dwelling types and densities
3 • May integrate supportive commercial, public/semi-public, and public space uses
4 To: Suburban Office Complex
5 • Office and employment enterprises
6 • Limits walk in customers and manufacturing components
7
8 Why Switch Designations?
9 • Proposed districts better describe the types of uses the County is attempting to promote.
10 - Single-family residential not envisioned for the Economic Development District.
11 • Infrastructure extensions being funded from Article 46 sales tax monies
12 ("1/4-cent sales tax") and are to be used economic development
13 purposes, not residential subdivisions.
14
15 Planning Board Recommendation
16 • Considered at August 3, 2016 meeting
17 - Voted 7-1 to recommend approval
18
19 Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, presented the following background and
20 PowerPoint presentation for Item D-2
21
22 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
23 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that would modify existing regulations that pertain
24 to the Hillsborough Economic Development District.
25
26
27 BACKGROUND: In order to better promote economic development opportunities in the
28 Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD), the Planning Director is suggesting UDO
29 text amendments to modify some development standards, types of permitted uses, and use
30 standards. Plans for County investment in water and sewer infrastructure to parcels south of
31 Interstate 40 and in the vicinity of Old Highway 86 are underway and these UDO text
32 amendments focus on this geographic area in conjunction with a related, separate proposed
33 rezoning action.
34
35 Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. Proposed
36 text amendment language can be found in Attachment 3 within a "track changes" format.
37 Attachment 4 contains information summarizing some aspects of the proposed amendments.
38 The map in Attachment 5 shows the extent of the Hillsborough EDD. Attachment 8 is the NAICS
39 (North American Industry Classification System) code list; it is included because uses only in the
40 Hillsborough EDD are regulated by NAICS sectors. Planning and Attorney's office staffs will
41 continue to analyze the unique use of the NAICS system for permitted use consistency and
42 changes necessary due to judicial decisions.
43
44 Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the proposed
45 amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the meeting.
46
47 The Planning Department and Economic Development Departments have reviewed and
48 discussed these amendments and find they further joint goals.
49
29
1 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
2 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
3 contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
4
5 Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to
6 recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the amendment package.
7 Additionally, the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a subcommittee of the Planning Board,
8 reviewed the proposed amendments at its July 6 meeting and approved notes from this meeting
9 are included in Attachment 6.
10
11 Following the August 3rd Planning Board meeting, County Attorney staff completed their review
12 of the proposed text amendments. As a result of the review, edits were made to the proposed
13 amendments. The edits made after the August 3rd meeting are identified with yellow
14 highlighting in Attachment 3. Due to these edits, Planning staff will present the proposed
15 amendments for a second review and recommendation at the September 7, 2016 Planning
16 Board meeting. Planning staff will present a summary of the Planning Board's discussion and
17 recommendation for the BOCC at the September Quarterly Public Hearing.
18
19 Hillsborough Economic Development District—Joint Land Use Plan, UDO, and Zoning
20 Atlas Amendments
21 Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public Hearing
22 September 12, 2016
23 Presenters: Tom Altieri, AICP and Perdita Holtz, AICP
24
25 Joint Presentation Overview
26 • Land Use Plan (Agenda item D. 1)
27 - General Guidance for Future Uses
28 • Zoning Text (Agenda item D. 2)
29 - Development Standards
30 - Permitted Uses
31 - Processes for Review
32 • Zoning Map (Agenda item D.3)
33 - Applies a specific zoning district to a geographic area
34
35 Joint Presentation but Separate Hearings and BOCC Actions
36
37 UDO Text Amendment
38 Item D.2
39
40 Overview
41 • Modify some development standards
42 • Revisions to types of permitted uses
43 • Amendments to some use-specific standards
44
45 Reminder Regarding Existing Standards
46 • UDO contains a myriad of standards in place to lessen any impacts/mitigate impacts of
47 development.
48 - Use-specific standards in Article 5
49 - General standards (applies to all development) in Article 6.
50 - Examples — Performance Standards:
51 • Electrical Disturbance or Interference (Sec. 6.4.2)
30
1 • Noise (Sec. 6.4.3)
2 • Vibration (Sec. 6.4.4)
3 • Air Pollution (Sec. 6.4.5)
4 • Disposal of Liquid Wastes (Sec. 6.4.6)
5 • Hazardous Materials (Sec. 6.4.7)
6 • Utilities (including water use limitations; any use projected to require more
7 than 30,000 gallons per day cannot be permitted by-right) (Sec. 6.4.8)
8 • Solid Waste (Sec. 6.4.9)
9 • Service & Outdoor Storage (Sec. 6.4.10)
10 - Architectural Design Standards (Sec. 6.5.1)
11 - Landscaping, Buffers &Tree Protection (Sec. 6.8)
12 - Parking, Loading & Circulation (Sec. 6.9)
13 - Outdoor Lighting (Sec. 6.11)
14 - Signs (Sec. 6.12)
15 - Stream Buffers, Stormwater Management, and Soil Erosion & Sedimentation
16 Control (Sec. 6.13 to 6.15)
17 - Traffic Impact Analysis (Sec. 6.17)
18
19 Specific Amendments
20 • Lessening of minimum lot size standard in four of the five EDH zoning districts
21 - Lots on public water and sewer do not need to be as large as lots served by well
22 and septic
23 • Moving towards by-right approvals
24 - Detailed site plan required and must meet all requirements in UDO
25 - Remove requirement for a Special Use Permit for structures over 20,000 square
26 feet in size and/or development on lots greater than 2 acres in size
27 - Non-residential development within 200 feet of a lot smaller than 2 acres in size
28 with an existing dwelling will still require a Special Use Permit.
29 • Revising three of the EDH zoning district to have a slightly different focus.
30 • EDH-3 currently allows residential, including single-family and duplex residential.
31 - Remove single-family and duplexes as permitted uses.
32 - Multi-family still permitted but only as a portion of a mixed use development plan
33 that includes at least one other permitted principal use.
34 • Purpose is to promote the EDD for non-residential uses.
35 • Sewer lines to be extended using Article 46 sales tax monies
36 which are earmarked for economic development purposes.
37 • Single-family and duplex residential could still be allowed through the
38 MPD-CZ process or as a Conditional Use District,just not permitted by-
39 right.
40 • EDH-4 is proposed to have multi-family residential and retail added as permitted uses.
41 - These types of uses would be permitted by-right only as a portion of a mixed use
42 development plan that includes at least one other permitted principal use.
43 • EDH-5 is proposed to be revised to have a research and manufacturing focus.
44 - Desire to promote high tech research and development and supporting
45 businesses
46 Several types of by-right uses would be added to EDH-5 (red * in EDH-5 column
47 of Table of Permitted Uses).
48 • Retail trade and restaurants would have to be part of a mixed use
49 development plan that includes other permitted uses in order to be
50 allowed by-right.
51
31
1 Permitted Use Table (chart)
2
3 Example: Density Chart
4
5 Example: 35-acre parcel, zoned EDH-4, choosing to develop both multi-family and retail
6 • Hypothetical, based on realistic assumptions about parking requirements, which vary
7 greatly depending on use and assuming surface parking only.
8
9 Planning Board Recommendation
10 • Considered at August 3, 2016 meeting
11 - Voted 7-1 to recommend approval
12 • Modifications suggested by Attorney's Office after August 3 meeting were considered at
13 the September 7 Planning Board meeting
14 - Voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the modified amendments
15
16 Perdita Holtz continued the PowerPoint presentation for item D-3:
17
18 3. Zoning Map Amendment -To review government-initiated amendments to the Zoning
19 Atlas that would rezone:
20 • Four parcels totaling approximately 166.2 acres and 17.05 acres of Interstate right-
21 of-way from EDH-3 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office with
22 Residential [current name]) to EDH-5 (Economic Development Hillsborough
23 Research and Manufacturing [proposed name]). The parcels are located
24 immediately south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86.
25 • One parcel totaling 34.58 acres and 8.92 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-2
26 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) to EDH-4 (Economic
27 Development Hillsborough Office/ Retail [proposed name]). The parcel is located
28 immediately south of Interstate 40 and east of Old Highway 86.
29
30
31 BACKGROUND: In order to better promote economic development opportunities in the
32 Hillsborough EDD, the Planning Director is suggesting amendments to the Zoning Atlas.
33
34 A coordination meeting was held with the Town of Hillsborough's Planning Director who concurs
35 with these proposals. Plans are currently underway to extend water and sewer infrastructure to
36 the portion of the EDD south of Interstate 40. All or portions of 4 parcels, totaling 166.2 acres,
37 located west of Old Highway 86 are proposed to be rezoned from EDH-3 (Economic
38 Development Hillsborough Limited Office with Residential [current name]) to EDH-5 (Economic
39 Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing [proposed name]). One 34.58 acre
40 parcel located east of Old Highway 86 is proposed to be rezoned from EDH-2 (Economic
41 Development Hillsborough Limited Office) to EDH-4 (Economic Development Hillsborough
42 Office/ Retail [proposed name]).
43
44 Three overlay districts also apply in this geographic area (Watershed Protection, Special Flood
45 Hazard Area, and Major Transportation Corridor). No modifications are being proposed to the
46 boundaries of the three overlay districts and requirements related to the overlay districts will
47 continue to apply. This area is not located in a critical or protected watershed. Attachment 1
48 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. The proposed
49 ordinance, including a map that shows the extent of the proposed rezoning, can be found in
50 Attachment 3. Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the
32
1 proposed amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the
2 meeting.
3
4 The Planning Department and Economic Development Departments have reviewed and
5 discussed these amendments and find they further joint goals.
6
7 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
8 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
9 contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
10
11 Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to
12 recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the Zoning Atlas amendments.
13
14 Zoning Atlas Amendment
15 Item D.3
16
17 Proposed Rezoning
18 • 166.2 acres (4 parcels) plus 17.05 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-3 to EDH-5
19 (west of Old Hwy 86)
20 • 34.58 acres (1 parcel) plus 8.92 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-2 to EDH-4
21 (east of Old Hwy 86)
22 • Three overlay districts also apply in this area —they are not proposed for modifications
23 - Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District
24 - Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District
25 - Watershed Protection Overlay District
26 • This area is in the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed
27
28 Proposed Hillsborough EDD Zoning Amendments with Overlay Districts (map)
29
30 Orange County Watersheds (map)
31
32 Mailed Notification Area for Zoning Amendments —
33
34 Two Notices:
35 1. Public Info. Meeting (7/26) and Planning Board Meeting (8/3)
36 2. Public Hearing (9/12)
37
38 Signs Posted Twice
39
40 Public Comment at Planning Board Meeting
41
42 Planning Board Recommendation
43 • Considered at August 3, 2016 meeting
44 - Voted 7-1 to recommend approval
45
46 Public Hearings
47 Agenda item D.1 —Town Of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated
48 Area Land Use Plan Amendment
49
50 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update, regarding a potential water and sewer
51 written agreement with Hillsborough, before extending utilities.
33
1 Tom Altieri said that is still the intention to have such an agreement, and a first draft
2 should be before the Board of County Commissioners within the next month or two. He said
3 nothing will take place until this agreement is in place.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said when the agreement was negotiated with Hillsborough; some
5 trades in acreage were also made.
6 Commissioner Jacobs referenced some concerns in the Planning Board minutes in their
7 packet, and staff addressed these concerns.
8 Perdita Holtz said Michael Harvey, Planning, is working with the County Attorney's office
9 on some of these issues, such as the table of permitted uses to address some judicial decisions
10 that took place in the last year.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this evening's proposed amendments are approved, will
12 the aforementioned changes be put on hold.
13 Perdita Holtz said technically the uses will be allowed, but practically it would be doubtful
14 that they will be allowed.
15 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Attorney had any input.
16 James Bryan said from the legal perspective, the table of permitted uses is what it is;
17 and if does not specifically prohibit something, then it is allowed. He said if the Board wants to
18 clarify a specific issue, prior to staff attempting to clarify the bigger picture, the Board can do so.
19 Commissioner Jacobs suggested removing the following uses: poultry processing
20 leather and hide tanning and finishing, asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing,
21 explosives manufacturing, fertilizer manufacturing. He said it is unreasonable to leave them in,
22 and if changes are being made to the uses, this is the time to remove them. He said he cannot
23 vote on it, as he doesn't know the possibilities.
24 Perdita Holtz said on the NAICS Code is on pages 319-359 of agenda packet.
25 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the uses he mentioned be removed from the uses
26 for the EDD.
27 Commissioner Jacobs asked if is there a floodplain, and if so, how it affects the parcels.
28 Perdita Holtz said there is a floodplain, the special flood hazard overlay district. She
29 said the UDO does not allow development in the floodplain, and also requires a buffer.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if, within this floodplain, there is still going to be areas that
31 unable to be developed, even though they will be rezoned.
32 Perdita Holtz said yes.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said he will review these uses, and will get back to staff with a
34 more formalized proposal.
35 Commissioner Dorosin asked if everything in those 45 pages is permissible.
36 Perdita Holtz said she would have to compare the two tables.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said one option would be to defer this item to allow for more time
38 and clarity.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said he would be comfortable with Commissioner Dorosin's
40 suggestion, and asked staff to come back.
41 Commissioner Pelissier shared Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. She said the list is so
42 long to review, and determining what is onerous is a judgement issue.
43 Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff could identify what about the UDO would end up
44 excluding some of these uses, even though the uses may be permitted.
45 Perdita Holtz said the performance standards that focus on things like pollution and
46 noise. She said many of the items in Article 6.
47 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the concerns from this rezoning would also apply to
48 other EDD areas in the County.
49 Perdita Holtz said only the Hillsborough EDD is governed by the NAICS Code. She said
50 in the other EDDs the uses are listed in the permitted use table.
34
1 Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. She asked if all types of
2 drive thrus would be completely excluded.
3 Perdita Holtz said the EDH — 1 and EDH — 2 district currently has an existing standard
4 that was not suggested for removal.
5 Commissioner Price said drive up pharmacies and grocery pick-ups are very necessary
6 for some residents with mobility challenges.
7 Perdita Holtz said, under the current standards, a developer could come in with a
8 MPDCZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District) to build a drive through, and the
9 Board would decide. She said staff would like to have direction from Board of County
10 Commissioners as to whether the drive thru standard should stay or be removed.
11 Commissioner Price said she understands the reservations about drive thrus, but also
12 sees their benefits.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said this goes back to the Buckhorn Village, where the Board
14 wanted to exclude drive thrus. He said there was then a split vote on whether to exclude them
15 countywide. He said he would prefer the route to have the default be no, but an exception to
16 the drive thru standard can be requested. He said it is preferable for able bodied people to get
17 out of the car and walk, but there are residents who cannot get out of the car.
18 Commissioner Dorosin disagreed. He said the restriction of drive thrus is overly limiting
19 to economic development, and there are more important changes that can be made to reduce
20 the County's carbon footprint. He said he would be open to removing the prohibition.
21 Commissioner Burroughs said she tends to agree with Commissioner Dorosin. She said
22 there are a number of categories of people that can greatly benefit from drive thru options.
23 Commissioner Price said there is an element of keeping up with the times.
24 Commissioner Rich said she would favor leaving the restriction in, and having proposed
25 drive thrus reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said obesity is a major problem in this country.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said the stretch of 1-40 in Orange County is a bit of a wasteland,
28 and there is an economic question to consider here.
29 Chair McKee said drive thrus are a fact of life, and he would vote for removing the
30 restriction.
31 Chair McKee said he would not mind delaying this item. He said he would pick one of
32 these permitted uses, and asked Perdita Holtz if she could run through the process as if a type
33 of business wanted to relocate in the Hillsborough EDD.
34 Perdita Holtz said staff would review the submitted site plan, determine whether all
35 requirements were met, and, if so, staff would approve, and then the Applicant would be in the
36 building permit process.
37 Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason why buildings three can only be three
38 stories high.
39 Perdita Holtz said it depends on the zoning district. She said staff is suggesting
40 increasing the multi-family structures restriction from 2 stories to three stories.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said there were 4 Board members that wanted to make the
42 change on the drive thru restriction, but asked if there difference between leaving the restriction
43 as is, and having a builder come to the Board with a MPDCZ, versus lifting the restriction; the
44 notion of by right versus by possibility.
45 Perdita Holtz said the MPDCZ is a re-zoning process and a legislative process. She
46 said a site plan would need to be submitted; go through the Planning Board review, and then to
47 a Quarterly Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
48 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are differences in time or cost between the two
49 methods.
50 Perdita Holtz said from the application deadline date, of which there is one per quarter
51 with the current MPDCZ process, it is 3 to 4 months before an Applicant hears an answer; with
35
1 a "by right" process, staff can usually have an answer within a month. She said cost would be
2 the same with either process.
3
4 PUBLIC COMMENT- D.1
5 Chris Cole said he is appreciative of the standards, and he suggested taking out all of
6 the manufacturing uses on the permitted uses tables. He also suggested waiting until someone
7 purchases property before re-zoning, since he would rather have a manufacturing plan rather
8 than a waste transfer station near him. He said he is in favor of economic development, as
9 long as it is not noisy or smelly, and does not affect property values.
10 Mark Marcoplos referred to the drive thru issue, and said he was on the Planning Board
11 in 2010 when this was last discussed. He said at that time, the idea of having a public
12 education campaign on pollution, etc. in reference to drive thrus was discussed. He said he
13 thought it was a good idea at that time, and suggested implementing the same idea now. He
14 said cars idling in carlines at schools emit far more gas than at a drive thru.
15 Commissioner Jacobs asked Perdita Holtz if page 21, oil and gas extraction, should be
16 excluded.
17 Perdita Holtz said sector 21 was not listed, and if it is not listed it is not prohibited.
18 Perdita Holtz said staff would talk with the Attorney's office, and would come back to the
19 Board. She said staff was under the impression that only the sector number had to be
20 considered, but that does not seem to be the case now, so the Attorney's guidance will be
21 needed going forward.
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
24 close the public hearing and approve Item D.1 and adopt the proposed amendment by
25 approving the Resolution (Attachment 2).
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 PUBLIC COMMENT— D.2
30 NONE
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
33 close the public hearing and defer discussion to a later date for a Board of County
34 Commissioners meeting and to include the drive thru issue—within next 60 days.
35
36 James Bryan said the Board may want to leave the Public Hearing open.
37 Commissioner Dorosin amended his motion to keep the public hearing open, and for this
38 item to be brought back to the November 1st Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
39 Commissioner Rich accepted amended motion.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 Commissioner Jacobs asked the Clerk to notify individuals in tonight's audience when
44 this item comes back on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda.
45
46 PUBLIC COMMENT— D.3
47 Jeff McQueen is here to represent the Hillsborough Church of Christ, and the church is
48 waiting with interest in this item since it is located in the re-zoning area. He said the church is
49 happy to host neighborhood discussions on this topic.
50 Neal Corina said he is also a representative of the church, as well as a resident in the
51 area. He said it makes sense to defer an item and discuss more thoroughly.
36
1 Jay Kennet said he is the Pastor at the Hillsborough Church of Christ, and his
2 congregation shares many of the same concerns as the Board, and he appreciated their
3 thorough review.
4 Speaker said he is a resident in this area, and the maps shown this evening show a lot
5 of water. He said the watershed may be unprotected, but it still a watershed.
6 Perdita Holtz reviewed the designations of a watershed.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to keep
9 the public hearing open and defer discussion until the November 1st Board of County
10 Commissioners meeting.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
15 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that would establish use standards to allow
16 certain principal uses to include a small component of other specific uses in the O/RM
17 (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district.
18
19 Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner, presented this item and the following
20 background and PowerPoint:
21
22 BACKGROUND: In working with site selection specialists and the Economic Development
23 Department for various economic development projects,
24
25 Planning staff has noted that the County could be more competitive in attracting economic
26 development projects if the UDO were to include a by-right process that allows for mixed use
27 developments. Currently, an office, research, and manufacturing business park which includes,
28 for example, a restaurant primarily serving onsite employees, but also open to the public could
29 not be permitted by right in the general use zoning districts. Instead the project would be
30 required to follow either the Master Development Plan Conditional Zoning District (MDP-CZ)
31 process or Conditional Use District process. In order to make the County more competitive in
32 the site selection process for these types of multi-use projects, Planning staff is proposing to
33 allow for additional uses to be permitted in conjunction with, but not before, a specific identified
34 principal use (Industrial (Light), Research Facility, or Research and Manufacturing Facility) as
35 part of an overall project development plan.
36
37 This amendment will allow for uses that primarily serve and support the needs of the business,
38 facility, and employees involved in the principal use without overpowering the intended purpose
39 of the O/RM zoning district. In addition, the amendment will allow for a more efficient review
40 process for future mixed use developments. Therefore, allowing an office, research, and
41 manufacturing business park which includes, for example, a restaurant serving onsite
42 employees and the general public to be permitted by-right in the O/RM zoning district. Originally,
43 this text amendment package was envisioned to establish and permit secondary uses in the
44 UDO. Following a recommendation from the Orange County Attorney's Office, Planning staff
45 revised the amendment in order to permit the uses initially proposed as secondary uses in a
46 more concise manner. In essence, adding these support uses directly to the specific principal
47 use standards. As a result, the secondary use concept will not be established in the UDO;
48 however, the same outcome is expected to be achieved by amending the use standards
49 contained in Article 5.
50
37
1 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
2 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
3 contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
4
5 Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted unanimously
6 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the amendment package. Draft
7 minutes from this meeting are included in Attachment 5.
8
9 Following the August 3rd Planning Board meeting, County Attorney staff completed their review
10 of the proposed text amendments. As a result of the review, edits were made to the proposed
11 amendments. The edits made after the August 3rd meeting are identified with yellow
12 highlighting in Attachment 3. Due to the edits made to the proposed text amendment package
13 following Planning Board recommendation, the Orange County Attorney's Office determined the
14 amendments would need to be presented to the Board at the September 7, 2016 Planning
15 Board meeting for a second review and recommendation before the September Quarterly Public
16 Hearing. Planning staff will present a summary of the Planning Board's discussion and
17 recommendation for the BOCC at the September Quarterly Public Hearing. Agenda materials
18 from the September 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting can be viewed at:
19 http://www.orangecountync.qov/SeptemberPlannincBoardPacket.pdf.
20
21 Unified Development Ordinance
22 Text Amendment
23 Modify Use Standards
24 Quarterly Public Hearinq
25 September 12, 2016
26 Item D.4
27
28 Purpose
29 To hold a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified
30 Development Ordinance (UDO) that would establish standards to allow certain principal uses to
31 include a small component of other specific uses in the O/RM (Office/Research and
32 Manufacturing) zoning district.
33
34 Proposed Amendments
35 • Proposed Revisions to:
36 • Section 5.14, Standards for Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing
37 • Section 5.17, Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
38 • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format
39 • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections
40
41 Proposed Amendments
42 • Establish use standards to allow certain principal uses (Industrial (Light), Research
43 Facility, or Research and Manufacturing Facility) to include a small component of other
44 specific uses in the O/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district.
45 • Allow for additional uses that primarily serve and support the needs of the business,
46 facility, and employees involved in the principal use as part of an overall project without
47 overpowering the intended purpose of the O/RM zoning district.
48
49 Proposed Amendments (chart)
50
51 Public Notification
38
1 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
2 o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks
3 Public Input Meeting
4 • April 20, 2016 to review the proposed amendments and accept public comments
5 o No concerns about the proposal were expressed by attendees
6 Planning Board Recommendation
7 • September 7, 2016 Meeting
8 o The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
9 amendments.
10
11 Recommendation
12 • The Administration recommends the Board:
13 o Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
14 attachments.
15 o Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments.
16 o Close the public hearing.
17 o Decide on one of the following options:
18 ➢ Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of
19 Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3).
20 ➢ Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
21 ➢ Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
22 ➢ Deny the proposed amendments.
23
24 Public Comment:
25 NONE
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
27 close the public hearing and adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of
28 Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3).
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 CLOSED SESSION
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier
35 to adjourn into closed session at 9:55 p.m. for the purpose of:
36
37 [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)]
38 To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this
39 body.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
46 reconvene into regular session at 10:22 p.m.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 E. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
51
39
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
2 adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Earl McKee, Chair
7
8 Donna Baker
9 Clerk to the Board
10
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 September 20, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 September 20, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel
11 Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia
14 Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny
15 Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager
19 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be
20 identified appropriately below)
21
22 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
23
24 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
25 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
26 - Pink sheet: list of Arts Grants Recipients for item 4-b
27 - Blue sheet: additional information for item 5-b
28 - PowerPoint presentation for item 8a: Orange County Veterans Memorial
29 - Revised abstract for 11-b
30
31 Chair McKee deferred to Bonnie Hammersley, who introduced Orange County's
32 new Emergency Services Director, Dinah Jeffries.
33 Dinah Jeffries thanked staff for their support. She said Emergency Services is
34 already running and collaboration is going great within the County, as was reflected in a
35 two-day training this week, which included over 90 participants from a variety of
36 departments. She said collaboration is a priority, and should be worked towards at an
37 even higher level than it already exists.
38
39 PUBLIC CHARGE
40
41 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
42
43 2. Public Comments
44
45 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
46 NONE
2
1
2 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
3 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the
4 agenda below.)
5
6 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
7 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff would re-examine all of the Table of Uses
8 for each of the Economic Development Districts (EDD).
9 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the current acute gas shortage, noting that the
10 State did not coordinate with our local Emergency Services. He said the leadership of
11 the North Carolina did not anticipate this, but it should have, as well as communicating
12 with Emergency Services to insure there are sufficient resources to respond to any
13 emergencies that may arise.
14 Commissioner Rich said she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs on the review of
15 the Table of Uses in the EDDs.
16 Commissioner Rich asked Dinah Jeffries if she was the only woman in North
17 Carolina leading this type of Emergency Services.
18 Dinah Jeffries said yes.
19 Commissioner Rich and the Board offered congratulations.
20 Commissioner Dorosin had no petitions.
21 Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
22 Commissioner Price offered a reminder that prior to the Board's summer break,
23 she asked if staff would look into making the County websites more accessible to all
24 residents.
25 Commissioner Pelissier referred to non-profit funding, noting that Orange County
26 has always funded operational needs. She said the Board must have a discussion on
27 whether or not non-profits could apply for capital funding, and if so, what the process
28 would be.
29 Commissioner Pelissier said that the Human Service departments have acquired
30 a lot of data on the transportation needs of their clients, and she would like a
31 presentation in reference to this. She said some new routes are being implemented,
32 and this data, as well as staff recommendations, would be useful in optimizing transit in
33 the County.
34 Chair McKee said he attended a public information session on the Mountains to
35 Sea Trail (MST), and one of the major concerns was the usage of imminent domain.
36 He said the Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) has never mentioned
37 using imminent domain. He petitioned the County Attorney to research taking imminent
38 domain off the table as related to MST.
39 Chair McKee said he read an article today that said the light rail may possibly be
40 extended to serve North Carolina Central University (NCCU), which he could support.
41
42 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
43
44 a. "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest
45 The Board recognized the winners, and thanked all participants of"The Nature of
46 Orange" 2016 Photography Contest.
3
1
2 Lynn Hecht, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
3 (DEAPR) presented the following background, and showed a PowerPoint presentation
4 containing the winning images.
5
6 BACKGROUND: The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
7 (DEAPR) completed its annual photography contest, "The Nature of Orange", in May
8 2016. The goal of the contest is to inspire exploration, celebration and appreciation of
9 Orange County's diverse landscapes and outdoor experiences. Photographers help
10 document the beauty and diversity of our natural resources and our people connecting
11 to their environment.
12
13 Many youth and adults submitted photos. A panel of judges selected first, second and
14 third place winners from the Youth and Adult divisions. In addition, there were two
15 Honorable Mention awards per age group since there were so many high-quality
16 submissions. This year's judges were photographers Laura Branan, Holden Richards
17 and David Schaub.
18
19 Winners received a congratulatory letter, certificate, and a small monetary award.
20 During the month of August, the photographs were displayed at the Orange County
21 Public Library and the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Center. They will also be on
22 display at the Cedar Grove Community Center. In the fall, Cup-A -Joe will have them
23 featured at their larger, new site just down street from the original site on King Street in
24 Hillsborough.
25
26 "THE NATURE OF ORANGE"
27 Photography Contest
28 • 5th annual photography contest
29 • Photographers help document the beauty and diversity of our natural resources
30 or show residents enjoying our parks and environment. All photos taken in
31 Orange County.
32 • 89 entries (21 Youth and 68 Adult)
33 • Volunteer judges evaluated photos based on:
34 — relevancy
35 — composition/arrangement
36 — focus/sharpness
37 — lighting and creativity
38
39 The 2016 contest winners are as follows:
40
41 Adult winners:
42 First Place: Thomas Griffin, "Mountain Laurel"
43 Second Place: Walter Bullock, "Mourning Dove"
44 Third Place: Keith Newell, "Blackwood Orange"
45 Honorable Mention: Latonya Ellison, "Picture Perfect"; Latonya Ellison, "Riverwalk"
46
4
1 Youth winners:
2 First Place: Sonya Nelson, "Gray Wall Jumper"
3 Second Place: Caroline Mohler, "Farm Flowers"
4 Third Place: Shannon Dorsi, "Down the Eno"
5 Honorable Mention: Caroline Mohler, "Farm Fresh Shitake Mushrooms"; Calin Lucero,
6 "Pretty Bird"
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
9 Price to extend congratulations to all the winners.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 b. Presentation of Arts Grants to Recipients
14 The Board presented checks to local arts organizations receiving State
15 Grassroots Arts Grants, and local artists receiving County arts grant funds, as reviewed
16 and determined by the Orange County Arts Commission.
17 Bonnie Hammersley introduced Katie Murray as the new Orange County Arts
18 Commission Coordinator.
19 Chair McKee read the recipients, and Commissioner Dorosin presented the
20 checks:
21
22 ORANGE COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION
23 2016-17 Grant Recipients
24
25 Recipient Attendee(s)
26 ArtsCenter Julie Tomkavick
27 Jeannette Brossart Jeannette Brossart
28 Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks Department Jim Dennis
29 Chapel Hill Philharmonia John Konanc
30 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public School Foundation Lynn Lehmann
31 El Centro Hispano, Inc. Fiorella Horna
32 Eno Publishers Elizabeth Woodman
33 Ephesus Elementary School PTA Elizabeth Portnoy
34 Estes Hills Elementary School PTA Cynthia Fioretti
35 Rob Hamilton Rob Hamilton
36 Hillsborough Arts Council Bill Whitmore
37 Sheila Kerrigan Sheila Kerrigan
38 McDougle Elementary School PTA Siobhan Colgan
39 North Carolina Arts in Action Mary Beth
40 Carpenter/Marlon Torres
41 Northside Elementary School Erika Lipkin
42 One Song Productions Julia Stamey
43 Preservation Chapel Hill Tama Hochbaum
44
45 Recipients not in attendance:
46 Extraordinary Ventures
5
1 Susan Simone
2 Mary Carter Taub
3
4 c. NCACC Workers' Compensation Pool Safety Award
5 The Board received the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
6 (NCACC) Workers' Compensation Pool's 2016 Safety Award on behalf of Orange
7 County officials and staff.
8 Alisa Cornetto, Orange County Risk Manager, introduced with NCACC Risk
9 Management Deputy Director Charlie Eaton, and Risk Control Manager Bob Carruth.
10 Alisa Cornetto especially recognized Emergency Services.
11
12 BACKGROUND: Orange County has been awarded the NCACC Workers'
13 Compensation Pool's 2016 Safety Award for having the lowest number of claims per $1
14 million in payroll in the large county class. The County has been a long-term member of
15 the NCACC Insurance Pool. In 2013 the County hired a full-time Risk Manager and a
16 countywide risk management committee was formed. Safety committees have been
17 activated throughout the county. Through the County's partnership with the NCACC
18 Risk Pool and the commitment of Orange County employees, the County has seen a
19 significant decrease in injuries (a 23% drop since 2012).
20
21 Charlie Eaton and Bob Carruth awarded Orange County the NCACC Workers'
22 Compensation Pool's 2016 Safety Award for having the lowest number of claims per $1
23 million in payroll in the large county class.
24
25 5. Public Hearings
26
27 a. Approval Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 147(f) of the Issuance
28 of $6,500,000 Education Facilities Bonds by Carolina Friends School
29 The Board considered holding a public hearing on the proposed issuance of
30 Education Facilities Bonds (the "Bonds") in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 to be
31 issued by the Public Finance Authority in order for Carolina Friends School (the
32 "Borrower") to meet the requirements of Section 147(f) of the 1986 Internal Revenue
33 Code, as amended.
34 John Roberts reviewed the background below:
35
36 BACKGROUND: The Public Finance Authority ("PFA") is a governmental unit of the
37 State of Wisconsin created for the purpose of issuing tax-exempt and taxable conduit
38 bonds for public and private entities nationwide. PFA is sponsored by the National
39 Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the Wisconsin Counties
40 Association, and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. Any debt issued is not debt of
41 the County or PFA, but rather is payable solely from debt service payments received
42 from the Borrower.
43
44 The Borrower has asked PFA to issue the Bonds in the principal amount of up to
45 $6,500,000. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to The Carolina Friends School
46 to be used to (i) finance and equip a new performing arts center (the "Project"), (ii)
6
1 finance a debt service reservefund and (iii) finance certain issuance costs to be
2 incurred in connection with the Bonds.
3
4 Federal tax law requires that tax exempt bonds issued to finance or, in certain
5 circumstances,
6 refinance, facilities owned by nonprofit organizations be approved by the elected
7 legislative body (or highest elected representative) of the governmental unit that has
8 jurisdiction over the area in which the facility is to be located. Prior to this approval,
9 Internal Revenue Code Section 147(f) requires that a public hearing be held, at which
10 hearing the public is given the opportunity to comment on the project.
11
12 Because the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance and refinance projects
13 located in Orange County, the BOCC is one of the appropriate governing bodies to
14 approve the use of tax exempt bonds to finance and refinance the projects for the
15 purposes of Section 147(f) of the
16 Internal Revenue Code (the other is Wake County).
17
18 The Bonds will be publicly offered by George K. Baum & Company in October. The
19 Carolina Friends School will promise to repay the principal, premium, if any, and
20 interest on the Bonds. Neither PFA nor Orange County has any liability for the payment
21 of principal or interest on the Bonds. The Carolina Friends School will be solely
22 responsible for repayment of the Bonds. The Bonds shall not be deemed to constitute a
23 debt of the County or a pledge of the faith and credit of the County, but shall be payable
24 solely by The Carolina Friends School from the revenues and other funds provided
25 therefor.
26
27 John Roberts said the County will have no responsibility for the Bonds or the
28 payment or repayment of the Bonds.
29
30 The Bonds will not affect the County's debt ratios or legal debt limit. Because no taxes
31 or other revenues of the County are pledged to pay these bonds, the staff of the County
32 has made no financial analysis of the Bonds, The Carolina Friends School, or the
33 Project.
34
35 The Carolina Friends School is a private school whose main campus is located at 4809
36 Friends School Road in Orange County. The Project will be located at this campus. It
37 enrolls over 510 students. Neither the State of North Carolina nor Orange County
38 provides revenue to The Carolina Friends School. Private tuition and donations fund its
39 operations and facilities.
40
41 Jeff Poley, Carolina Friends School, said the school would like to borrow up to
42 $6,500,000 from the Public Finance Authority in Wisconsin, and these are tax-exempt
43 bonds.
44 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this process is administrative/procedural only, in
45 order to secure the bonds.
46 Jeff Poley said yes.
7
1 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this bond is separate from Orange County's
2 bond that will be on the ballot in November.
3 Jeff Poley said it is completely separate, and there are no legal or financial
4 obligations on the County.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
7 close the public hearing.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
12 Jacobs for the Board of Commissioners to adopt the attached resolution, which finds:
13
14 a. That the $6,500,000 in Education Revenue Bonds do not constitute a debt of
15 the County; nor require a tax levy nor a pledge of the faith and credit of the
16 County; nor will affect the County's debt ratios or legal debt limit; and,
17
18 b. That the County has made no financial analysis of the Bonds or of the
19 Borrower of the Project; and
20
21 c. The County approves, solely for the purpose of assisting The Carolina Friends
22 School to meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
23 amended, and Wisconsin law, the issuance of not to exceed $6,500,000 in
24 Education Revenue Bonds to be issued by the Public Finance Authority for the
25 benefit of The Carolina Friends School.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 b. Public Hearing on the 2017 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules of Rules,
30 Standards and Values
31 The Board conducted a public hearing scheduled for this meeting on the 2017
32 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules of Rules, Standards and Values.
33 Dwane Brinson, Orange County Tax Administrator, presented this item, which is
34 the second step in the adoption process of the 2017 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules
35 of Rules, Standards and Values. He referred to the blue sheet and outreach
36 information, which included social media, etc. on this issue.
37
38 BACKGROUND: As required by North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 105-317, the
39 proposed Schedules of Values (SOV) to be used in conducting the 2017 reappraisal
40 were submitted to the Board of County Commissioners on September 6, 2016. At that
41 time, a public hearing was set for September 20, 2016, and notice was duly advertised
42 in the Durham Herald Sun, the News of Orange and the Chapel Hill News on
43 September 7, 2016. The proposed Schedules have been available for public inspection
44 in the Orange County Tax Office, Orange County Clerk to the Board's Office, and on
45 the Orange County Tax Office website (available at
8
1 http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/tax/revaluation.php) since September 6,
2 2016.
3
4 The public hearing is the second step in a three-step process to adopt the Schedules
5 that will be used in conducting the 2017 reappraisal. The Board will be asked to adopt
6 the Schedules at its October 4, 2016 regular meeting. Following adoption, the
7 Schedules will be appealable to the State Property Tax Commission for thirty (30) days.
8
9 The timeline for the 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as
10 follows:
11 • September 6, 2016: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners
12 • September 7, 2016: Advertise in newspaper
13 • September 20, 2016: Public hearing on SOV
14 • October 4, 2016: Adoption of SOV
15 • October 5, 2016: Publish 1st notice of adoption
16 • October 12, 2016: Publish 2nd notice of adoption
17 • October 19, 2016: Publish 3rd notice of adoption
18 • October 26, 2016: Publish 4th notice of adoption
19 • November 3, 2016: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
22 close the public hearing.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 6. Consent Agenda
27 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
28 Commissioner Pelissier pulled item 6-b
29 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
32 Rich to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
37
38 b. Re-naming of the Orange County Farmers' Market Pavilion to the David
39 Price Farmers' Market Pavilion
40 The Board considered a resolution re-naming the Orange County Farmers'
41 Market Pavilion to the David Price Farmers' Market Pavilion and authorizing the Chair to
42 sign.
43 Commissioner Pelissier said she had petitioned the Board to discuss a re-
44 naming facility policy before bringing this item back.
45 Commissioner Pelissier said she will vote against this since there is not a policy
46 in place yet.
9
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he felt like the Board had already voted on this
2 issue, even though it was not unanimous. He said he is looking forward to the policy
3 discussion, but felt that the request for a discussion arose out of this item coming to the
4 fore. He said he does not find that this item puts the cart before the horse.
5 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's recollection. He
6 said there was concern voiced by some of the Farmer's market people, and he and
7 Chair McKee met with this group, who are now comfortable with this item moving
8 forward.
9 Commissioner Jacobs read the resolution:
10
11
12 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
13
14 RESOLUTION RE-NAMING THE FARMERS' MARKET PAVILION FOR DAVID PRICE
15
16 WHEREAS, in 2002, Congressman David Price secured federal grant funds for Orange
17 County in the amount of $90,000 to help local officials build a shelter for
18 the Hillsborough Farmers' Market; and,
19
20 WHEREAS, the grant funds were used for the construction of the Orange County Public
21 Market House in the River Park area behind the Orange County
22 Courthouse in Hillsborough; and,
23
24 WHEREAS, Congressman Price continued his efforts to support Orange County and, in
25 2003, secured funds for Orange County totaling $900,000 from the
26 Environmental Protection Agency Special Appropriations Grant funds
27 program for the construction of the Central Efland and North Buckhorn
28 sewer improvements; and,
29
30 WHEREAS, in 2005 Congressman Price secured $500,000 for additional water and
31 sewer improvements to the Northern Center and the Mebane-Efland
32 corridor in the economic development district serving the middle school,
33 soccer complex and the community of Buckhorn Road; and,
34
35 WHEREAS, in 2009 Congressman Price assisted Orange County in efforts to secure a
36 $237,500 Economic Development Initiative grant from the US
37 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support the
38 establishment of the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center
39 in Hillsborough;
40
41 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
42 does hereby recognize Congressman David Price for his steadfast
43 advocacy for Orange County and his efforts to improve the way of life for
44 Orange County residents by re-naming the Orange County Farmers'
45 Market Pavilion to the David Price Farmers' Market Pavilion.
46
10
1 This the twentieth day of September 2016.
2
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich
5 to adopt a resolution re-naming the Orange County Farmers' Market Pavilion to the
6 David Price Farmers' Market Pavilion and authorize the Chair to sign.
7
8 Commissioner Jacobs said the resolution contains a good rendition of acts
9 executed by Congressman Price on behalf of the community, but it does not adequately
10 express how supportive he has been throughout the County in his 20 years of service.
11 He said he is proud of this tribute, and it is well deserved.
12
13 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Rich,
14 Commissioner Jacobs, and Commissioner Price); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Pelissier and
15 Commissioner Burroughs)
16
17 a. Minutes
18 The Board approved the minutes from September 6, 2016 as submitted by the Clerk
19 to the Board.
20 c. Reimbursement of Fees Paid for Massage Licenses
21 The Board authorized the Tax Administrator to reimburse massage license fees
22 collected from individuals to whom the massage license did not apply.
23
24 7. Regular Agenda
25
26 a. Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the
27 North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2017-18
28 Legislative Goals Package
29 The Board considered approving a Resolution Detailing Orange County's
30 Recommendations Regarding Goals for Inclusion in the North Carolina Association of
31 County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2017-18 Legislative Goals Package and authorize
32 the Chair to sign.
33 Greg Wilder, Assistant to the County Manager, presented this item, and said the
34 goal is to provide the NCACC with input regarding its proposed goals for the 2017 and
35 2018 legislative sessions. He reviewed the background information.
36
37 BACKGROUND: Every two years, the North Carolina Association of County
38 Commissioners(NCACC) organizes a process to develop a legislative goals package.
39 The purpose of the package is to develop a consensus of broad support on legislative
40 goals and issues for matters affecting North Carolina counties that may be addressed
41 by the North Carolina General Assembly during the next two calendar years. The goals
42 and issues included in the package, with their broad support, guide and strengthen
43 NCACC representatives and staff as they converse with individual legislators and
44 committees on legislative matters.
45
11
1 NCACC began the process to develop its 2017-18 Legislative Goals Package in July
2 2016. As noted in Attachment 1, North Carolina counties have been asked to submit
3 proposed legislative goals for consideration for inclusion in the package, with a
4 submittal deadline of September 23, 2016.
5
6 The County's Legislative Issues Work Group (LIWG), including Commissioners Penny
7 Rich and Mia Burroughs, County Attorney John Roberts, and County Manager's Office
8 staff, has recently met. The LIWG developed a draft resolution for Board consideration
9 that outlines several proposed legislative goals for inclusion in NCACC's 2017-18
10 package. The LIWG's draft resolution is provided at Attachment 2. The Board will
11 likely want to discuss the draft resolution and possibly add to, delete from, and/or revise
12 the language of the proposed goals included in the draft.
13
14 In an effort to assist the Board in considering possible goals to forward to NCACC, a
15 copy of Orange County's 2016 Resolution Regarding Legislative Matters (Statewide
16 Matters) is provided for reference purposes at Attachment 3. This Resolution was
17 approved by the Board on April 5, 2016 and presented to Orange County's Legislative
18 Delegation for the 2016 General Assembly Session.
19
20 Commissioner Burroughs said the issues listed here are ones the Board has
21 seen before. She said a few have been updated, and the first two — Broadband and
22 Raise the Age - have moved to the top, given likely bipartisan support.
23 Commissioner Rich echoed Commissioner Burroughs comments, and thanked
24 staff for their support.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said this package was nicely done, and was updated by
26 the committee in a timely manner.
27 Commissioner Price referred to #4: Repeal of House Bill 2 and Expansion of
28 Protected Classes — Seek statewide legislative action to repeal House Bill 2 and
29 provide all North Carolina local governments with the authority to include sexual
30 orientation and gender identity as protected classes in order to protect these classes
31 from discrimination and discriminatory practices, and asked if this is to allow different
32 counties the option to consider these groups as protected classes. She asked if the
33 designation of a protected group applies across the board.
34 John Roberts said this is included in the hope that the state assembly will repeal
35 HB2, and if not, then to grant authority to local governments to include gender identity
36 and sexual orientation as their own protected classes.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said in attachment 4, NCACC's goals have 5 priorities,
38 and referred to #3 PE-4: Seek legislation to repeal the statutory authority under N.C.
39 G.S. 115C-431(c) that allows local school boards to file suit against a county board of
40 commissioners over county appropriations for education. He said he does not support
41 this goal, and school districts need to have tools to insure that children are able to
42 receive an education.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said to include language that specifically states that
44 Orange County does not support #3-PE-4.
45 Commissioner Dorosin said to add this as an additional item to the resolution.
12
1 The Board agreed by consensus to add this to the resolution, and Chair McKee
2 asked Commissioner Dorosin if he would offer specific wording.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said to include that Orange County does not support
4 current NCACC priority PE-4, and does not support the repeal of the statutory authority
5 pursuant to N.C.G.S 115C-431(c). He said to add in the rest of the language that
6 allows local school board's to file suit against the County Board of Commissioners over
7 county appropriations for education.
8 Commissioner Price said the NCACC has been working on this issue for 2 years,
9 and asked if the Board is asking them to stop doing so.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said yes, as members of the NCACC, the BOCC does
11 not support the position that the NCACC is taking, and request that they change it.
12 Greg Wilder clarified that the Board's desire is to state that Orange County
13 opposes legislation to repeal the statutory authority for school boards to sue county
14 boards.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County has been seeking legislative authority
16 to make sexual orientation a protected class for twenty years.
17 Commissioner Price said she would prefer to be more proactive, rather than
18 asking for individual counties to be able to make their own policies. She would like the
19 State to make them protected classes. She said she would prefer item #4 to say that
20 the State of North Carolina will include sexual orientation and gender identity as
21 protected classes in North Carolina, as opposed to counties picking and choosing
22 whether they want to do so.
23
24 Commissioner Dorosin suggested the following wording: Seek statewide
25 legislative action to repeal House Bill 2 and include sexual orientation and gender
26 identity as protected classes in North Carolina, or provide all North Carolina local
27 governments with the authority to include sexual orientation and gender identity as
28 protected classes in order to protect these classes from discrimination and
29 discriminatory practices.
30 Commissioner Price said she would prefer not to have the local option included,
31 but understands this is a compromise.
32 Commissioner Dorosin suggested including both, in the hopes of attaining some
33 forward movement.
34 The Board agreed by consensus.
35 Commissioner Dorosin referred to attachment 3: Bona Fide Farm Use—
36 Support legislation clarifying the farm use and agriculture exemption of 153A-340 that
37 restricts local zoning authority applies only to property on which the production of crops
38 or livestock is the primary use. Clarify that marketing and agritourism activities must be
39 secondary uses of the property and do not qualify for the exemption in the absence of
40 the production of crops or livestock. Local governments are seeing an increasing
41 number of properties that, although they meet one or more criteria for exemption, such
42 as having a federal farm identification number, are not used for the production of crops
43 or livestock.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said Bon fide farm use did not make it into the 22 points
45 in the resolution, and suggested adding this item given the important role of agriculture
46 in Orange County.
13
1 Commissioner Burroughs said the committee did discuss this item briefly, and
2 concluded that the topic could not be dealt with. She said it can certainly be added.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said constituents are expressing concern, and the BOCC
4 often gives the response that it is constrained by what it can do, due to lack of state
5 legislation. He said including this item would at least offer residents support, and the
6 acknowledgment that they been heard by the BOCC.
7 Commissioner Jacobs agreed, and said the Board supports the diversification
8 that comes with agricultural enterprise when tourism is included. He said some abuses
9 may be taking place, and local governments should have a bit more authority to
10 differentiate between a genuine agricultural use, and a use hiding behind the name of
11 agriculture.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff would look into violations of the County's
13 open burning ordinance.
14 Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees in principal with the clarification. She
15 said she understood that the issuance of a farm ID by the USDA has changed.
16 John Roberts said the possession of a farm ID automatically exempts a property
17 from local ordinances, and he has heard that it has become more difficult to obtain a
18 farm ID.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
21 Jacobs to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as amended for# 4,
22 and addition of#22-(which is #26 on attachment 3) and #23, and the repeal of a school
23 board's right to sue county boards; and direct the Clerk to the Board to forward the
24 approved resolution, the completed NCACC Legislative Goals Proposal Forms, and any
25 other related materials to NCACC by the September 23, 2016 deadline.
26
27 Commissioner Price said she will vote for this, but does not support the piece
28 meal way to address sexual orientation.
29 Commissioner Burroughs said she agreed with Commissioner Price.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 8. Reports
34
35 a. Veterans Memorial Committee Progress Report
36 The Board received a report from the Veterans Memorial Committee, and
37 provided feedback to the group.
38 Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, recognized members of
39 the Veterans Memorial Committee and Veterans in the audience.
40 Jeff Thompson reviewed the background information.
41
42 BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2015 the Board of Orange County Commissioners
43 approved in principle the siting of a future Veterans Memorial upon the Southern
44 Campus in accordance with the recently approved Campus Master Plan and authorized
45 the Manager and staff to participate in the ongoing project planning process. Over the
46 past several months, the Committee has made progress in conceptual design efforts as
14
1 well as initial fundraising initiatives. Members of the Committee will provide a progress
2 update for the Board and solicit feedback for the process. Members of the Committee
3 will be available on the proposed site of the Memorial prior to the Board meeting to visit
4 with members of the public and the Board.
5
6 Jim Merritt, co-chair of the Veterans Memorial Committee, thanked Orange
7 County Commissioners Price and Jacobs for bringing this idea to them, and also
8 Orange County staff and committee members for working on this proposed memorial.
9 David Swanson, Landscape Architect, walked the Board through the design,
10 which will work with the natural surroundings of the property. He said the site is beside
11 the Southern Human Services Center. He reviewed several slides containing
12 photographs. He said the site is accommodated with handicapped parking, and has 4
13 outdoor rooms, each with a theme. He said local building materials will be used in
14 several elements of the construction.
15 Commissioner Price acknowledged others that had already left the meeting.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said there was some discussion of having a dedication
17 ceremony for the land, on Friday 11/11/16 at 11:00 a.m., and suggested inviting the
18 class from Stanback Middle School, who contributed to the design process.
19 Commissioner Price said the dedication will take place on November 11 at 11:00
20 a.m. She said this will be to dedicate the land and the groundbreaking will take place at
21 a later date.
22 Commissioner Rich said this idea was born when she was on the Chapel Hill
23 Council in 2009. She she said the plans are exciting and the site is a peaceful place.
24 She expressed support for promoting any fundraising efforts.
25 A member of the committee said fundraising will begin after this evening, with the
26 Board's approval.
27 Chair McKee said the Board offers its full support of fundraising efforts.
28 Commissioner Price said this is Orange County's memorial in Chapel Hill, and it
29 has been a collaborative effort by all.
30
31 9. County Manager's Report
32 There will be a social event on September 22nd with the BOCC and the two
33 Boards of Education at Blackwood Farm Park from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
34 Commissioner Price asked the Clerk to the Board if this event would occur rain
35 or shine. Donna Baker said yes.
36
37 10. County Attorney's Report
38 NONE
39
40 11. Appointments
41
42 a. Affordable Housing Advisory Board —Appointments
43 The Board considered making appointments to the Affordable Housing Advisory
44 Board.
45
15
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
2 appoint the following to Affordable Housing Advisory Board:
3
4 • Appointment of Holly Fraccaro to Position #1--- "At-Large" position expiring
5 09/30/2019.
6 • Appointment of Joshua Brown to Position #3--- "At-Large" position expiring
7 06/30/2018.
8 • Appointment of Adrian Moreno to Position #4--- "At-Large" position expiring
9 06/30/2019.
10 • Appointment of Narayanan Venkatakrishnan to Position #7--- "At-Large" position-
11 ---- expiring 09/30/2019.
12 • Appointment of Alex Nickodem to Position #13--- "At-Large" position expiring
13 06/30/2019.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 b. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointments
18 The Board considered making appointments to the Animal Services Hearing
19 Panel Pool.
20
21 Commissioner Price said there is a request from staff to move Daniel Ryan from
22 position 4 to position 6. She asked if it is possible to appoint Gina Hahn into position 6.
23 Donna Baker said Gina Hahn does not reside in the Town of Hillsborough.
24 Commissioner Price said Daniel Ryan does not reside in the Town either.
25 Donna Baker said Daniel Ryan was appointed to a Chapel Hill position
26 previously, thus has experience on the Board. She said some Chapel Hill applicants
27 were received, and the Chair and Vice-Chair discussed moving Daniel Ryan to the
28 Hillsborough slot as he had already been appointed, and no Hillsborough applications
29 were received.
30 Commissioner Price said Gina Hahn is from the northern part of the County, and
31 she feels it would make sense to allow her to fill the Hillsborough position. She asked if
32 this were done, would Daniel Ryan have to come off of the Hearing Panel.
33 Donna Baker said no, that he would return to the Chapel Hill position to which he
34 was originally appointed.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner
37 Pelissier to appoint Gina Hahn to a first full term to Position #6 "Town of Hillsborough"
38 with an expiration date of 3/31/2019.
39
40 Chair McKee said he vote against this motion as Gina Hahn does not reside in
41 the Town of Hillsborough, and he does support filling positions just to fill them.
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Chair McKee would be in favor of leaving
43 vacancies open, or doing away with designation of positions. He said he does not
44 believe it serves anyone to leave the positions vacant.
45 Chair McKee said he understood Commissioner Dorosin's concern. He said it is
46 critical to have geographically diverse representation on all boards, and thus he would
16
1 prefer leaving positions vacant until applicants come forth. He said this is exactly what
2 happened with Daniel Ryan. He is not from Chapel Hill and now that there are
3 applicants from Chapel Hill, he is in the position of needing to be moved.
4 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that Chair McKee would leave positions vacant
5 indefinitely rather than filling a position with an applicant from outside the geographic
6 assignment of the position.
7 Chair McKee said yes, especially on larger boards, when a vacant seat does not
8 affect the work of the board.
9
10 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays,1 (Chair McKee)
11
12 MOTION PASSES
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner
15 Burroughs to appoint Laurie Smith to a first full term (position #3) "Town of Chapel Hill"
16 expiring 03/31/2019.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 A motion was made by seconded by to appoint Dr. Fred Schmid to a first full
21 term (position #15) "Veterinarian" expiring 03/31/2016.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 c. Human Relations Commission —Appointments
26 The Board considered making appointments to the Human Relations
27 Commission.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich
30 to appoint the following to Human Relations Commission:
31
32 • Appointment of Agyei Ekundayo to a partial term in Position #1 — "At-Large"
33 expiring 06/30/2018.
34 • #1 — "At-Large" expiring 06/30/2018.
35 • Appointment of Jessica Aguilar to a first full term for Position #3 — "At-Large"
36 expiring 09/30/2018.
37 • Appointment of Timothy McNair to a partial term to Position # 4 "Town of Chapel
38 Hill" expiring 06/30/2017.
39 • Appointment of Elizabeth O'Quinn to a first full term in Position #12 — "At-Large"
40 expiring 06/30/2019.
41 • Appointment of to a first full term (position #6) "At-Large" for Robin R. Criffield
42 expiring 09/30/2019.
43 • Appointment to a second full term (position #7) "At-Large" for Joyce Preslar
44 expiring 06/30/2019.
45 • Appointment to a first full term (position #9) "At-Large" for Susie Enoch expiring
46 09/30/2019.
17
1 • Appointment to a second full term (position #10) "At-Large" for Monica Richard
2 expiring 06/30/2019.
3 • Appointment to a partial term (position #13) "Town of Hillsborough" for Delvena
4 Jones expiring 06/30/2017.
5 • Appointment to a first full term (position #15) "At-Large" for Deborah Stroman
6 expiring 06/30/2019.
7 • Appointment to a partial term (position #17) "At-Large" for Jacqulyn Podger
8 expiring 06/30/2017.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 Commissioner Pelissier said she had concerns about the large size of this board,
13 at 18 positions. She said any large board causes concern, since it is sometimes
14 difficult to fill this many positions.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said that the Board will discuss various issues related to
16 boards' and commissions' processes at the November 10th work session, and he asked
17 the Clerk if she could add this topic to the list.
18 Donna Baker said she would do so.
19
20 d. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
21 The Board considered making an appointment to the Nursing Home Community
22 Advisory Committee.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
25 appoint the following to Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
26
27 • Appointment to a one year training term (Position #11) "At-Large Nursing Home
28 Administration" position for Dr. Carol Kelly expiring 09/20/2017.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 e. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointment
33 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange Unified
34 Transportation Board.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price
37 to appoint the following to Orange Unified Transportation Board:
38
39 • David Laudicina to a first full term (position #2) "At-Large" expiring 03/31/2019.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner
44 Pelissier to appoint the following to Orange Unified Transportation Board:
45
18
1 • Donna Munson to first full term in Position #5--- "Eno Township" position
2 expiring 09/30/2019.
3
4 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair McKee)
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price
7 to appoint the following to Orange Unified Transportation Board:
8
9 • Alyson West to a first full term for Position #13--- "At-Large" position expiring
10 09/30/2019.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 Commissioner Rich said position number 14 had been for a Board of Health
15 person, however now is simply an "at large" position.
16 Chair McKee said that is correct.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if there is anyone to fill this position.
18 Chair McKee said not at this time.
19
20 12. Board Comments
21 Commissioner Pelissier added to Chair McKee's comments about the Light Rail
22 possibly extending to NCCU. She said this extension would be a 0.6-mile of additional
23 line, and the ridership there would be amongst the highest on the entire line. She said
24 this possible extension grew out of public comments made during the draft
25 environmental impact statement. She said NCCU is very excited about this possibility.
26 Commissioner Price acknowledged Piedmont Electric for the check it recently
27 gave to the New Hope Fire Department.
28 Commissioner Price said that early voting information is available on the County
29 website.
30 Commissioner Burroughs said the County's election office is very efficient.
31 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the school collaboration meeting, and shared
32 some information received about demographics. He said in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
33 Schools (CHCCS) the percentage of students eligible to free or reduced lunches has
34 increased from 17.6% in 2001 to 31% currently. He said Orange County Schools
35 (OCS) as a district is at 44% free and reduced lunches, with elementary schools at just
36 under 50%. He highlighted a variety of individual schools' statistics.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said CHCCS is on the cusp of becoming a majority non-
38 white school district, and he said it is 50% white as of 2015, compared to 66% white in
39 2001. He said there are 1200 English language learners in CHCCS, 800 of whom are
40 immigrants. He said OCS is 20% Hispanic, and 20% of that group is significant limited
41 English proficiency. He said the need for English-as-a-second-language teachers is
42 significant. He said teacher recruitment proved to be successful, and CHCCS had only
43 6 vacancies on opening day, with 1 being a teaching position. He said OCS reports 12
44 vacancies as of last week, 3 of which were the result of resignations since school
45 opened.
19
1 Commissioner Burroughs said CHCCS has attempted to balance schools by
2 socio-economic status.
3 Commissioner Rich said the Community Home Trust is working on their annual
4 retreat, which will be at the Carolina Inn, with a focus on affordable housing.
5 Commissioner Rich said the Orange Durham Chapel Hill Work Group met and
6 discussed the possible light rail extension to NCCU, as well as the affordable housing
7 aspect around the light rail stops. She said this is an ongoing conversation, and
8 Durham is land banking to keep affordable housing close to the stops.
9 Commissioner Rich said Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) met last week,
10 and got a report on the draft interlocal agreement.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said he is struck by the Board's silence on the
12 concentration of reduced and free lunches in one school district. Commissioner Jacobs
13 asked if this topic could be added to the joint meeting with the schools next week. He
14 said it is time for a public discussion.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said the demographics for the region are being reviewed
16 for the comprehensive transportation plan, and asked staff to get this plan onto an
17 upcoming agenda. He said thoroughfare plans for the jurisdictions that make up the
18 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) are also included in this discussion. He said
19 Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough have all adopted plans, but Orange County
20 never adopted its thoroughfare plan due to the fact that it failed to meet various County
21 values and goals.
22 Chair McKee said several Commissioners attended the recent MTS meeting,
23 which went very smoothly.
24
25 13. Information Items
26
27 • September 6, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
28 • Orange County Public Library Strategic Planning Process
29 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from September 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
30
31 14. Closed Session
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich
33 to adjourn into closed session at 9:02 p.m. for the purposes below:
34
35 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board
36 in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
37
38 "To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions
39 of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or
40 employee or prospective public officer or employee;" NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6).
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
45
20
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
2 Dorosin to reconvene into regular session at 9:30 p.m.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 15. Adjournment
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
9 Price to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 Earl McKee, Chair
14
15 Donna Baker
16 Clerk to the Board
17
18