Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-12-2016 1 APPROVED 10/18/2016 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING September 12, 2016 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs, Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney) COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to add a closed session at the end of the meeting for the purpose of: [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)] To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Note: The Legal Advertisement for the Quarterly Public Hearing is included in the agenda packet immediately following the agenda. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge C. PUBLIC HEARING — QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS 1. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review a Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on a 52 acre parcel of property (PIN 9835-02-9137, no address assigned yet) which is accessed via an easement from 6519 U.S. Highway 70 West within the Cheeks Township. Chair McKee said for the project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows: To review a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on a 52 acre parcel of property further identified utilizing PIN 9835-02-9137, which is accessed via an easement from 6519 U.S. Highway 70 West within the Cheeks Township. The purpose of this hearing will be to gather evidence to determine whether the ordinance's standards have been met. The Board must base its decision with respect to 2 the approval or denial on the application solely on the competent, material and substantive evidence presented during the hearing. The Board must exclude from consideration both their personal and the public's opinions with respect to the disposition of this request. 1. Chair will declare the public hearing open and ask all parties intending to offer testimony and/or evidence to come forward and be sworn by the Clerk. The clerk will administer the oath indicating that the testimony the individual is about to give is the truth, the whole, truth, and noting but the truth to their knowledge. Any individual offering testimony (i.e. staff, the applicant, members of the public, Planning Board, etc.) has to be sworn. ** NOTE: Unlike public hearings on legislative matters there is no time limit as individuals are presenting sworn evidence/testimony on the merits of the application.** The clerk swore in the following individuals providing testimony: Chris Sandifer Chris Bishop Brian Quinlan Rich Kirkland Merrick Parrot Patrick Mallett Michael Harvey Patrick Mallett, Planner II, presented this item, and entered the items and all attachments in the agenda packet and binder, into the record, and made the following PowerPoint presentation: SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: C.1 BOCC QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY PROPERTY INFORMATION PIN(s): 9835-02-9137 Size: Approximately 52 acres (leased area +/-27 acres) Zoning: R-1 (Rural Residential) Overlay(s): Back Creek Protected Watershed/ Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Overlay District Future Land Use Map Designation: 10-Year Transition Area Growth Management System Designation: Urban Designated REQUEST: • Solar array facility on 27 acres of a 52-acre parcel of property. • Typical array is between 7-9 feet in height, with approximately 2-3 feet of ground clearance and approximately 50-75 feet in length. • Arrays will be screened by: 3 - 100-foot setbacks; - 65-80 foot wide stream buffers; and - 50 feet wide Type D Land Use Buffer. • 8-foot high chain link (with barbed wire) security fence shall surround the perimeter. • Gravel paths/drives will permit access by technicians to service the panels. • Vehicular access to the site is restricted by an access entry gate and gravel drive via a 30-50 foot wide easement (via PIN 9835-10-3858) to an existing driveway onto US Highway70. SITE PHOTO—SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITE PLAN (map) REVIEW PROCESS Step ONE: NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Held on Wednesday July 27, 2016. Approximately 6 people attended. Attendees asked questions about solar facilities in general, the proposed layout, potential for noise, visibility, and landscaping along perimeter. STAFF COMMENT: The required NIM was held on July 27, 2016 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. in accordance with the UDO. STEP TWO: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW Review the request and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the project's compliance with specific development standards (Section 5.9.6) and the general standards (Section 5.3.2 Special Uses) of the UDO. STAFF COMMENT: On August 3, 2016, Planning Board members gave their unanimous recommendation(s) for approval by the BOCC. REVIEW PROCESS STEP THREE: PUBLIC HEARING The BOCC holds a public hearing to allow the applicant and other interested parties to provide sworn testimony related to the proposal. STAFF COMMENT: The required public hearing will be held at the September 12, 2016. STEP FOUR: DECISION The BOCC will review the Planning Board recommendation as well as any other evidence presented at the hearing, deliberate, certify the record, close the public hearing, and then render a final decision. STAFF INITIAL REVIEW: • The applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project. • The applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e. required by Section 2.7.3). • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to the viability of this proposal. • There is currently no information demonstrating the applicant does not comply with the standards of the UDO allowing for the issuance of the permit 4 RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends the Board 1. Receive and consider the findings of fact and evidence entered into the record for the Class A SUP; 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and Staff sworn testimony; and 3. Approve the application. BACKUP SLIDES SITE PHOTO—OAKWOOD SOLAR FARM LLC Chair McKee: Before we get started with that, let's see if the Board has any questions on your presentation. Seeing none does the applicant have a presentation?Welcome. Merrick Parrot: Thank you very much for your time this evening. My name is Merrick Parrot. I am with Parker, Poe, Adams, and Bernstein, located at 301 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, and I have been sworn in this evening. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Oakwood Solar Farm, LLC. I have with me the applicant representative, Brian Quinlan, as well as two expert witnesses: Chris Sandifer and Richard Kirkland who will give their expert testimony on Public Health, Safety, General Welfare, Property Value and Harmony in support of the three findings of fact that you must make tonight. First, I would move that the binder—the request for Special Use Permit—that you have in front of you be entered into the record. It's comprised of fifteen tabs. At this time, I would ask that the Board allow Mr. Quinlan, who is here tonight on behalf of the Applicant, to run through his presentation, which is located behind tab 1 of the booklet that I have here with me, that I will hand up, and also ask that this be entered into the record. I will have Mr. Quinlan come up. Brian Quinlan: Good evening. Thanks for having us this evening. My name is Brian Quinlan. I was sworn in earlier. I will cover most of the details of the presentation, and then I will bring up Chris and Rich to focus on their specialties. Brian Quinlan presented the following PowerPoint slides: Calvert Energy, LLC Oakwood Solar Farm, LLC Class A Special Use Permit September 12, 2016 Calvert Energy Calvert Energy ➢ Over 30 years of project development, power plant operations and finance experience ➢ Extensive solar power experience • Developed over 10 MW of solar PV projects • Managed portfolio development in excess of 25 MW in U.S. and Canada • Developing 45 MW of solar projects in NC ➢ Broad energy/electricity background • Power plant operations • Solar, gas turbine, coal, hydro and nuclear plant development • Electricity wholesale markets 5 • Transmission & distribution construction ESA ➢ Over 30 years of experience in solar project development, construction, management and long term operation of solar systems ➢ Global development and construction of over 500 solar and thermal installations; ranging from large scale solar farms to commercial rooftop installations ➢ Development, construction, and operation of 55 MW, and approximately 20 independent projects, in North Carolina ➢ Current North Carolina projects are in the following counties: Clay, Cherokee, Johnston, Richmond, Moore and New Hanover ➢ Mace family has owned the property for over 50 years • Family supports the installation of solar project • Project is a beneficial use of property that has limited other uses and is compatible with long term plans of landowner o Location off main roads with limited access o Wetland areas surrounding site o Sewer and water not available on site o Land is not utilized for agriculture or forestry and uses are not considered highest and best use by the landowner o Solar project is compatible use with Mace Trucking and Finish Grade business on the property • Provides income from a stranded asset • Contributes to the property tax base with no cost to the County infrastructure ➢ Request Class A Special Use Permit from the County for the installation of a solar facility • Property currently zoned R1 (Rural Residential) o Land appropriate for low density and low intensity development not dependent on urban services o Solar project is low intensity and does not require urban services • County allows installation of a utility scale solar project on R1 zoned property with Class A Special Use Permit • Project Reviewed by: o Planning & Inspections Department o Solid Waste Management o Department of Environment and Park and Recreation o Erosion Control Officer o Fire Department o NC State Environmental Review Clearinghouse o Planning Board • Unanimous recommendation for approval on August 3rd • Public hearing held with no opposition Permitted Use (chart) Site Plan (map) Findings of fact ➢ Findings of fact for special use permit (UDO § 5.3.2(A)(2)) Commissioner Rich: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? 6 Chair McKee: Yes. Commissioner Rich: Can you remind me how this contributes to the property tax base? Brian Quinlan: In North Carolina, solar projects have 80 percent abatements, so 20 percent of the property value will be contributed to the local tax base. Commissioner Rich: So Orange County will be getting additional tax off of this property. Brian Quinlan: Correct. Yes. Commissioner Rich: Thank you. Brian Quinlan: And then the use of the land will change so there will be an incremental amount of changes. Merrick Parrot: Thank you very much. Board I would like to call me next witness. Can you please state your name and business address? Chris Sandifer: Good evening. My name is Chris Sandifer. My address is 3118 Green Road, Spring Hope, NC. Merrick Parrot: And have you been sworn in this evening? Chris Sandifer: I have been sworn in. Merrick Parrot: Ok. How are you employed? Chris Sandifer: I'm self-employed consultant. Merrick Parrot: What kind of consulting? Chris Sandifer: I do electrical engineering consulting. Merrick Parrot: Do you have any professional licenses? Chris Sandifer: I have professional license. I am a registered North Carolina Engineer, among other states. I'm also a licensed Electrical Contractor in North Carolina, with unlimited classification. Merrick Parrot: Approximately when did you receive these licenses? Chris Sandifer: Oh gosh. Back in the 80s. Merrick Parrot: Good enough. And how long have you been practicing as an electrical contractor? Since the 80s? Chris Sandifer: Yes. Merrick Parrot: Please describe your experience with solar development. 7 Chris Sandifer: I have almost focused totally on solar for the last seven years. Merrick Parrot: What is your role in the project? Chris Sandifer: I do a lot of site evaluations. I determine if they are compatible with the utility interconnections; also other aspects of compatibility. I look at the design for efficiency, and review a lot of the designs for that. Also I do the medium voltage installs as the electrical contractor. Merrick Parrot: Were you engaged by the Applicant to testify this evening? Chris Sandifer: I was. Merrick Parrot: Thank you. I would now tender Mr. Sandifer as a qualified expert witness in the field of Mechanical Engineering, and development of solar farms. Chris Sandifer: Good evening Chairman McKee and the members of the Commission. I want to describe a little bit about what a solar farm is, and if at some point in time you want to raise your hand, I can speed up. Basically the main components are solar panels and they are mounted on racks and the racks are mounted to steel posts, which are driven into the ground. The output of those solar panels go to an inverter, which converts the output of the solar panel, which is a DC direct current, into an AC current, which you would have at your house. Then there is a transformer which matches the output of the inverter to the —whatever the local utility distribution voltage would be. Basically, I just wanted to tell you that's what we're doing. We're using mono-crystalline, or poly-crystalline silicone panels. They are safe and they don't have any toxic chemicals in them. They don't leach. They can be disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner at the end of their life. The facility will be not be lit so there will be no light trespass. These panels are coated with an anti-glare coating to make them more efficient. What we are trying to do is capture the light, and turn it into electricity, not have light bounce off and wasted. These are very efficient for doing that. These panels - and the nature of them - they don't take light from somewhere else. They just use the light that would naturally fall on that area of the ground — that would be intercepted by these panels. These—they have a fan and they do make noise when they are at full load, but that noise is dissipated to undetectable in the background where this one is. I did the math on this one, and it's— it would be one-eighth the noise that would normally be in the background during the day. And, of course, they don't make any noise at night. There is no smell, there is no dust, there is no radiation. These panels use no nuclear radiation. I would like to address the EMF (electromagnetic force) because sometimes that is a concern. There are actually two different kinds of EMF, that's electromagnetic force that would be around these devices. The first one is a DC, which would be very similar to a battery that is in your car. It will be a higher voltage, but that would be the analogy. I have gone around these panels — three, fifteen watt panels —and taken my boy-scout compass. And they always point north. The electromagnetic field of the earth is a lot strong than these panels produce. They do produce a— but it's not enough to deflect the needle on my compass. That's what I use as my gauge. That may not be technical, but it makes sense. The AC—once the DC goes into the inverter, and comes out—the AC side also has an electromagnetic field that— about it as well. But it would be on the same scale on the lines that are coming into it. I always say when you 8 put 100 amps in a piece of wire, it does have an electromagnetic field, but if you had — if the utility has 200 amps in that wire before, and this facility puts 100 amps — it actually takes away 100 amps that would be going to substation to this point. So the net effect of having local generation is to reduce the overall electromagnetic fields that would be surrounding the conductors that would leave this facility and go across public land, or other people's property. The piles that we mount the racks on will be driven into the ground. We try to do the minimum amount of ground disturbance that we have. But there would be a sediment and erosion control plan, and it would be approved by the County before any construction starts. There is no pollution, radioactive spent fuels, coal ash, fracking or chemicals. This is probably the most benign, safest way we can produce electricity that we know of now on this utility scale. I would just like to say, the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission has issued a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for this project, so it would not have gotten to this point if the North Carolina Utilities Commission did not think that it was a necessary production for renewable energy. I'm here to answer any questions. Merrick Parrot: I just have one follow up question for you. Did you prepare an affidavit for this? Chris Sandifer: I prepared an affidavit. Merrick Parrot: Ok. And Commissioners that is the affidavit that's located behind tab 3 of your booklet. Chris Sandifer: And my testimony tonight is the same as that affidavit. Are there any questions? Chair McKee: Questions from the Board? Commissioner Jacobs: How often do you have occasion to review a site and find it not suitable for a solar array? Chris Sandifer: I would say most of the time—90 percent of the time—they're not suitable. In my experience, they— a lot of folks want them, but they're just not compatible. Commissioner Jacobs: And are you aware of any hazard to wildlife that might land on, or otherwise touch, the panels. Chris Sandifer: I'm not aware of any study that causes wildlife any problem. Chair McKee: Follow up? Commissioner Jacobs: No. He probably won't want to answer this question, but which elected official was it who claimed that the solar panels were stealing the sunshine from the adjoining jurisdictions? Chris Sandifer: I think I won't answer that question. Commissioner Rich: I have a question. 9 Chair McKee: Follow up, reasonable question. Commissioner Rich: How long are the solar panels useful? Chris Sandifer: The manufacturer guarantees them to 97 percent of issue to 25 years. They probably have a 30-year contract here, so even if they depreciate more than that— in thirty years they would still have a tremendous value in place if they were 95 percent efficient. But the history is showing that they're actually exceeding those depreciation rates right now. They're tracking them. Commissioner Rich: So they're tracking them in Europe. They're not tracking them here, correct? Because we haven't had them here. Chris Sandifer: I understand, but the degration schedule they were on —what they were anticipating —they're actually are exceeding that. They're actually doing better than what we had first anticipated they would do. They're guaranteed for 95 percent for 25 years. Chair McKee: Follow up? Commissioner Rich: I'm good. Chair McKee: Other questions? Chris Sandifer: Thank you. Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint presentation: Public Health, Safety and General Welfare ➢ Solar projects are safe for the community • Low voltage o Array at much lower voltages than substations and power lines o System output voltage same as existing power line • All wiring and electrical equipment are covered/sealed • Design and construction meets all local electrical requirements as well as national electric codes • All equipment certified Underwriters Laboratories standards • Facility fenced with locked gate to prevent unauthorized entry • Solar panels are fully encapsulated/sealed with multiple layers including a glass cover and aluminum frame • Within 6 months of end of term of lease— components of the solar facility removed, site fertilized and reseeded with native grass o Decommissioning plan filed with the County Planning Dept. ➢ Testimony by Chris Sandifer, PE ➢ Review of publicly available information indicates no known archaeological, cultural or historical resources ➢ Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity review process has been completed by State and Federal agencies and CPCN approved for the project ➢ Phase I environmental assessment has been completed with no findings ➢ Project does not use any groundwater or have any impact on groundwater or water table 10 Commissioner Price: With regard to the environment, I know it says —well, the Wildlife Resources Commission had recommend native species and all — and also, so my question is will you be using native species as they recommend? And also pesticide usage to maintain growth in weeds. Do you have a low pesticide maintenance plan? Brian Quinlan: We will not use pesticides. We don't use pesticides. Commissioner Price: Thank you. Brian Quinlan: We will remove the trees. There are small trees and shrubs in the vicinity of the leased area itself. The balance of the trees on the outside perimeter, we will not touch. And then for landscaping maintenance I would say we generally will have guys come in spring through fall, on a regular basis, kind of a rotating basis because it's pretty large facility to keep the weeds below the bottom level of the panels. And they'll just use mowers, and essentially, weed whackers to do that. Brian Quinlan: When we decommission it? We won't plant—we will do the landscape buffer, we'll plant indigenous species that are required to meet the buffer standards. And then in the decommissioning, we'll come in, we'll pull everything out, and then we will reseed with, you know, local seed as well. Commissioner Price: I was thinking mostly with the landscaping while it is in operation. This also gets to maintenance. I know I might sound like I'm going off track, and I know our attorney might reel me in, but who is the actual owner of the public utility that is going to be using this power? And it gets more to who's going to be responsible for maintaining this site? Is it who you're selling the energy? Brian Quinlan: I guess there are two components to that. So the actual solar panels themselves, up to the transformer, will be owned by up to the inverter will be owned by us, basically. Then it transitions the ownership—the transformer will be installed by the utility— by Duke. And then from that point on —which basically then hooks into their distribution line— that's all their responsibility. So downstream is us, upstream is them. Commissioner Price: Thank you. Commissioner Jacobs: And who is responsible for cleaning up the abandoned barrels, and things like that, that are on the site? Is that part of your due diligence, or is that outside the scope? Brian Quinlan: What abandoned barrels? Commissioner Jacobs: Did I not see photographs? Chair McKee: There were some photographs and some documents we have, of some trash and barrels, I think was on the property. Commissioner Jacobs: Some of the area where it had been logged. Brian Quinlan: It was on the entrance of the property, it wasn't in the leased area, I don't think. In any event, in the leased area it would be our responsibility to remove it, once we —we have the lease in place— so that's ours. 11 Commissioner Jacobs: So staff has worked out what is the leased area and whether or not there's any materials discarded there that need to be removed. Brian Quinlan: There aren't any. Because the environmental assessment that was done— they went in and looked at the entire area. Those barrels and such were outside of the leased area. Patrick Mallet: That's part of the furnished parcel that is a current commercial operation, so once you get into the area that's proposed —the 27 acres of the 52-acre site to the rear—that's pretty well cleared, and doesn't contain any known debris, or any items for cleaning up. Obviously if they're going to utilize it, it's in their interest to have it ready to do the solar development. Commissioner Jacobs: So there are ponds and streams that are not part of this parcel, and there are discarded barrels of something on that part—with which this Applicant has no concerns under the law—what about the owner of the property, are they going be required to remove any of those barrels? Is anybody testing to see whether those barrels are polluting? As long —or is that irrelevant to our— I know it's irrelevant to this Applicant— but is that irrelevant to the County? Patrick Mallett: Well, it may or may not be. It depends on where the barrels are and what may or may not be located within them. The 52-acre parcel is part of a Special Use Permit with specific commitments to the utilization of a portion of that site and we also have, obviously, our Unified Development Ordinance that governs stream buffers, and other items if there were other elements that needed to be dealt with that made them complaint with our ordinance, then we would certainly do so. That's our obligation, regardless of this request. Commissioner Jacobs: Ok, so we see photographs that may indicate that there are materials on the rest of the property that could be hazardous. Is anybody going to follow up? Patrick Mallett: This went through the state clearing house system, and there were no known contaminants. There was an environmental assessment that was conducted on the property, which I believe evaluated the entire 52-acre site. The EPA is part of that clearinghouse. There are some facilities that are located within two miles that are on the other side of US 70, that I believe are brown field sites that have monitoring wells associated with them. But they're not part of this property. They're on the other side of the highway, and not contiguous. Chair McKee: Let's ask the Attorney to weigh in on whether this on whether the barrels on an adjacent property— or on this property, on an adjacent piece, are relevant to this discussion. James Bryan: It would depend on the permit. I think that this permit is applying for just the leased area, not the entire parcel. If that's the case, then you would treat them separately. In fact, there's a recent case, within the last year or two that made it explicitly clear that jurisdiction cannot withhold a permit on one property because of non-compliance in another one. So we may become aware of this through this process—and that's good to illicit that information, and that's all fine— but the ultimately force on this permit is irrelevant. Chair McKee: Ok. Thank you. 12 Patrick Mallett: I understand that there was some history with regard to the adequate inspection of those barrels, both by building inspections, and the Fire Marshal. They came back — and you'll see in your packet that the Fire Marshal came back, and everything's clear, and we've resolved any past concerns that we had, and they're meeting their needs and standards. Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint: ➢ Solar energy is generated with no emissions • Area of Orange County designated as transitional attainment area —area that has difficulty meeting/maintaining federal standards for ozone • Orange County has Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Action Plan • Comprehensive plan supports locally generated alternative energy sources ➢ Solar development has significant positive impact on the NC economy and environment • Duke University reported in 2015 that 450 solar companies employ 4,300 workers statewide and have invested $2 billion across 55 counties, with every dollar spent on state incentives returning $1.93 in benefits • Generates property taxes with no burden on infrastructure (roads, electrical, water or sewer) or schools • NC has had significant recent issues with coal fired plant including 2014 coal ash spill in Dan River • Solar energy generates electricity with no environmental impact Value of Contiguous Property ➢ Solar facilities have no effect on the valuation of surrounding property • Property appraisal report has been performed indicating no impact to adjacent home values. Merrick Parrot: Mr. Chair I would like to present out next witness to address this point. Would you please state your name and business address, for the record. Richard Kirkland: Rich Kirkland. 9408 Northfield Court, Raleigh. Merrick Parrot: And have you been sworn in this evening? Richard Kirkland: I have. Merrick Parrot: How are you employed? Richard Kirkland: I'm self-employed with Kirkland Appraisals. Merrick Parrot: Do you have any professional licenses? Richard Kirkland: I am state certified general appraiser in North Carolina, and I also have my MAI designation. Merrick Parrot: Approximately when did you get these? 13 Richard Kirkland: I've been appraising in North Carolina for twenty years, and it's been about thirteen years since I got my MAI. Merrick Parrot: How long have you been practicing as an appraiser? Richard Kirkland: Twenty years. Merrick Parrot: Please describe your experience with solar development. Richard Kirkland: I've been looking at impact study analysis around solar farms for the last four or five years. Over that time, I've looked at over 200 solar farms. Merrick Parrot: Were you engaged by the Applicant to testify this evening? Richard Kirkland: I was. Merrick Parrot: Thank you. I would now tender Mr. Kirkland as a qualified expert witness in the field of real property valuation and land use impacts. Chair McKee: Ok. Mr. Kirkland. Richard Kirkland: Good evening. I appreciate the time here tonight, and I'll try to be quick as I can while still explaining what I'm doing here. If you have any questions afterwards, just let me know. Chair McKee: And we may interrupt you also, as we go along. Richard Kirkland: That's perfectly fine. Again, I've been looking at this question on impact analysis. I do impact analysis for a number of different uses but I have been looking at solar farms, in particular, over the last four to five years, as I've been going across the state. I've visited over 200 solar farm sites across North Carolina, and been quantifying what uses are next to them. I do this to identify where solar farms are located in North Carolina. Merrick Parrot: My apologies, I meant to ask you, did you prepare an affidavit. Richard Kirkland: I did. Merrick Parrot: And you also prepared a report this evening? Richard Kirkland: I did. Merrick Parrot: Yes. Both of those are located behind tab 4. Thank you. Richard Kirkland: Thank you. I'll start with the subject property. I looked around it, identified all the parcels, and looked at what those adjoining uses are. In the same manner, I've been doing that same breakdown of adjoining uses for all 200 solar farms I've been looking at across the State. I have charted those adjoining uses across the state. You can find that on page 16 of the report. I think at the point that I generated this report I had 173 solar farms in that break down. And it shows what those adjoining uses are. The vast majority are agriculture and residential uses, with a minority of about 5 to zero percent, depending on how you look at it, going commercial-industrial adjoining uses. 14 I looked at all these properties adjoining it, based on number of parcels, as well as total by acreage. If you look at it just by total acreage, a large farm next to it could distort numbers, but if you look at it just by parcels —so you have to look at both. This subject property is very similar to this. There's a little bit of highway commercial along 70. Other than that it's primarily residential, with a little agricultural next to it. So it's very consistent with what I've seen across the state. I've looked at this breakdown whether it was the coastal plains or the piedmont, mountains; I get the same breakdown. If I look at it by different counties, I still get that same breakdown. It's very consistent across the state. So this is a very similar location where solar farms across North Carolina are being located. The other thing I've been doing while I've been quantifying these adjoining uses is looking for sales of land next to solar farms, or sales of homes next to solar farms. That's the start of doing what's called a paired sale, or match pair analysis. And it's really a straightforward idea. You look at something that sold next to the solar farm, and compare it something that's identical, as much as possible, in every way, but not next to a solar farm, to measure for the impact. There's really a textbook example of this on page 6, there's a solar farm that was developed next to a sub division that was going in in Goldsboro. Homes were under construction, and being sold, before the solar farm was announced. So there was no anticipation of a solar farm. Then after the solar farm was announced and built, homes continued to be built. So there is a breakdown continuing on the following pages, through pages 7 and 8, showing homes sales in that area, before and after the solar farm was announced, and also showing homes that happened adjoining the solar farm, and those that were down the street, not adjoining the solar farm. Same size, same style home, selling for the same price per square foot, regardless of it was before or after the solar farm, or whether it adjoins the solar farm, or is down the street. There are identical homes, actually the exact same floor plan, selling for the same price, regardless—again —whether it was before or after, adjacent or down the street. I talked to the builder-developer team who were dealing with this. They indicated that the solar farm presence had no impact on how quickly they sold out. So it had no impact on timing of sales. There has been a resale of one of those homes that the builder sold to an end user. Sold it in 2013, it resold again in 2015. It showed appreciation consistent with what you'd expect in the area, so it's had no impact on appreciation on homes sales in that area either. So there's a multitude of match pairs that can be looked at it that one development. On the following pages after that, I've got a couple other match pair analysis from some other subdivisions, and some agricultural land that I've looked at. They again show no impact on those sales. So it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm — it is going to be located in a place very similar to this— and the match pairs show no impact on value. I therefore conclude there is no impact on value on the adjoining properties at this location, here in Mebane. And again, that's consistent with the fact that this is where solar farms are located in North Carolina, and it's also consistent with my experience looking at other impacts. Again, I do a lot of impact analyses— not just for solar farms — and when you find an impact, there tends to be sort of categories where things kind of happen. If you can measure an impact, the biggest impacts come from anything that's dealing with hazardous materials. You know, if there's any concerns over ground water, or anything like that—that's always going to be a big impact. And there are no concerns like that with solar farms. Next, is the odor. I actually appraise poultry farms, and things of that nature. I've done impact analysis on those as well as looking at solid waste facilities, and wastewater treatment plants. And there are measurable impacts. Those tend to be the next highest category of impact on 15 adjoining properties. And again, there are no odors associated with solar farms. There is no out-gassing, or anything that would cause those concerns. Next would be noise impact levels. Again there are no noise impacts coming off the solar farms. At night, they're silent. During the day—from the fence line, I've never been able to hear the inverters. I understand there's a fan going somewhere in the solar farm, but I've never really been able to hear them over background noise. So, there's no impact off that. You now come down to stigma and that is the next category, which is normally like concerns over, say adult establishments near residences, or things of that nature. There are no stigma associated with solar farms. The last category is appearance. And that's the only area where solar farms really talk about— again, when I talk about these categories, appearance, typically, is going to fall on a very small range of impact. When I have determined impact before, it's been looking at things like water towers, looking at billboard signs, things that are up high and are very visible and hard to obscure. The solar panels in this case, are going to be less than ten feet tall. There's going to be landscape buffers and they are going to be hard to see and they are going to be very well screened. They re really well consistent with areas, and I really don't project any impact due to appearance. So again, it's my professional opinion, that not only will this have no impact on adjoining property values, but it's also a harmonious location for a solar farm. I'd be happy to go back over any of this, or answer any questions. Chair McKee: Questions? I believe not. Thank you sir. Richard Kirkland: Thank you very much. Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint presentation: ➢ Project to maintain existing trees and shrubs on perimeter and supplement as necessary to provide buffer meeting Type D requirements (Option 1) • 50' landscape buffer surrounding the site o Provides visual separation/screening o Project will not be seen from surrounding properties • Prevents any potential glare from project to surrounding properties and streets ➢ NC Utilities Commission has determined that the project is a public necessity (issuance of CPCN) Landscape requirement (chart) Landscape plan (sketch) Harmony and compliance ➢ County planning process acknowledges that solar projects can be compatible in R1 zoning ➢ Project does not require water or sewer ➢ Traffic study performed • Less than one car per day during operation • No employees on site o Two scheduled maintenances annually 16 o May through September more activity to maintain landscaping Chair McKee: Now you say twice a year for scheduled maintenance—and you mentioned a little earlier about the "mowing". Scheduled maintnenace is not including the mowing, I'm assuming. Brian Quinlan: Correct. Chair McKee: Ok. Brian Quinlan: There will probably be different groups that we hire to do that. More technical guys to go in and actually make sure the system is working, and then more landscapers to actually do the landscaping. ➢ Solar facilities have no significant impact on the permeability of the land and do not require permanent storm water management • Panels are supported on direct driven piles— no cement pilings • Land is not paved and any civil site work is minimized ➢ Low intensity development of solar facility with minimal impact on land maintains/preserves the existing surrounding wetlands and significant amount of woodland ➢ Wetlands have been delineated by environmental engineers and confirmed by USACE • Wetlands are delineated on surveys and construction drawings • Project construction and operation has no impact on wetlands • Buffer maintained between project and wetlands ➢ Site designated 10-year transition area in County land use plan • Transition from rural/low density to higher density uses • Solar project consistent with plan o Beneficial use of site with limited/no capacity for higher density uses o Provides tax base to support transition with no impact on infrastructure o Location of project and design are compatible with low and high density • Not visible • No noise • No traffic ➢ County plan emphasizes sustainable growth balancing social, economic and environmental factors • Solar project supports all factors ➢ County land use plan encourages locally generated alternative energy resources and promotes alternative and sustainable fuels ➢ Landscaping requirements and location of project will make it not visible from nearest residence and street • Prevents glare from the project ➢ Decommissioning plan submitted to County to remove all equipment and restore property Chair McKee: May I ask a question — I hate to keep interrupting —on the decommissioning. Is decommissioning after 25— after the lease term —a given, or is there an option for refurbishing, and a continuance? 17 Brian Quinlan: So, the way it's set up in North Carolina is there is a 15-year contract with Duke Energy. So essentially we're locked in for that 15-year period. And at the end of that 15-year period, who knows what's going to happen in the industry. I mean, what I do know, we'll be able to produce power at a lower rate than anybody because we don't have any variable costs, because we get it from the sun. So, if we can find either Duke wants to buy the product— and the market evolves, like in the northeast—and PJM you can sell wholesale —you can't do that here yet, but at that point you might. And we have 5-year options after that to extend the plan. And like we mentioned earlier, the panels will last for a really long time, easily fifty years. The system really is designed to be a very long life asset. Chair McKee: Ok. Brian Quinlan resumed the PowerPoint presentation: ➢ Solar Project meets all County land use goals: Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals. Land Use Goal 5: Life, health, and property safe from hazards. Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. ➢ 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 floodplains 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 shall, 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. Specific Standards ➢ Specific Standards for Special Use Permits (UDO § 5.3.2(B)) • (1) Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, and water o There will be no on-site personnel, so the Facility will not require sewage disposal facilities, solid waste, or water services • (2) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection o Orange County Emergency Service staff and Sheriff's office have indicated the project can be served • (3) Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site o Facility will be accessed by a driveway constructed to NCDOT standards o Traffic study found site would be accessed by less than one car per day during operation • (4) Other use specific standards as set forth herein 19 o As previously addressed, project meets all County standards for a Solar Array 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 is 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, Chair McKee: Questions from the Board on any of this presentation, either by staff or by Applicant? Commissioner Dorosin. Commissioner Dorosin: So if this permit gets approved, what is the timetable from starting construction to it being up and running. Brian Quinlan: It's about a six-month process, basically, to build the finished design, and then build the system. So the construction period is about six months. It's actually the shortest period of all the process that we go through. Chair McKee: Other questions? Commissioner Rich. Commissioner Rich: Are the panels made in America? Brian Quinlan: These panels —we haven't finalized selection — but I would say probably they will not be made in America. There are only two panel manufacturers in the US at this point. Commissioner Rich: That is sad. Brian Quinlan: It is. Chair McKee: Does that conclude everyone that you all had that you wished to speak? Merrick Parrot: Yes, that concludes our testimony for this evening. As Mr. Quinlan stated, we believe we have met all of the applicable standards of the UDO. We believe that we have met our burden as the Applicant to provide competent material and substantial evidence here this evening, and ask that you do approve the Special Use Permit in front of you. I understand that there may be additional people speaking tonight, and want to reserve the right to rebut or ask cross-examination as needed. In addition, we are, of course, available for any additional questions you may have. 20 Chair McKee: Before we move to any other individuals intending to provide testimony I would ask if there are further questions from our Board. I would also ask our Attorney that this information will be automatically entered into the record; or do we need a formal motion to accept the material and enter it into the record, as presented? James Bryan: It would not hurt to have a clear motion on the record Chair McKee: Because this is quasi-judicial, I think I'll go with the more formal approach. Do I hear a motion to accept the evidence into the record? A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to accept the evidence into the record. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: I will now ask if there are other individuals intending to provide testimony and evidence on this project. Yes sir, if you'll come forward, and state your name and have you been sworn. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chris Bishop: Hello everyone. My name is Chris Bishop, and I've been sworn in. In late 2013, with the goal of preventing my family's farmland in rural northern Chapel Hill from being turned into residential development—also attempting to provide a modest income for my great- aunt who'd just suffered a stroke— I sought alternatives for the use of our family's farm land, and one of those alternatives was solar. I began exploring possibilities of putting a solar array, much like the one being proposed here tonight on our family land, and worked with Sunlight partners in conducting many feasibility studies for putting this solar array in northern Chapel Hill. It was found that our site met a litany of requirements for a successful solar array, including proximity to high voltage power lines. This solar array—the proposed Binks solar array—was to power 500 homes in northern Chapel Hill, and would have prevented houses from being developed on the land for 15 to 20 years. For those impacted by this current proposal I just want to make the point that Lydia Wegman, now the Planning Board Chairman, and her husband Robert Cantwell, whose land was adjacent to our family's land — since we sold them land to build their house in the 90s— lead a successful protest of their neighbors against my solar farm, encouraging everyone to go out and get appraisals on the impact of a solar farm would have to their property. I would like to just bring up the fact that the impact study, conducted as part of the Oakwood Solar Farm (current applicant), found that solar farms do not have any negative impact on the property values of adjacent properties. On May 27, 2014, Lydia's neighbors came to the public hearing and voiced their concerns late into the night; about five and a half hours of testimony about how bad solar farms are. Some things that were voiced at the public hearing are that solar farms would harm home values—the primary reason of their opposition; it would increase traffic in the neighborhood; the solar panels would leak chemicals into the soil; the solar array would be too loud; solar panels would increase the water run off; and the solar company was from Arizona, and is thus questionable not being from North Carolina. These statements were all refuted by qualified engineers at the time. As a result of this opposition, sunlight partners withdrew its application for the Binks Array, leaving Orange County with one less solar farm. Had that not happened, this would be the fifth solar farm in Orange County. My question tonight 21 is simple—why I'm here, and what I'm trying to understand is—what's so different about the current proposal —the Binks proposal — other than being adjacent to the Chairwoman's own property? Chair McKee: Sir, I understand your frustration, I understand that the project was voluntarily withdrawn. I'm not sure it is relevant to this discussion tonight. I don't have an answer for you. Chris Bishop: Ok. Thank you. Chair McKee: Are there other individuals that would like to provide testimony and evidence on this project? Any questions from our Board at this point. Then I would ask staff to review the recommending findings for the project in attachment 8 in our packet. Patrick Mallett: Attachment 8 outlines the findings of fact. That is on page 217 of your packet. The cover page is basically a summary of the general and specific findings that are applicable to the Special Use Permit Class As, and then this specific type of request for a solar array. If you move onto the second page, items in section 2 articulate the application components. Determinations from both staff and the Planning Board were that they met all those requirements. If you turn to the next page, that articulates all the notification requirements for the public notice. Chair McKee: Mr. Mallett, you've mentioned 217 in our packet that we received. Patrick Mallett: Attachment 8 is, I believe, on 217. Commissioner Jacobs: 224. Patrick Mallett: Page 224. There in green are the application components: the conditions were met, the notification requirements are articulated on the next page, which is the public notice, the newspaper ad, the sign, and the mailed notice to adjacent property owners within 1000 feet. Just as a parenthetical, we meet or exceed the State requirements for Special Use Permits; specifically our notification to property owners. The next page outlines specific standards with regards to waste disposal, safety, and vehicular access. The determination was that they met all of those standards. The next page outlined in grey, is specific standards for solar array public utility. The determination was that they met all of those standards. The next page is the three specific findings and standards that are to be met. These are the items that you would need to, of course, read out verbatim, and make a motion on each item. Then the last item in your packet are the recommendations, which outline conditions of approval 1-11. Items 2-11 are fairly standard. Those are typical of all the other solar arrays, class A special use permits that you've reviewed and approved; and/or considered. Item number 1 is unique in the sense that we've asked for a conservation easement on the special flood hazard overlay portion of the property, which is in the northeastern corner—there's a portion of the property that's not only contained within the stream buffer, but it has a 100 year floodplain. Felt like it was appropriate to preserve that area with a conservation easement. Chair McKee: Any questions for this portion (of the packet) for staff? The Planning Board Chair, or Vice-Chair, are not present. I believe we do have one person with the Planning Board. Does that person wish to add any information from the Planning Board discussion? (planning board member indicated she did not have anything to add) Thank you very much. 22 The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to affirm the recommendation of the Planning Board and Staff concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (C) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee: A motion will (now) need to be made regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and based on the following evidence entered into the record: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including the following: o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33) 23 o Phase 1 Environmental Assessment demonstrating there are no environmental impacts associated with the project (pages 34 through 110) o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals LLC indicating the project would not impact adjacent property values (pages 111 through 134) o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn (page 135) o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2. • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. And • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Dorosin made a friendly amendment to make the 11 conditions be entered, and this was accepted by the motioner and the seconder. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous property based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including the following: o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33) o An appraisal completed by Kirkwood Appraisals LLC indicating the project would not impact adjacent property values (pages 111 through 134) o Traffic impact analysis completed by Kimley Horn (page 135) o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2. • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. And • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) 24 of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, including: • Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan, presented at the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. • Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of the UDO. • Applicant sworn testimony from the public hearing. • Attachment 1 of the September 12, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing package including the following: o Detailed project narrative (pages 13 through 33) o Site plan completed by ESA Management as contained in Attachment 2. o Staff review comments as contained in Attachment 4. • Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. And • A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the Special Use Permit including the imposition of the conditions detailed within Attachment 8 of the abstract package. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs: Mr. Chair, may I bring up a few things that arose, that are not a part of this particular process, but were related? Does staff have pictures of pages 86 and 87? I don't know if the Maces are here. But these pictures— it's pretty disturbing to think we're just leaving all this—these leaking barrels and plastic containers and piles of garbage for eternity on this site, without any remediation in the works. Do we have pictures? Chair McKee: If the owners are here, I would be willing to give you the pictures as we have it in our packet. (A family member in the audience came forward and received pictures from Commissioner Jacobs.) Commissioner Price: Page 90 also. Commissioner Jacobs: thank you. I just wanted to tell Mr. Sandifer that it was the Town of Woodland. They had 3 solar arrays, and the citizens opposed a fourth. The Town got accused of saying that they would suck up all the energy from the sun, but it was actually the husband of a science teacher that testified, who said that. It wasn't the Town. It became a big national story. 25 D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS Note: Items D.1, 2, and 3 are related but separate, stand-alone, items. Because public comment may address aspects of the three items, staff's presentation will encompass all three items before opening the public comment portion for each item, as well as Board actions for each item. Tom Altieri and Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, presented these items within one PPT and one presentation for all three items. Tom Altieri did the first portion and then I followed up the next portion for Perdita Holtz in Item 2 and 3- it was one continuous presentation. 1. Town Of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan Amendment -To review government-initiated amendments to the Land Use Plan, involving five parcels south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86. • Four parcels totaling approximately 166.2 acres are proposed to be changed from "Suburban Office Complex" to "Employment". • One parcel totaling 34.58 acres is proposed to be changed from "Mixed Residential Neighborhood" to "Suburban Office Complex". Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, presented the following information: BACKGROUND: The County is currently working on plans to invest approximately $1.5 million to extend water and sewer infrastructure within the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD). Amendments to the Joint Land Use Plan (JLUP) map are proposed to better promote economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve planned sewer capacities for non-single-family residential uses. The amendments clarify the intent for primarily nonresidential mixtures of uses within this EDD. Amendments to the JLUP need to be approved by the Town and County governing boards and the processes are running concurrently. An interlocal utility service agreement between Orange County and Hillsborough is also being prepared for the October 2016 regular Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting that will have linkage to the JLUP and further describe desired land uses within the Hillsborough EDD. The Amendment Outline Form in Attachment 1 in the agenda packet provides additional information, including the details of the proposed map amendment. County Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the proposed amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the meeting. On July 21, 2016, the Town of Hillsborough Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Town Board of Commissioners. The Town Board is expected to take action on September 12. Summary of Amendment Process: County Amendment Outline Form Approved April 19 Hillsborough Planning Board voted to schedule hearing June 16 County Planning Board info item July 6 26 Hillsborough Town Board public hearing July 21 County Public Information Meeting July 26 County Planning Board recommendation August 3 Hillsborough Planning Board recommendation August 18 Hillsborough Town Board action September 12 County BOCC public hearing (possible action) September 12 Orange County is also proposing amendments to its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which is not part of the joint planning construct, that pertain to the Hillsborough Economic Development District. These UDO text amendments, as well as related Zoning Atlas (map) amendments, are also on tonight's September 12 public hearing agenda. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed Town of Hillsborough/Orange County JLUP map amendment. Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Draft minutes from this meeting are included in Attachment 4 in the agenda packet. Additionally, the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a subcommittee of the Planning Board, reviewed the proposed amendment at its July 6 meeting and approved notes from this meeting are included in Attachment 3. Tom Altieri made the following PowerPoint presentation: Hillsborough Economic Development District—Joint Land Use Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas Amendments Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public Hearing September 12, 2016 Presenters: Tom Altieri, AICP and Perdita Holtz, AICP Joint Presentation Overview • Land Use Plan (Agenda item D. 1) • General Guidance for Future Uses • Zoning Text (Agenda item D. 2) • Development Standards • Permitted Uses • Processes for Review • Zoning Map (Agenda item D.3) • Applies a specific zoning district to a geographic area Joint Presentation but Separate Hearings and BOCC Actions 1. Joint Presentation 2. Public Hearings • Agenda item D.1 - Open, Take Comments, and Close • Agenda item D.2 - Open, Take Comments, and Close • Agenda item D.3 - Open, Take Comments, and Close 3. BOCC Actions • Agenda item D.1 - Discuss, Consider, and Take Action • Agenda item D.2 - Discuss, Consider, and Take Action • Agenda item D.3 - Discuss, Consider, and Take Action Hillsborough EDD established in 1994 along with two other EDDs (Buckhorn and Eno). Formerly Transition Areas (1981 Comprehensive Plan) 27 Purpose of Amendments • County is currently working on plans to extend water and sewer infrastructure to parcels south of Interstate 40. • Desire to better promote economic development opportunities, especially high-tech research and development/manufacturing . By-right approvals important to enhance competitiveness during site selection process. Site selection specialists send detailed questionnaires to potential communities. o Used to weed out communities that don't have sites ready-to-go. • Continued interest to simplify and shorten review processes, where feasible. • Ensure standards are in place to promote development that will have minimal impacts on surrounding properties. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan Map Amendment History of Joint Planning with Hillsborough Hillsborough/OC Urban Transition Area Task Force (2004) Hillsborough/OC Strategic Growth Plan Phase I (2006) Phase II — Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement (2009) Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan (2013) Joint Resolution Amending Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement (2014) Proposed JLUP Amendment (Current 2016) Land Use Plan vs. Zoning Land Use Plan (LUP)/Future Land Use Map: • About the future • Long-term vision of how and where growth will occur • Broad categories of proposed uses • Text and map form the "Plan" Zoning: • Prime tool for implementing LUP • About what is allowed today • More specific zones and rules governing uses that outline design and development standards (setbacks, minimum lot size, buffering, etc.) • Text and map in an "Ordinance" (Unified Development Ordinance) 166-Acres (4 parcels) From: Suburban Office Complex- • Office and employment enterprises • Limits walk in customers and manufacturing components To: Employment • Business, light industrial, office, research and development, restaurants, retails and convenience shopping/services 35-acres (1 parcel) From: Mixed Residential Neighborhood 28 • Residential dominant • Variety of dwelling types and densities • May integrate supportive commercial, public/semi-public, and public space uses To: Suburban Office Complex • Office and employment enterprises • Limits walk in customers and manufacturing components Why Switch Designations? • Proposed districts better describe the types of uses the County is attempting to promote. • Single-family residential not envisioned for the Economic Development District. • Infrastructure extensions being funded from Article 46 sales tax monies ("1/4-cent sales tax") and are to be used economic development purposes, not residential subdivisions. Planning Board Recommendation • Considered at August 3, 2016 meeting • Voted 7-1 to recommend approval Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, presented the following background and PowerPoint presentation for Item D-2 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that would modify existing regulations that pertain to the Hillsborough Economic Development District. BACKGROUND: In order to better promote economic development opportunities in the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD), the Planning Director is suggesting UDO text amendments to modify some development standards, types of permitted uses, and use standards. Plans for County investment in water and sewer infrastructure to parcels south of Interstate 40 and in the vicinity of Old Highway 86 are underway and these UDO text amendments focus on this geographic area in conjunction with a related, separate proposed rezoning action. Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. Proposed text amendment language can be found in Attachment 3 within a "track changes" format. Attachment 4 contains information summarizing some aspects of the proposed amendments. The map in Attachment 5 shows the extent of the Hillsborough EDD. Attachment 8 is the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code list; it is included because uses only in the Hillsborough EDD are regulated by NAICS sectors. Planning and Attorney's office staffs will continue to analyze the unique use of the NAICS system for permitted use consistency and changes necessary due to judicial decisions. Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the proposed amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the meeting. The Planning Department and Economic Development Departments have reviewed and discussed these amendments and find they further joint goals. 29 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3. Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the amendment package. Additionally, the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a subcommittee of the Planning Board, reviewed the proposed amendments at its July 6 meeting and approved notes from this meeting are included in Attachment 6. Following the August 3rd Planning Board meeting, County Attorney staff completed their review of the proposed text amendments. As a result of the review, edits were made to the proposed amendments. The edits made after the August 3rd meeting are identified with yellow highlighting in Attachment 3. Due to these edits, Planning staff will present the proposed amendments for a second review and recommendation at the September 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Planning staff will present a summary of the Planning Board's discussion and recommendation for the BOCC at the September Quarterly Public Hearing. Hillsborough Economic Development District—Joint Land Use Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas Amendments Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public Hearing September 12, 2016 Presenters: Tom Altieri, AICP and Perdita Holtz, AICP Joint Presentation Overview • Land Use Plan (Agenda item D. 1) • General Guidance for Future Uses • Zoning Text (Agenda item D. 2) • Development Standards • Permitted Uses • Processes for Review • Zoning Map (Agenda item D.3) • Applies a specific zoning district to a geographic area Joint Presentation but Separate Hearings and BOCC Actions UDO Text Amendment Item D.2 Overview • Modify some development standards • Revisions to types of permitted uses • Amendments to some use-specific standards Reminder Regarding Existing Standards • UDO contains a myriad of standards in place to lessen any impacts/mitigate impacts of development. • Use-specific standards in Article 5 • General standards (applies to all development) in Article 6. • Examples— Performance Standards: • Electrical Disturbance or Interference (Sec. 6.4.2) 30 • Noise (Sec. 6.4.3) • Vibration (Sec. 6.4.4) • Air Pollution (Sec. 6.4.5) • Disposal of Liquid Wastes (Sec. 6.4.6) • Hazardous Materials (Sec. 6.4.7) • Utilities (including water use limitations; any use projected to require more than 30,000 gallons per day cannot be permitted by-right) (Sec. 6.4.8) • Solid Waste (Sec. 6.4.9) • Service & Outdoor Storage (Sec. 6.4.10) • Architectural Design Standards (Sec. 6.5.1) • Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection (Sec. 6.8) • Parking, Loading & Circulation (Sec. 6.9) • Outdoor Lighting (Sec. 6.11) • Signs (Sec. 6.12) • Stream Buffers, Stormwater Management, and Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control (Sec. 6.13 to 6.15) • Traffic Impact Analysis (Sec. 6.17) Specific Amendments • Lessening of minimum lot size standard in four of the five EDH zoning districts • Lots on public water and sewer do not need to be as large as lots served by well and septic • Moving towards by-right approvals • Detailed site plan required and must meet all requirements in UDO • Remove requirement for a Special Use Permit for structures over 20,000 square feet in size and/or development on lots greater than 2 acres in size • Non-residential development within 200 feet of a lot smaller than 2 acres in size with an existing dwelling will still require a Special Use Permit. • Revising three of the EDH zoning district to have a slightly different focus. • EDH-3 currently allows residential, including single-family and duplex residential. • Remove single-family and duplexes as permitted uses. • Multi-family still permitted but only as a portion of a mixed use development plan that includes at least one other permitted principal use. • Purpose is to promote the EDD for non-residential uses. • Sewer lines to be extended using Article 46 sales tax monies which are earmarked for economic development purposes. • Single-family and duplex residential could still be allowed through the MPD-CZ process or as a Conditional Use District,just not permitted by- right. • EDH-4 is proposed to have multi-family residential and retail added as permitted uses. • These types of uses would be permitted by-right only as a portion of a mixed use development plan that includes at least one other permitted principal use. • EDH-5 is proposed to be revised to have a research and manufacturing focus. • Desire to promote high tech research and development and supporting businesses • Several types of by-right uses would be added to EDH-5 (red * in EDH-5 column of Table of Permitted Uses). • Retail trade and restaurants would have to be part of a mixed use development plan that includes other permitted uses in order to be allowed by-right. 31 Permitted Use Table (chart) Example: Density Chart Example: 35-acre parcel, zoned EDH-4, choosing to develop both multi-family and retail • Hypothetical, based on realistic assumptions about parking requirements, which vary greatly depending on use and assuming surface parking only. Planning Board Recommendation • Considered at August 3, 2016 meeting • Voted 7-1 to recommend approval • Modifications suggested by Attorney's Office after August 3 meeting were considered at the September 7 Planning Board meeting • Voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the modified amendments Perdita Holtz continued the PowerPoint presentation for item D-3: 3. Zoning Map Amendment -To review government-initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas that would rezone: • Four parcels totaling approximately 166.2 acres and 17.05 acres of Interstate right- of-way from EDH-3 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office with Residential [current name]) to EDH-5 (Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing [proposed name]). The parcels are located immediately south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86. • One parcel totaling 34.58 acres and 8.92 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-2 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) to EDH-4 (Economic Development Hillsborough Office/ Retail [proposed name]). The parcel is located immediately south of Interstate 40 and east of Old Highway 86. BACKGROUND: In order to better promote economic development opportunities in the Hillsborough EDD, the Planning Director is suggesting amendments to the Zoning Atlas. A coordination meeting was held with the Town of Hillsborough's Planning Director who concurs with these proposals. Plans are currently underway to extend water and sewer infrastructure to the portion of the EDD south of Interstate 40. All or portions of 4 parcels, totaling 166.2 acres, located west of Old Highway 86 are proposed to be rezoned from EDH-3 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office with Residential [current name]) to EDH-5 (Economic Development Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing [proposed name]). One 34.58 acre parcel located east of Old Highway 86 is proposed to be rezoned from EDH-2 (Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office) to EDH-4 (Economic Development Hillsborough Office/ Retail [proposed name]). Three overlay districts also apply in this geographic area (Watershed Protection, Special Flood Hazard Area, and Major Transportation Corridor). No modifications are being proposed to the boundaries of the three overlay districts and requirements related to the overlay districts will continue to apply. This area is not located in a critical or protected watershed. Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. The proposed ordinance, including a map that shows the extent of the proposed rezoning, can be found in Attachment 3. Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on July 26 to explain the 32 proposed amendments affecting the Hillsborough EDD. Five interested persons attended the meeting. The Planning Department and Economic Development Departments have reviewed and discussed these amendments and find they further joint goals. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3. Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the Zoning Atlas amendments. Zoning Atlas Amendment Item D.3 Proposed Rezoning • 166.2 acres (4 parcels) plus 17.05 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-3 to EDH-5 (west of Old Hwy 86) • 34.58 acres (1 parcel) plus 8.92 acres of Interstate right-of-way from EDH-2 to EDH-4 (east of Old Hwy 86) • Three overlay districts also apply in this area—they are not proposed for modifications • Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District • Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District • Watershed Protection Overlay District • This area is in the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed Proposed Hillsborough EDD Zoning Amendments with Overlay Districts (map) Orange County Watersheds (map) Mailed Notification Area for Zoning Amendments — Two Notices: 1. Public Info. Meeting (7/26) and Planning Board Meeting (8/3) 2. Public Hearing (9/12) Signs Posted Twice Public Comment at Planning Board Meeting Planning Board Recommendation • Considered at August 3, 2016 meeting • Voted 7-1 to recommend approval Public Hearings Agenda item D.1 —Town Of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan Amendment Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update, regarding a potential water and sewer written agreement with Hillsborough, before extending utilities. 33 Tom Altieri said that is still the intention to have such an agreement, and a first draft should be before the Board of County Commissioners within the next month or two. He said nothing will take place until this agreement is in place. Commissioner Jacobs said when the agreement was negotiated with Hillsborough; some trades in acreage were also made. Commissioner Jacobs referenced some concerns in the Planning Board minutes in their packet, and staff addressed these concerns. Perdita Holtz said Michael Harvey, Planning, is working with the County Attorney's office on some of these issues, such as the table of permitted uses to address some judicial decisions that took place in the last year. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this evening's proposed amendments are approved, will the aforementioned changes be put on hold. Perdita Holtz said technically the uses will be allowed, but practically it would be doubtful that they will be allowed. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Attorney had any input. James Bryan said from the legal perspective, the table of permitted uses is what it is; and if does not specifically prohibit something, then it is allowed. He said if the Board wants to clarify a specific issue, prior to staff attempting to clarify the bigger picture, the Board can do so. Commissioner Jacobs suggested removing the following uses: poultry processing leather and hide tanning and finishing, asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing, explosives manufacturing, fertilizer manufacturing. He said it is unreasonable to leave them in, and if changes are being made to the uses, this is the time to remove them. He said he cannot vote on it, as he doesn't know the possibilities. Perdita Holtz said on the NAICS Code is on pages 319-359 of agenda packet. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the uses he mentioned be removed from the uses for the EDD. Commissioner Jacobs asked if is there a floodplain, and if so, how it affects the parcels. Perdita Holtz said there is a floodplain, the special flood hazard overlay district. She said the UDO does not allow development in the floodplain, and also requires a buffer. Commissioner Jacobs asked if, within this floodplain, there is still going to be areas that unable to be developed, even though they will be rezoned. Perdita Holtz said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said he will review these uses, and will get back to staff with a more formalized proposal. Commissioner Dorosin asked if everything in those 45 pages is permissible. Perdita Holtz said she would have to compare the two tables. Commissioner Dorosin said one option would be to defer this item to allow for more time and clarity. Commissioner Jacobs said he would be comfortable with Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion, and asked staff to come back. Commissioner Pelissier shared Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. She said the list is so long to review, and determining what is onerous is a judgement issue. Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff could identify what about the UDO would end up excluding some of these uses, even though the uses may be permitted. Perdita Holtz said the performance standards that focus on things like pollution and noise. She said many of the items in Article 6. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the concerns from this rezoning would also apply to other EDD areas in the County. Perdita Holtz said only the Hillsborough EDD is governed by the NAICS Code. She said in the other EDDs the uses are listed in the permitted use table. 34 Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. She asked if all types of drive thrus would be completely excluded. Perdita Holtz said the EDH — 1 and EDH —2 district currently has an existing standard that was not suggested for removal. Commissioner Price said drive up pharmacies and grocery pick-ups are very necessary for some residents with mobility challenges. Perdita Holtz said, under the current standards, a developer could come in with a MPDCZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District) to build a drive through, and the Board would decide. She said staff would like to have direction from Board of County Commissioners as to whether the drive thru standard should stay or be removed. Commissioner Price said she understands the reservations about drive thrus, but also sees their benefits. Commissioner Jacobs said this goes back to the Buckhorn Village, where the Board wanted to exclude drive thrus. He said there was then a split vote on whether to exclude them countywide. He said he would prefer the route to have the default be no, but an exception to the drive thru standard can be requested. He said it is preferable for able bodied people to get out of the car and walk, but there are residents who cannot get out of the car. Commissioner Dorosin disagreed. He said the restriction of drive thrus is overly limiting to economic development, and there are more important changes that can be made to reduce the County's carbon footprint. He said he would be open to removing the prohibition. Commissioner Burroughs said she tends to agree with Commissioner Dorosin. She said there are a number of categories of people that can greatly benefit from drive thru options. Commissioner Price said there is an element of keeping up with the times. Commissioner Rich said she would favor leaving the restriction in, and having proposed drive thrus reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Jacobs said obesity is a major problem in this country. Commissioner Dorosin said the stretch of 1-40 in Orange County is a bit of a wasteland, and there is an economic question to consider here. Chair McKee said drive thrus are a fact of life, and he would vote for removing the restriction. Chair McKee said he would not mind delaying this item. He said he would pick one of these permitted uses, and asked Perdita Holtz if she could run through the process as if a type of business wanted to relocate in the Hillsborough EDD. Perdita Holtz said staff would review the submitted site plan, determine whether all requirements were met, and, if so, staff would approve, and then the Applicant would be in the building permit process. Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason why buildings three can only be three stories high. Perdita Holtz said it depends on the zoning district. She said staff is suggesting increasing the multi-family structures restriction from 2 stories to three stories. Commissioner Dorosin said there were 4 Board members that wanted to make the change on the drive thru restriction, but asked if there difference between leaving the restriction as is, and having a builder come to the Board with a MPDCZ, versus lifting the restriction; the notion of by right versus by possibility. Perdita Holtz said the MPDCZ is a re-zoning process and a legislative process. She said a site plan would need to be submitted; go through the Planning Board review, and then to a Quarterly Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are differences in time or cost between the two methods. Perdita Holtz said from the application deadline date, of which there is one per quarter with the current MPDCZ process, it is 3 to 4 months before an Applicant hears an answer; with 35 a "by right" process, staff can usually have an answer within a month. She said cost would be the same with either process. PUBLIC COMMENT- D.1 Chris Cole said he is appreciative of the standards, and he suggested taking out all of the manufacturing uses on the permitted uses tables. He also suggested waiting until someone purchases property before re-zoning, since he would rather have a manufacturing plan rather than a waste transfer station near him. He said he is in favor of economic development, as long as it is not noisy or smelly, and does not affect property values. Mark Marcoplos referred to the drive thru issue, and said he was on the Planning Board in 2010 when this was last discussed. He said at that time, the idea of having a public education campaign on pollution, etc. in reference to drive thrus was discussed. He said he thought it was a good idea at that time, and suggested implementing the same idea now. He said cars idling in carlines at schools emit far more gas than at a drive thru. Commissioner Jacobs asked Perdita Holtz if page 21, oil and gas extraction, should be excluded. Perdita Holtz said sector 21 was not listed, and if it is not listed it is not prohibited. Perdita Holtz said staff would talk with the Attorney's office, and would come back to the Board. She said staff was under the impression that only the sector number had to be considered, but that does not seem to be the case now, so the Attorney's guidance will be needed going forward. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to close the public hearing and approve Item D.1 and adopt the proposed amendment by approving the Resolution (Attachment 2). VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT— D.2 NONE A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to close the public hearing and defer discussion to a later date for a Board of County Commissioners meeting and to include the drive thru issue—within next 60 days. James Bryan said the Board may want to leave the Public Hearing open. Commissioner Dorosin amended his motion to keep the public hearing open, and for this item to be brought back to the November 1st Board of County Commissioners' meeting. Commissioner Rich accepted amended motion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs asked the Clerk to notify individuals in tonight's audience when this item comes back on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT— D.3 Jeff McQueen is here to represent the Hillsborough Church of Christ, and the church is waiting with interest in this item since it is located in the re-zoning area. He said the church is happy to host neighborhood discussions on this topic. Neal Corina said he is also a representative of the church, as well as a resident in the area. He said it makes sense to defer an item and discuss more thoroughly. 36 Jay Kennet said he is the Pastor at the Hillsborough Church of Christ, and his congregation shares many of the same concerns as the Board, and he appreciated their thorough review. Speaker said he is a resident in this area, and the maps shown this evening show a lot of water. He said the watershed may be unprotected, but it still a watershed. Perdita Holtz reviewed the designations of a watershed. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to keep the public hearing open and defer discussion until the November 1st Board of County Commissioners meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that would establish use standards to allow certain principal uses to include a small component of other specific uses in the O/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district. Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner, presented this item and the following background and PowerPoint: BACKGROUND: In working with site selection specialists and the Economic Development Department for various economic development projects, Planning staff has noted that the County could be more competitive in attracting economic development projects if the UDO were to include a by-right process that allows for mixed use developments. Currently, an office, research, and manufacturing business park which includes, for example, a restaurant primarily serving onsite employees, but also open to the public could not be permitted by right in the general use zoning districts. Instead the project would be required to follow either the Master Development Plan Conditional Zoning District (MDP-CZ) process or Conditional Use District process. In order to make the County more competitive in the site selection process for these types of multi-use projects, Planning staff is proposing to allow for additional uses to be permitted in conjunction with, but not before, a specific identified principal use (Industrial (Light), Research Facility, or Research and Manufacturing Facility) as part of an overall project development plan. This amendment will allow for uses that primarily serve and support the needs of the business, facility, and employees involved in the principal use without overpowering the intended purpose of the O/RM zoning district. In addition, the amendment will allow for a more efficient review process for future mixed use developments. Therefore, allowing an office, research, and manufacturing business park which includes, for example, a restaurant serving onsite employees and the general public to be permitted by-right in the O/RM zoning district. Originally, this text amendment package was envisioned to establish and permit secondary uses in the UDO. Following a recommendation from the Orange County Attorney's Office, Planning staff revised the amendment in order to permit the uses initially proposed as secondary uses in a more concise manner. In essence, adding these support uses directly to the specific principal use standards. As a result, the secondary use concept will not be established in the UDO; however, the same outcome is expected to be achieved by amending the use standards contained in Article 5. 37 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3. Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 3, 2016 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the amendment package. Draft minutes from this meeting are included in Attachment 5. Following the August 3rd Planning Board meeting, County Attorney staff completed their review of the proposed text amendments. As a result of the review, edits were made to the proposed amendments. The edits made after the August 3rd meeting are identified with yellow highlighting in Attachment 3. Due to the edits made to the proposed text amendment package following Planning Board recommendation, the Orange County Attorney's Office determined the amendments would need to be presented to the Board at the September 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting for a second review and recommendation before the September Quarterly Public Hearing. Planning staff will present a summary of the Planning Board's discussion and recommendation for the BOCC at the September Quarterly Public Hearing. Agenda materials from the September 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting can be viewed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/SeptemberPlanningBoardPacket.pdf. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Modify Use Standards Quarterly Public Hearing September 12, 2016 Item D.4 Purpose To hold a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would establish standards to allow certain principal uses to include a small component of other specific uses in the O/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district. Proposed Amendments • Proposed Revisions to: • Section 5.14, Standards for Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing • Section 5.17, Standards for Miscellaneous Uses • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections Proposed Amendments • Establish use standards to allow certain principal uses (Industrial (Light), Research Facility, or Research and Manufacturing Facility) to include a small component of other specific uses in the O/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district. • Allow for additional uses that primarily serve and support the needs of the business, facility, and employees involved in the principal use as part of an overall project without overpowering the intended purpose of the O/RM zoning district. Proposed Amendments (chart) Public Notification 38 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks Public Input Meeting • April 20, 2016 to review the proposed amendments and accept public comments o No concerns about the proposal were expressed by attendees Planning Board Recommendation • September 7, 2016 Meeting o The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments. Recommendation • The Administration recommends the Board: o Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and attachments. o Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments. o Close the public hearing. o Decide on one of the following options: ➢ Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3). ➢ Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date. ➢ Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. ➢ Deny the proposed amendments. Public Comment: NONE A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to close the public hearing and adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to adjourn into closed session at 9:55 p.m. for the purpose of: [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)] To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body. VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to reconvene into regular session at 10:22 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 39 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board