Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-21-2016 1 APPROVED 1/24/2017 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 21, 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, November 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Burroughs 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 7:05 p.m. 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 NONE D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS 1. Zoning Atlas Amendments -To review government-initiated amendments to the zoning atlas that would modify the existing zoning boundaries of 16 parcels in the Bingham, Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships to address nonconforming issues BACKGROUND: After a petition from BOCC members, staff began reviewing the zoning of several non-residentially zoned properties within the aforementioned townships and discovered existing designations do not fully encompass all required land area necessary to allow for the non-residential use of property. In many instances zoning district boundaries were drawn by former staff in a manner that encompassed only the building and parking area while excluding other required areas, most notably septic fields and required land use buffers. Many of these boundaries were designated when zoning was originally put into effect over 30 years ago. Staff has been working with several property owners impacted by this situation to address the problem. This proposal seeks to modify existing zoning district boundary lines to ensure all elements of the non-residential land use are located within the appropriate general use zoning designation as should have been done when affected properties were originally zoned. Staff 2 considers this a necessary modification to existing district boundaries to ensure consistency with the UDO as well as the adopted Comprehensive Plan. For more information please refer to Attachment 1. Maps denoting the properties reviewed as part of this project are contained within Attachment 2 and broken down by township. A breakdown of recommended rezoning actions, including maps of all impacted properties, is contained in Attachment 3. Staff is moving forward with those properties where owners have indicated an interest and is still working to address questions from remaining owners who have not made a final decision. Work on these remaining properties will continue and staff will provide periodic updates as necessary. 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 6 and proposed zoning atlas amendment package contained in Attachment 7. Planning Board Recommendation: At its November 2, 2016 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the Zoning Atlas amendments. Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, made the following PowerPoint presentation: November 21, 2016 Agenda Items: D-1 BOCC QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS BACKGROUND • Over the years different methodologies have been employed related to the establishment of zoning district boundaries. • Old zoning atlas was maintained on paper tax maps. Over the years these maps were modified to a point where confusion was created as to where actual zoning boundaries were and what properties were zoned. • In many instances, zoning boundaries were drawn in a manner that encompassed only the building and parking areas while excluding other required areas, most notably land use buffers. • In some cases, maps for properties are missing altogether. EXAMPLE OF OLD ZONING ATLAS (photograph) BACKGROUND (continued) • After a petition from BOCC, staff began reviewing zoning in Bingham, Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships. — STAFF COMMENT: other townships will be reviewed at a later date. • Staff identified several instances where existing zoning did not fully encompass all required land area to allow for use of property. 3 • Also found zoning designations inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan and existing land use(s). • Staff reached out to impacted property owners to review issues. — STAFF COMMENT: There are several property owners we are still working with to address questions on zoning as well as providing feedback on potential impacts (i.e. tax implications, allowable land uses in various districts, development opportunities and constraints, etc.). — Additional work will be completed on properties in the Bingham, Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships for review at future BOCC meeting(s). • Staff is moving forward with the property owners ready to take action at this time. STAFF DETERMINATION: As part of this process, and in accordance with Section(s) 1.2 and 2.8 of the UDO, staff has determined that: • There are zoning designations inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan that need to be addressed. • Boundaries of existing general use zoning districts are unclear due to incomplete/contradictory historical mapping data and need to be modified to ensure consistency. — EXAMPLE: we have zoning boundaries drawn through buildings housing non-residential land uses creating non-conformities. — We have non-residential land uses on property not zoned to allow for such activity that were in existence since the implementation of zoning. • We now have better mapping technology/capabilities that can assist with the addressing this issue. EXAMPLE OF ZONING IMPACT (aerial photograph) PLANNING BOARD/STAFF REVIEW • Planning Board reviewed the request at its November 2, 2016 regular meeting • Voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Board's signed Statement of Consistency is contained in Attachment 4. • Staff recommends approval of the re-zonings as detailed in Attachment(s) 6 and 7. RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends the BOCC: 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas, 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment, 3. Close the public hearing, 4. Decide on one of the following options: — Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 7). — 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. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of denial.) 4 Michael Harvey referred to the maps within Attachments 3 and 7, and reviewed the areas affected. He went through each parcel and the Commissioners were able to ask questions. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the first parcel, to which Michael Harvey referred, is not actually resolving the split zoning of the parcels completely. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Dorosin said the modification is less than the whole parcel; and if the Board approves this tonight, this parcel will have two zoning designations. Michael Harvey said the benefit is that the commercial operation will be fully enclosed in the existing commercial 5 (EC5), by making it more reasonable for the property owner to make use of the property, while still maintaining a zoning lot zoned agricultural-residential that can support residential development on the rear of the property at a later date. He said the zoning boundary for EC5 is being modified. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason that the parcel appears to go out into the highway. Michael Harvey said the zoning boundaries go to the centerlines of highways. Commissioner Jacobs said a parcel of this nature existed five years ago, where the owner of a commercial property needed more room to install a septic tank. He said hopefully this amendment will eliminate a protracted process like that one. Michael Harvey said the next rezoning is off of Mt. Willing, and there is a split-zoned parcel: agricultural-residential/neighborhood-commercial. He said there is not commercial activity on the property and never has been. He said the owner has no interest in maintaining the neighborhood-commercial zoning and the whole property will be zoned agricultural residential. Michael Harvey said the next parcel is an existing commercial operation off of Orange Grove near Dairyland Road. He said there is split zoning, and it is proposed that the entire property be rezoned. He said there is potential expansion needed, and this will bring the property into compliance should the owner choose to redevelop it. Michael Harvey said the next parcel is an existing gas station at Buckhorn and Highway 70, which is zoned residential. He said they are recommending this to be zoned neighborhood- commercial, which will allow the gas station to remain a legally performing use of property. Chair McKee asked if the gas station would be considered out of compliance, if this rezoning does not occur. Michael Harvey said it would be illegal-not in conformity, meaning that it was developed at a point in time prior to its residential zoning designation. He said it would be allowed to continue operating and could make minor modifications; however, if the owner wanted to make major renovations, the owner would have to go through the zoning process. Michael Harvey said the next property is off of Highway 70, which contains a mobile home park and a small grading business. He said staff is proposing to expand the EC5 zoning designation to fully cover a portion of the existing commercial building that is part zoned residential and EC5. He said staff is also proposing to expand the EC5 designation to provide driveway access to the highway. He said that was done at the request of the property owner, and staff was in agreement. Michael Harvey said the next parcels are several lots owned by Efland Real Property, LLC along Highway 70. He reviewed the existing zoning designations of the different parcels. He said staff met with the Applicant on numerous occasions, and the Applicant has no interest in maintaining the existing industrial, but wanted to maintain some non-residential activity on the property. He said staff is recommending that all four parcels be zoned general commercial. He said the simple establishment of a commercial zoning designation does not mean that the whole property gets developed for commercial activity. He said the Applicant will be responsible for maintaining all required land use buffers surrounding the property. He said there is no 5 development proposal for this lot currently. He said staff's recommendation is due to the property's location in a commercial industrial transition zone, and this is a more acceptable land use for the area in general versus existing industrial. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is part of the Efland Mebane Small Area Plan. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said the purpose, in part, for that Plan was to pre-plan for some commercial development on this corridor, where there was existing infrastructure. Michael Harvey said staff believes general commercial zoning allows for more flexibility. Michael Harvey referred to the parcel of land off of Mt. Willing Road, saying it is zoned commercial property, and staff is recommending it be re-zoned agricultural residential. He said the Department of Transportation (DOT) owns this parcel. He said there may have been a commercial entity at some point, but when DOT took the property the zoning was not re- designated. Michael Harvey referred to the next parcel, which is an existing automotive repair business, off of highway 70. He said the majority of the property is zoned neighborhood- commercial. He said staff is recommending that the entire parcel be zone neighborhood- commercial. He said this property will also have to insure that the land use buffer is part of the commercial lot. Michael Harvey reviewed the remaining parcels of land, their zoning designations, and any changes being proposed by staff. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the process by which staff identified these parcels could be explained, and if there are other parcels that may be brought forward in the future. Michael Harvey said Attachment 3 shows that staff identified approximately 100 properties in the Bingham, Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships, which had inconsistent or messy zoning. He said the property owners were contacted to discuss the land, some of whom expressed no interest in changing the zoning of their land. He said this is acceptable as long as there is no inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. He said the other four townships will be reviewed at a later date. Commissioner Jacobs said this is all consistent with the Woods rezoning on Highway 70, when the Board of County Commissioners asked staff to fix all of these properties. He said that brought the need for rezoning to the County's attention years ago. Michael Harvey said this project has been a long time coming and is not yet completed. He said it has been important to involve the landowners in the discussion. Commissioner Price agreed that this is excellent work. Commissioner Price referred to the parcels with owners who do not want rezoning, and asked if these properties were to be sold in the future, would the new owner be made aware of the zoning inconsistencies. Michael Harvey said anyone that buys property should ask about zoning, but staff will work with anyone to insure the zoning is consistent. He said staff was given a specific direction to look at zoning by the Board of County Commissioners, and if the residents choose not to take advantage of this opportunity then the onus would be on the residents. Chair McKee asked if any property owners, or other members of the public, would like to speak. PUBLIC COMMENT: Rob Gray said it would be helpful to display the Ashwick neighborhood across from Highway 70. Michael Harvey said he did not have that map. Rob Gray asked for a map of the property across from this location, where there is a golf cart repair business. He said many of these rezoning suggestions make a lot of sense. He said the property in the map he requested is located near a neighborhood called Ashwick. He said 6 he was unsure if this neighborhood's Home Owners Association (HOA) is aware of these proposed changes. He asked if the proposed changes move forward, how does this affect the homeowners adjacent to these properties and their property values. He also asked if zoning could be more thoroughly explained, and what does this zoning classification include. Chair McKee said there is no one here to answer his property value question. Michael Harvey said, from a land use stand point, a manufacturing operation could be built on this property under the current industrial zoning designation. He said if the parcel is re- zoned general commercial, there could be a restaurant, office space, grocery store, retail, etc. He said any development would have to go through the site plan approval process, demonstrate compliance with the various set backs, parking, land use, etc. Michael Harvey said there was a letter sent to the Ashwick HOA, as well as everyone living within 1,000 feet. Rob Gray said he did not mean to imply that there was no attempt to contact the HOA. He said he is concerned about what can be built on this land under the new zoning designation, and he suggested possibly breaking this up in different segments to review in greater detail. Guerry Sterling Willis said she is also from Ashwick, and she found out about this topic on Saturday. She said the homeowners are concerned about property values, congestion, noise pollution, and water pollution. Kimberly Gush said she also lives in the Ashwick Community and echoed the concerns of the other two speakers. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the parcel, to which the public is referring, is currently under zoning that makes it vulnerable to the changes that the residents fear. Michael Harvey said the current zoning allows for manufacturing operation on the property, which is more detrimental then the general commercial zoning. He said there are regulatory statutes in place that may address some of the resident's concerns. He said it his opinion that there is a more reasonable zoning designation that is more consistent with the current plans, policy and County vision for this area. Commissioner Price said the general commercial zoning will also allow offices, and this would be less intense than a manufacturing business. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the total number of acres could be identified. Michael Harvey said it is a total of four to five acres. Chair McKee asked if this property will still be bound by the regulatory statutes in place for parking, watershed, etc. Michael Harvey said yes, and that also means compliance with the storm water ordinance. Chair McKee asked if the tract that has the golf cart repair business could be switched to a manufacturing facility now. Michael Harvey said yes, under the existing industrial zoning designation. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said this is being presented to the Board as a package, but asked if one parcel could be removed. Michael Harvey said yes, if the Board is specific. Commissioner Jacobs said he approved what the staff did, but he does understand the concerns of the Ashwick residents. He would like to afford the community the opportunity to ask additional questions, and bring the item back at a later date. 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to: a.) adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) and Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 7), with the exception of the Efland Real Property LLC properties: PIN 9844881230, 9844788137, 9844786242, 9844786236, which will be held over for further discussion with the community, and be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners no later than February 7th Commissioner Price asked if the community had been invited to the Planning Board meeting. Michael Harvey said letters were sent to residents that lived within 1,000 feet, including the Ashwick HOA. He said staff met their obligation under the ordinance, and provided notice of the Planning Board meetings and the Board of County Commissioners meetings. Commissioner Price said she respected the residents, but felt that this has been going on for a long time, and there have been opportunities for the neighborhoods to come to the meetings. She said this new designation is making the area better. Commissioner Dorosin referred to his question about keeping this parcel open, and asked if options could be reviewed. He said this process was designed to clarify the zoning based on what is actually on these properties now and avoid creating non-conforming uses. He said the option of changing this property to general commercial is consistent with the fact that there is some type of commercial operation on the property now. Michael Harvey said when staff started meeting with the property owners there was concern with an existing industrial operation or manufacturing operation in this particular area of the County. He said rather than modifying or altering the existing industrial, staff was asked about rezoning the area to general commercial. He said staff reviewed numerous studies of the area, and found the suggestion was consistent with those documents, and moved forward with the change. He said this brings the property more into compliance with the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dorosin said the neighbors may want a residential zoning for this parcel, but that would be an unrealistic expectation. He said continuing the conversation may lead to a false hope. Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with both Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price, and he also thinks staff made good points. He said he knows from experience that residents do not understand the process, and he would like to create another forum for them to have a conversation with staff to be able to ask questions about how this affects their community. Commissioner Rich said she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs. Chair McKee asked Craig Benedict, Planning Director, if he could identify how long it would take to bring this item back, and if, during conversations with staff, the residents have expressed a desire for any of the proposed changes. Craig Benedict said when HOAs turnover from the developers to the HOAs, staff usually has meetings with them. He said the Ashwick HOA has turned over again, and staff can meet with the HOA to provide information and answer questions. He said staff did look at the existing zoning, and feels the proposal is a better solution for the property owners and the neighborhood. Commissioner Pelissier said she is fine with delaying a vote on this set of properties, but she would not want to wait until spring. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding subdivision regulations and review processes. Patrick Mallett, Planner II, reviewed the abstract, the attachments and the background information prior to the making a PowerPoint presentation. BACKGROUND: In response to a BOCC petition, staff conducted a work session on February 18, 2016 to review current subdivision regulations and discuss opportunities for allowing for more flexibility with respect to residential development in rural areas. The primary focus was to develop opportunities for greater flexibility for the clustering of proposed lots with the preservation of additional open space. Minutes from this meeting are contained in Attachment 4. Community Outreach: As part of the outreach program, two open house meetings were held on July 20, 2016 to solicit public input/comment on potential subdivision modifications. The meetings were: • From 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. with local land surveyors, developers, and property owners who had gone through the existing subdivision review process. Approximately five people were in attendance; and • From 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. with local property owners. Approximately five people were in attendance. As a result of comments received during these various meetings, staff crafted an amendment that: i. Eliminates the "outdated" Cluster Development subdivision type as currently contained in Section 7.12 of the UDO, and replaces it with a Flexible Design process. ii. Allows for residential lots to be clustered smaller than the 40,000 sq. ft. limit as detailed in Section 7.13.4 (B) (6) of the UDO with the preservation of additional common open space area(s) within the subdivision. iii. Allows for a maximum of 12 lots (vs. the current maximum of 5 lots with a conventional design) to be allowed through the Minor Subdivision process if the property owner/applicant chooses to go through the Flexible Design subdivision process. iv. Maintains current density limits, but allows for added lots via more flexible design requirements. v. Mimics Flexible Designed provisions already permitted with Major Subdivisions within County. vi. Allows development to cluster in logical land use patterns that complement the transition from urban to rural areas of the County. The goal is to revise existing development standards in an effort to encourage purposeful growth and development within the County in a cost efficient manner (e.g. shorted roads and area cleared for residential lots), while promoting the perpetual maintenance/preservation of common open space areas. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the 9 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 2 and proposed UDO text amendment package contained in Attachment 3. Planning Board Recommendation: The text amendment was presented to the Planning Board's Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) on September 7, 2016. Planning and Environmental Health Staff presented materials related to conservation, open space, flexible design, and the state's new guidelines for off-site individual septic systems. This item was then presented to the Planning Board at its October 17, 2016 meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency contained in Attachment 2 and the UDO text amendment package contained in Attachment 3. BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing UDO Text Amendment of Minor Subdivision Regulations — Item D.2 November 21, 2016 Goal of the Amendment • As directed by the BOCC on February 18, 2016, Planning staff is proposing amendments to the UDO, providing additional opportunities for the clustering of subdivision lots and the preservation of open space. • The proposed amendments align with Housing and Land Use Goals in the Comprehensive Plan. • This amendment addresses a petition by the Commissioners to encourage the clustering of residential lots and preserve open space. Objectives 1. Revise the sections of the UDO that conflict with other sections on flexible development (i.e., a method of clustering); and 2. Offer additional opportunities in the UDO that encourage flexible development in rural sections of Orange County. Major UDO sections needing revision include: • Section 2.14: Minor Subdivisions; • Section 7.2.2: Minor Subdivisions; • Section 7.8: Access and Roadways; • Section 7.12: Cluster Developments; • Section 7.13: Flexible Developments; and • Section 10: Definitions Benefits of Flexible Development (AKA Cluster Development) • Conserve significant tracts of open space while still preserving development values. • Encourage recreational uses, such as hiking and biking. • Preserve the rural character. • Create open space buffers between homes and adjacent agricultural uses. • Decrease impervious surface and built-upon areas. What This Amendment Will Not Do • This amendment will not make changes to the Rural Buffer. Changing the Rural Buffer would require amending the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA). • It will not increase or decrease density limits or eliminate a conventional design option for minor subdivisions. 10 • The amendment will not allow for community septic. It will allow for individual off-site septic areas, with each septic area deeded to the lot it serves. Revision Highlights • Consolidate the Cluster Development subdivision types as currently contained in Section 7.12 with the Flexible Development subdivision type currently contained in Section 7.13. • Revise existing language allowing for the use of individual off-site septic for wastewater processing to mirror State guidelines. • Revise the submittal and review processes and development requirements to give greater flexibility to projects proposing clustering of lots and dedication of common open space. • Allow minor subdivisions using the Flexible Development Option to go up to 12 lots. • Require a minimum of 33% open space (primary and/or secondary) for minor subdivisions using the Flexible Development Option. • Make the setback and lot width reductions allowed for Flexible Development apply to both Minor and Major Subdivisions. • Reduce the minimum lot size for minor subdivisions using the Flexible Development Option in exchange for increases in open space: ➢ 40,000 sq. ft. lot size = 33-39% Common Open Space ➢ 30,000 sq. ft. lot size = 40-44% Common Open Space ➢ 20,000 sq. ft. lot size = 45-49% Common Open Space ➢ 15,000 sq. ft. lot size = 50-59% Common Open Space ➢ 10,000 sq. ft. lot size = 60% + Common Open Space Conventional Minor Subdivision Under Existing Regulations (5 Lots) (maps) Flexible Design Minor Subdivision Under Existing Regulations (5 lots) (maps) Flexible Design Minor Subdivision Under Proposed UDO Text Changes (8 lots) (maps) Example: Glen Ellen in Concord, NH PUBLIC OUTREACH • Staff sent invitation letters to land surveyors/developers who do regular work in Orange County. • Staff hosted two public outreach and input sessions with land surveyors/developers and the general public on July 20, 2016. • The outreach meetings were advertised via press release on the Orange County website. • Staff has continued dialogue with residents and design professionals vested in this amendment. • Staff presented these materials to the Orange County Commission for the Environment on October 10, 2016. PROCESS STEP ONE—Submit UDO Amendment Outline Form • BOCC authorized Current Planning to proceed on May 5, 2016. • Public outreach meetings were held after staff received authorization from BOCC. STEP TWO—Ordinance Review Committee Meeting 11 • The Ordinance Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment, heard a presentation from Environmental Health on off-site septic systems, and provided feedback to Planning staff at the ORC meeting on September 7, 2016. STEP THREE— Planning Board Meeting • The Planning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment and made a recommendation to the BOCC in compliance with Section 2.8.8. • The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text amendment. STEP FOUR— Quarterly Public Hearing • After considering these recommendations, the BOCC will deliberate, certify the record, close the public hearing, and render a final decision. Recommendations 1. Receive the proposed amendments. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments. 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted). 4. Decide on one of the following options: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3); b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or d. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of denial.) Commissioner Dorosin referred to the 5-12 minor subdivision, and clarified that a minor subdivision can go up to 12 lots, if it clusters the lot and has open space, and if there is an entity to manage that open space. Patrick Mallett said yes. He said above the cap, there must be a proportional amount of open space. Commissioner Dorosin said it is not an increase of density, because most of these could accomplish that density, but choose not to because of not wanting to fall into the major subdivision category. Patrick Mallett said yes. Commissioner Dorosin said this is exciting. Commissioner Rich agreed that she liked this proposal. She referred to page 1-63, and asked if there is a reason that developers are only being encouraged to support connectivity, and not strongly encouraged. Patrick Mallett said the reality is that with subdivisions you look at the big picture and try to look for opportunities for connectivity. James Bryan said staff has to go by the ordinance, and the ordinance has to have very clear standards. He said the Board of County Commissioners has discretion over projects but staff does not, thus the word "encourage". Commissioner Rich brought up her neighborhood, saying it flows nicely with the open spaces. She said she hoped, when applicable, that all would encourage connectivity with open spaces. Patrick Mallett said this is in the context of a minor subdivision only, which can go up to a maximum of 12 lots. 12 Commissioner Jacobs said he is supportive of this proposal. He said he did not hear the attorney say the Board could not do it, but just that the Board must be specific in the ordinance. He said being connected to contiguous open space could be required, unless it is not possible. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 122-2-b3, and said the fire department used to be on the list, but is not anymore. He asked if there is a reason why the fire department is no longer included. Patrick Mallett said there are other elements and newer standards that may change these lists. Commissioner Jacobs said being part of the process is where they came up with access to a water resource and increasing the density in an area being served. Patrick Mallett said part of that is covered with pedestrian oriented open space area, which says an area cannot be blocked off without providing access. Commissioner Price said when she was on the Planning Board they requested a Fire Marshal or an Emergency Services member to be part of their development advisory committee. Patrick Mallett said these departments are on the development advisory committee. Commissioner Jacobs asked if all of these entities are on the committee. Patrick Mallett said for the most part these entities participate, and it is in another part of the ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs said minor subdivisions do not require a public process, but a major subdivision does. He asked Patrick Mallett if this is correct. Patrick Mallett said yes. He said the main difference is that minor subdivisions are usually on family owned lands. Commissioner Jacobs said his concern would echo what just happened with Ashwick, and that a minor subdivision will only come to the Board's notice when staff has already approved it, since it is a staff process. He said he is favor of the concept, but asked if there is a way to allow public involvement. Patrick Mallett said with a minor subdivision of five units there are not neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that a 12 lot minor subdivision would be different. Patrick Mallett said that is a valid point. He said staff routinely sees family land being cut up into minor subdivisions, and he said this needs to be a bit more controlled. He said the other scenario is two minor subdivisions, with five homes each, which have no public involvement. Commissioner Jacobs said there should be a way to consider the feelings of the neighbors when these minor subdivisions are created. Michael Harvey said the motion could be amended to require a neighborhood meeting for any subdivision proposing more than five lots. Commissioner Jacobs said he is not trying to make things more difficult, but Michael Harvey's proposal would satisfy his concerns without adversely affecting a developer's streamlined process. Patrick Mallett said theoretically there could be a neighborhood informational meeting in the middle of the process, when a schematic plan can be shared. Commissioner Pelissier said this proposal is a great step for the County, and helps preserve rural character. Commissioner Pelissier said she is reluctant to say that open spaces must connect with existing streets. She said houses may be clustered in certain areas, and existing or planned streets may be way on the other side of the open space. She would not want to see a road going though the open space just to connect it to an existing road. Patrick Mallett said a flexible development gives the connotation that it is a case-by-case basis, and there can be a reasonable solution that does not force a situation that requires connecting to a road that may or may not be appropriate or used. 13 Commissioner Jacobs said he did not take Commissioner Rich's comments to refer to roads. He said he was not commenting on roads either, but rather contiguous open spaces. He said he agreed with Commissioner Pelissier about roads. Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Pelissier. Commissioner Price referred to page 198, with additional submittal requirement and scenic vistas. She asked if this is even enforceable, and, if not, why is it included. Discussion ensued. Chair McKee said most of these developments will be in isolated areas in rural Orange County and on family lands. He said the Board does not want to make this an onerous process for residents. Patrick Mallett said one of the outcomes of the community outreach was that much of the land is family owned, with ancestral ties. He said most families do not want to "sell the farm," but rather want to carve out a portion of it to perhaps give to a relative. He said there can be phasing done, which would allow some flexibility for the landowner to give land to relatives or sell some land. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jay Zaragosa from Hillsborough said much of the County has overlay districts to deal with impervious surfaces, and asked if this process could be explained within a cluster development. Patrick Mallett said subdivisions have a gross area, and there is an impervious surfaces allocation based on the watershed. He said part of the subdivision process is to develop a set of declarations, where allocations are made in the gross area to each individual lot, or to some amenities in the open space. He said smaller lots do not need long driveways, and thus the average impervious surface would go down. Tom Heavner said this is a great proposal that preserves open space. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments at a later date are permitted). VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to: Direct staff to bring the matter back on a consent agenda after drafting the proposed amendments that minor subdivision of more than five lots will have a neighborhood information meeting & that open space will connect with contiguous open space on adjoining parcels. James Bryan said the wording is important. He said the Board is asking the Planning staff to come back with amendments with these proposed changes. Commissioner Jacobs said he would be content to have this come back on a consent agenda. Commissioner Rich agreed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS F. INFORMATION ITEMS 14 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)/Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation — A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board