HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 1105141
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004)
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3-4
5-18
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for November and December
i. Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing
on Nov. 24th has been CANCELLED
ii. Next regular meeting on Dec. 3rd
iii. Chapel Hill ETJ Expansion Request
3.
19-38
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 8, 2014 Regular Meeting
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks
its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board
and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any resident fail
to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting
until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair
will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is
observed.
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
1
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 39-46 PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN FOR COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS’ ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT: To discuss the input form
for the annual BOCC planning retreat in early 2015. The annual report
informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory
boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning.
Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
8. 47-53 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To
continue discussion and provide input on government-initiated
amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public
hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-
related items/amendments. This item was heard at the September 8,
2014 quarterly public hearing and was discussed at the October 8
Planning Board meeting. Discussion is expected to focus on the quasi-
judicial process.
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
9.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
10. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR
PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578).
2
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
November 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
December 2014November 2014
Oc
t
2
6
-
N
o
v
1
Oct 26 27 28 29 30 31 Nov 1
No
v
2
-
8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
No
v
9
-
1
5
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm
BOCC Work
Session
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
No
v
1
6
-
2
2
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
7:00pm
7:00pm
No
v
2
3
-
2
9
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
HOLIDAY HOLIDAY
No
v
3
0
-
D
e
c
6
30 Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
3
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
December 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
January 2015December 2014
No
v
3
0
-
D
e
c
6
Nov 30 Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Whitted
Meeting
Facility)
7:00pm
*PLANNING
BOARD
MEETING
(West
Campus
Office Bldg )
De
c
7
-
1
3
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7:30pm Board
of
Adjustment
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
7:00pm BOCC
Reg Meeting
(Southern
Human
Services)
De
c
1
4
-
2
0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
7:00pm
OUTBoard
Meeting
(West
Campus
Office Bldg)
De
c
2
1
-
2
7
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOLIDAY
De
c
2
8
-
J
a
n
3
28 29 30 31 Jan 1, 15 2 3
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
4
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Current Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Michael D. Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
DATE: November 5, 2014
SUBJECT: Chapel Hill Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Expansion Request
__________
PURPOSE: To be informed of Chapel Hill’s request for ETJ expansion into an area
currently part of the Joint Planning Area (JPA)
BACKGROUND: The subject area of approximately 1,000 acres is part of an area
known as the Historic Rogers Road area. This area was made part of the JPA Chapel
Hill Transition Area in 1987 which ceded most of land development rules to Chapel Hill
from Orange County. Independent projects have proceeded accordingly since then.
However, a community wide sewer proposal is being considered with public funding
from Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in this area. In order to facilitate funding
opportunities from Chapel Hill, the area if ‘converted’ from JPA transition to Chapel Hill
ETJ would permit such Chapel Hill contribution.
Orange County is required to review the request in accordance with NCGS 160A – 360.
If approved Chapel Hill would use city zoning categories if different than the present
JPA zoning categories. Orange County’s involvement in land use decisions is this area
would cease since Chapel Hill ETJ would be solely in effect.
Orange County planning staff has reviewed the Chapel Hill ETJ expansion proposal in
accordance with NCGS and finds it in compliance. Extraterritorial representation is a
requirement of state law and changes will need to be made to create ETJ
representation instead of JPA transition area representation based on population.
5
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 10/15/2014
AGENDA #8
Title of Agenda Item: Consider the Rogers Road Sewer Project and Extension of the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ). (R-4)(O-1)
Council Goal: Focus on Economic Development, Land Use, and Transportation for a Balanced and
Sustainable Future
Background: Tonight the Council continues the public hearing from September 8, 2014 to consider
amending the boundary of the Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The area currently
designated as the Joint Planning Area is being considered for expansion of the ETJ.
In 2012, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force (Task Force) was formed to address the
extension of sewer service and a community center to serve the Rogers Road neighborhood. The Task
Force recommendations were provided in a report dated September 17, 2013. This report has several
key recommendations, with the primary focus being providing sewer service to 86 identified
properties.
Fiscal Note: The fiscal impact is approximately $5.8 million dollars as described in the attached
materials, with the proposed Town share of 43%, or approximately $2.5 million.
Recommendations: That the Council:
Enact the Ordinance to extend the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to the area currently within the
Joint Planning Area;
Adopt the Resolution to authorize the Manager to proceed with developing a long term plan for
the area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat.
Memorandum
Resolution
Ordinance
Proposed Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Boundary
Page 1of 1Coversheet
10/29/2014http://chapelhillpublic.novusagenda.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=2899&meetingid=302
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: Mary Jane Nirdlinger, Planning and Sustainability
Loryn Clark, Housing and Community
Judy Johnson, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Rogers Road Sewer Project and Extension of the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
DATE: October 15, 2014
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the public hearing from September 8, 20141 to consider amending
the boundary of the Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The area currently designated as
the Joint Planning Area is being considered for expansion of the ETJ. We recommend that
Council enact the attached Ordinance, extending the ETJ, and adopt the Resolution, directing the
Manager to continue long-term planning efforts.
1 http://chapelhillpublic.novusagenda.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=2851&meetingid=281
7
BACKGROUND
In 2012, the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force (Task Force) was formed to
address the extension of sewer service and a community center to serve the Rogers Road
neighborhood. The Task Force recommendations were provided in a report dated September 17,
2013 and available at this link2. This report has several key recommendations, with the primary
focus being providing sewer service to 86 identified properties. This memorandum addresses
some of the key recommendations associated with that report.
EXTENSION OF SEWER TO
HISTORIC ROGERS ROAD NEIGHBORHHOOD
OUTREACH: Outreach efforts by the Jackson Center have been underway since mid-summer.
The Jackson Center has been in contact with nearly all 86 identified parcels. The efforts have
been focused on obtaining socio-economic and demographic data, historical connections,
community interests, and desire for sewer. The Center is reporting that approximately 82 percent
of the households surveyed are at, or below, the 80 percent Area Median Income (AMI)
threshold and approximately 49 percent of the households are below 50 percent of AMI.
Community development block grant (CDBG) programs serve low and moderate income
households. For a family of four, a household income of less than $52,550 is at 80 percent AMI
and less than $32,850 is at 50 percent AMI.
The Jackson Center has been working collaboratively with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood
Association (RENA) in developing community input sessions and newsletters.
SEWER SERVICE: The recommendations from the Task Force Final Report included a
recommendation that the three jurisdictions fund the sewer service through a cost share
agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the County and Chapel Hill would each provide 43% of
the cost and Carrboro would contribute 14%. The Final Report also recommended a plan that
would extend sewer service at a preliminary cost estimate of $5.8 million to serve the 86 parcels
identified in the Historic Rogers Road neighborhood.
Preliminary Engineering is underway by OWASA, at a cost of $130,000. This cost is shared by
the three jurisdictions with Orange County and Chapel Hill contributing $55,900 each and
Carrboro contributing $18,200. The preliminary engineering field work includes surveying,
subsurface utility engineering, and geotechnical evaluation. This work will provide more
certainty to the layout and cost estimate, identify the location of buried utilities (which may
cause conflicts along the route), and determine the subsurface conditions (such as rock). We
anticipate this work should be concluded by March 2015, assuming no weather delays. It is
important to note that the preliminary engineering field work does not include services such as
design, permitting, or easement acquisitions.
The Town Attorney has determined that we are unable generally to spend Town funds in an area
outside of the Town limits and not within the ETJ. An exception to this general rule exists to
allow the Town to provide financial support to recreational facilities which are open and
2 http://chapelhillpublic.novusagenda.com/Bluesheet.aspx?itemid=2419&meetingid=230
8
available to Town residents. Accordingly, in order for the Town to participate in the efforts with
Orange County and Carrboro to date, we have increased our contribution towards construction of
the clubhouse to include our 43 percent share of the outreach efforts and preliminary engineering
costs. The cost of the clubhouse is estimated to be approximately $700,000 with the Town share
of 43 percent equaling $300,000.
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
The area within the Chapel Hill’s portion of the joint planning area (under the Joint Planning
Agreement between the Town, Carrboro, and Orange County signed in 1986) primarily east of
Rogers Road, is outside of the Town limits and outside the Town’s current Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction. As such, the Town Attorney has determined that the Town may not provide
funding for most projects in this area. If the area were to be included within the Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ), the Town could spend Community Development Block Grant funds if the
area qualified as low or moderate income households. This would allow the Town to contribute
towards extending sewer service to the area.
One of the recommendations of the Task Force was for the Town of Chapel Hill to pursue
expanding the Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to include the Historic Rogers Road
area. The demographic data generated by the outreach efforts of the Jackson Center indicates that
a significant percentage of the households will qualify as either low or moderate income
households. With this data, Town staff is recommending that the Council consider expansion of
the ETJ to allow the Town to spend community development funding in the area even though it
would remain outside the corporate limits of the Town. Please see the Recommendations section
of this memorandum for additional information.
NEXT STEPS
We have additional recommendations and ask the Town Council for guidance.
LONG-TERM PLANNING: The provision of sewer service to the 86 identified parcels will
likely affect the development patterns and pressures in the Rogers Road area. We believe some
systematic planning of the un- (or under-) developed properties is critical in preserving the
character of the existing neighborhood and being proactive in managing the area’s future. We
recommend that the Council direct the Manager to continue and expand efforts for developing a
long-term plan for the area. This process would include engaging with the community through
the Jackson Center and Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA).
The Managers and staff have also been exploring the option of creating an expanded utility
district. The district would include the Historic Rogers Road neighborhood, additional
neighborhoods in the path of the sewer lines, and the immediate area that would benefit from the
extension of utility lines.
Providing assistance for residents of the Rogers Road neighborhood would continue to be the
first priority. The creation of the Utility District could be phased to provide service to residents
of the Rogers Road neighborhood first and residents outside the Rogers Road neighborhood
9
second. The Utility District could also have policies in place to recoup the cost of utility
installation in the event the property is (re)developed such as decreasing costs for long-term
residents. There are many large parcels of un- (or under-) developed land in the area and
bringing urban services to the area may encourage development. As the sewer project provides
service to the 86 identified parcels, we believe there is an efficiency of scale to providing utility
services to other unserved properties in the area, which can help offset and reduce overall costs
of the project.
ANNEXATION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED PROPERTIES: Another one of the recommendations
of the task force was for annexation of the county-owned properties in the Historic Rogers Road
neighborhood. These properties are shown on the map below. Annexation of these properties
could allow for Town funds to be expended for sewer service to those parcels and potentially
other properties that would be served along the way.
We encourage the County to consider petitioning the Town Council for annexation of these
properties.
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that the Council consider the attached Ordinance that would enact the
Extraterritorial Boundary expansion for the area identified on the above map.
If the Council moves to adopt the attached Ordinance, the next step would be for the
Orange County Board of Commissioners to adopt a resolution approving the Town’s
action to extend the boundary.
Following the County’s and Town’s action to extend the ETJ, the Town must, within 60
days, amend the Town’s zoning ordinance to zone the expanded area. This zoning
process will include receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission and
conducting a public hearing.
2. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A authorizing the Manager to proceed
with developing a long term plan for the area and updating the Council with progress
made. The Council encourages the Manager and staff to engage the Rogers Eubanks
Neighborhood Association, Town of Carrboro, and Orange County in developing a plan.
3. We also recommend that the County consider a formal petition for annexation for
County-owned (or publicly-owned) properties in the ETJ as recommended by the
Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force.
11
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO BEGIN LONG-TERM
PLANNING FOR THE ROGERS ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD (2014-10-15/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Town Council understands that the installation of utilities in the Historic Rogers
Road neighborhood will likely have an effect on development patterns and pressures; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes systematic planning in the Historic Rogers Road
neighborhood is critical to preserving the character of the existing neighborhood and being
proactive in managing the area’s future.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council directs the Town Manager to continue and expand efforts
for developing a long-term plan for the area; and
NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager and staff to engage
the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County in
developing a long-term plan.
This the 15th day of October, 2014.
12
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING
JURISDICTION OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (2014-10-15/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Charter of the Town of Chapel Hill in Chapter V thereof provides for a defined area
known as “extraterritorial planning jurisdiction” to extend not more than three miles
outside the corporate limits wherein the powers granted by Article 19, Chapter 160A of
the General Statutes may be exercised.
B. The area identified in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Area”) is located within both the
Town’s Joint Planning Area and the Town’s Urban Services District and is within three
miles of the Town’s corporate limits.
C. The Area which is proposed to be included in the extraterritorial jurisdiction includes a
portion of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood.
D. The Area is of critical concern to the Town in assisting with extension of utilities to serve
the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood.
E. The Town has stated interest and has the means to contribute financially toward
infrastructure cost in the Area through the use of Community Development Block Funds.
F. The Town needs extend its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to include the Area in order to
spend Community Development Funds in the Area.
G. In accordance with N.C. G.S. Sect. 160A-360, the Town held a public hearing on October
21, 2013, to consider the extension of its extraterritorial jurisdiction, and notified
property owners of all affected parcels of land as listed on the Orange County tax records
via first-class mail at least four weeks prior to the public hearing.
Section 2. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A-360, the Area described in Exhibit A is hereby
included within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Chapel Hill for all purposes
authorized by Article 19, Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes; provided,
however, that this Ordinance shall become effective only upon the approval of the Orange
County Board of Commissioners, indicating their agreement with the Town’s assuming
territorial jurisdiction over the Area.
Section 3. The Town Manager is directed to forward a copy of this Ordinance Extending the
Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Town’s request for agreement by the County to the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners for consideration at an upcoming meeting of
that Board.
13
Section 4. If the Board of County Commissioners favorably responds to the extraterritorial
boundary extension request, the Town will record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the
register of deeds of Orange County and initiate steps required to enact planning regulations for
this Area as required by the provisions of N.C. G.S. Sec. 160A-360.
Section 5. If the Board of County Commissioners does not approve the extension of the Town’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction pursuant to this Ordinance within 180 days of enactment of this
Ordinance, the Ordinance shall be void.
This the 15th day of October, 2014.
14
APPENDIX A
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction boundary amendment as shown on the attached map and as described
as follows:
SECTION 1
Beginning at a point on the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limits at the northwest corner of
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Weaver Dairy Road and proceeding in a generally northerly
direction along said corporate boundary following the centerline of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
to the northwestern corner of parcel 9880-27-0438 and the southern right-of-way of Interstate 40;
thence leaving said corporate limits line proceeding westerly across MLK Jr Blvd to the
southeastern corner of parcel 9880-08-4202, such corner being on the northern r/w line of
Eubanks Road and also being on the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limits Line; thence
proceeding westward and following said corporate limits line along the northern r/w line of
Eubanks Road to the easternmost boundary of parcel 9880-07-6840; thence continuing
northward along said corporate limits line and the easternmost boundary of said parcel 9880-07-
6840 to its northernmost boundary and proceeding westward along the northernmost boundaries
of said parcel and parcel 9880-07-1883 to a point intersecting with parcel 9870-98-7294 and
thence proceeding northward to the northernmost boundary of parcel 9870-98-7294 and then
proceeding westward along said parcel’s northernmost boundary to the parcel’s westernmost
boundary; thence proceeding southward along the parcel’s westernmost boundary and continuing
along the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limits line proceeding southward along the
westernmost boundary of parcel 9870-98-7045 to a point that intersects with Eubanks Road;
thence proceeding southward across said road along the westernmost boundary of parcel 9870-
97-8235 to the southernmost boundary of said parcel 9870-97-8235 and proceeding eastward
along its southernmost boundary to a point intersecting with parcel 9880-06-0661; thence
proceeding southward along said parcel’s westernmost boundary and the westernmost
boundaries of parcels 9880-06-0493; 9880-06-0297; 9880-06-0192; and 9880-06-0857; to the
southwest corner of said parcel 9880-06-0857; thence proceeding easterly along the
southernmost boundaries of parcels 9880-06-0857; 9880-05-2817; 9880-05-3886; 9880-05-5839;
9880-05-6953; 9880-05-7975; 9880-05-8888; 9880-15-0836; 9880-15-1895; 9880-15-3856;
9880-15-5817; 9880-15-6869; 9880-15-9853; 9880-25-1853; 9880-25-3820; and 9880-25-4859;
and crossing the r/w of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.to meet the point and place of beginning
containing 96.15 acres more or less.
SECTION II
Beginning at a point at the southernmost and easternmost point of parcel 9870-99-7083 and
proceeding northward along the western edge of the Interstate 40 right-of-way to a point
intersecting with parcel 9871-81-0744 and the center of the stream bank and proceeding
generally westward along the center of the stream to a point intersecting with rail line then
generally heading southward to a point approximately 250 feet south of the parcel identified as
9870-89-0971 and then heading west along parcel’s 9870-68-0669 northernmost boundary
proceeding southward along the parcel westernmost boundary, including parcel 9870-66-2911 to
a point intersecting with parcel 9870-55-0605 and heading west along the northernmost
boundaries of the following parcels: 9870-45-6572, 9870-45-3385, 9870-45-1708, and 9870-35-
15
7767; at the westernmost boundary of parcel 9870-35-7767 proceeding south along the parcel’s
westernmost boundary to a point intersecting with centerline of Rogers Road, proceeding
southeasterly along the centerline of Rogers Road to a point intersecting with Homestead Road;
then proceeding westward along centerline of Homestead Road to the intersection with High
School Road; then proceeding eastward along the southern edge of the High School Road right-
of-way to the easternmost boundary of parcel 9779-59-7804.002 proceeding northward along the
parcel’s easternmost boundary then proceeding northward along the easternmost boundaries of
parcels 9870-50-6072 and 9870-50-6280 then proceeding along the southernmost and
easternmost boundary of parcel 9870-50-7493 then proceeding along the easternmost boundary
of parcel 9870-60-0533 to a point intersecting the southernmost boundary of parcel 9870-60-
9427 proceeding to a point on western edge of the Seawell School Road right-of-way then
proceeding to following Seawell School Road right-of-way northward the intersection with
Homestead Road then proceeding eastward on northernmost edge of the Homestead Road right-
of-way to a point intersecting with the railroad tracks then proceeding to following the
westernmost edge of the railroad right-of-way generally northward until intersecting with
southernmost boundary of parcel 9870-94-9449 and crossing perpendicular to the railroad to the
easternmost edge of the railroad right-of-way then traveling northward along the easternmost
edge of the railroad right-of-way to a point intersecting with northernmost edge of parcel 9870-
95-2979 then proceeding westward to the easternmost boundary of parcel 9870-77-6296
proceeding northward along the easternmost boundary of the parcel to a point intersecting with
the northernmost edge of the Eubanks Road right-of-way then proceeding heading generally
easterly along the Eubanks Road right-of-way to a point intersecting the easternmost boundary of
parcel 9870-88-3323 then traveling northward along the parcel’s easternmost boundary to a point
intersecting with southernmost boundary of parcel 9870-99-0117 then proceeding along the
southernmost boundaries of parcels 9870-99-0117 and 9870-99-7083 to meet a point and place
of beginning containing 916.60 acres more or less.
16
17
18
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 8, 2014 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 6
Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 7
Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 8
Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, 9
Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough 10
Township Representative; 11
12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri, 17
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative 18
Assistant II 19
20
21 OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Andrew Vanard 22
23
24
HANDOUTS GIVEN: (email from Lydia Wegman concerning Item 10 which is attached at the end of the minutes) 25
26
27 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 28 29
30
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 31
a) Planning Calendar for October and November 32
b) Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on November 24, 2014 33
34
35 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 37 38 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the September, 2014 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 40 41 42 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 43 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 46 47
Introduction to the Public Charge 48
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 49
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 50
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 51
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 52
future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 53
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 54
19
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 55
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 56
57
58 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 59
60 61 AGENDA ITEM 7: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation 62
to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the 63
Comprehensive Plan to assign County land use classifications to approximately 500 acres of 64
property that are to be removed for the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) 65
located generally near the Eno River between US 70W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and 66
Hillsborough Townships. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public 67
hearing. 68 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 69
70
Tom Altieri reviewed abstract and presented a PowerPoint Presentation. 71
72
Pete Hallenbeck: Does anyone have any questions for Tom? 73
74
Tony Blake: I recall a conversation from the BOCC that the underlying concern seemed to be that we were 75
repurposing land use for agricultural that might be better zoned rural residential or vice a versa and that there might 76
be some permitted uses on a farm or something that would be disallowed if it was rural residential or again vice a 77
versa and I think that it’s key that the land use match the zoning and so that is my question, does the land use match 78
the zoning in this? 79
80
Tom Altieri: You’re correct, it does need to and in this case, in the Comprehensive Plan I think you’ve probably seen 81
it, a few before in some previous amendments. There’s what I call a matrix, it’s located in the appendices at the back 82
of the land use plan and it shows the relationship between the Future Land Use Map categories down one column 83
and then the rows across are all of the applicable zoning districts. You’re right for the Agricultural Residential Land 84
Use category the only applicable zoning is Agricultural Residential. So that’s exactly right. 85
86
Tony Blake: I believe and again I’m reading between the lines from the County Commissioners’ comments, I believe 87
that going around in some of their heads and I think Commissioner Dorosin in particular was this discussion about 88
the solar farm in the north and what was permitted and what wasn’t permitted and there might be something that was 89
permitted like a solar farm on a farm as opposed to in a rural residential. 90
91
Michael Harvey: I want to clarify a solar facility is permitted with a issuance of a Special Use Permit in the Rural 92
Buffer and Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential land use categories currently. 93
94
Tony Blake: There’s not one that doesn’t need a SUP? 95
96
Michael Harvey: There are three categories of solar array development. There’s under 20,000 which accessory as a 97
Class B and Class A. Class B and Class A would be allowed in the three zoning districts so there is no distinction 98
from that standpoint. 99
100
Tony Blake: I was thinking of some of the farms that have put up solar facilities for use on their farms for their own 101
purposes. 102
103
Lisa Stuckey: My impression is that AR is less restrictive and you can do more things in there by right, is that 104
correct? In general. 105
106
Tom Altieri: Some of the questions are more related to the zoning side. However, Tony does make a good point 107
which is once the Board has recommended Agricultural Residential on the Future Land Use Map side the only 108
20
applicable district that can be applied when we get to the zoning side is Agricultural Residential. There are some 109
additional materials outlining the differences in the permitted uses that are part of the other item. 110
111
Tony Blake: I more wanted to get that on the record so that when the Commissioners read it they can either 112
comment on whether I was reading between the lines correctly or not and maybe settle that question. 113
114
Craig Benedict: I think also one of the questions was is this new area more like a rural area or is it like an urban area 115
and somebody mentioned that word suburban. Well, Orange County Land Use and city programs have quite a few 116
demarcations so that’s what I think was being inferred that there might be some sort of intermediate category that 117
could be urban in the future. As Tom said in the interlocal agreements, saying that the urban service area boundary 118
stops at this new ETJ boundary really does say this is urban and this is definitely a rural lifestyle. AR fits that well. 119
120
Pete Hallenbeck: My only comment on the topic is I think the Agricultural Residential fits what is currently going on 121
there and that’s borne out by that table that says only 15% of that is private and not farm use the other is either farm 122
use or the quasi-public so I don’t have a problem with that right now, in 30 years from now, who knows but today it 123
seems like a pretty good call. Also putting sewer and water on Eno Mountain would be a little rough. 124
125
MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval to the BOCC on the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan FLUM 126
amendment. Seconded by Tony Blake 127 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 128
129
130 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a government-131
initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to assign County zoning districts to approximately 500 132
acres of property that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial 133
Jurisdiction (ETJ) located generally near the Eno River between US 70W and I-85/I-40 in 134
Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly 135
public hearing. 136 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 137
138
Tom Altieri reviewed abstract and presented a PowerPoint Presentation. 139
140
Herman Staats: So, the triangle that you said was inconsistently zoned versus land use designation, is there a 141
reason it was zoned that way and if there is not a reason that it’s zoned that way should the zoning be changed so 142
that it is consistent? 143
144
Tom Altieri: The reason, I don’t know the reason but I think that’s how it was zoned when that township was 145
originally zoned. I have a theory which is that it might have something to do with the Hillsborough Township line. I 146
found it interesting that the western side of that R-1 boundary (illustrated on map) that’s not a parcel line. That’s a 147
line that seems to be a hangover from a township line that for some reason doesn’t extend further to the north or 148
south as we know the Hillsborough Township does. Our mapping has gotten significantly better, our GIS and 149
overlays and could be the result of previous less precise mapping. 150
151
Pete Hallenbeck: That area you’re talking about, the Hillsborough triangle, is it in a critical watershed area? 152
153
Tom Altieri: It is. 154
155
Pete Hallenbeck: That tempers how much you can do there. 156
157
Tony Blake: How many acres is it. 158
159
Tom Altieri: Maybe 120 acres all those parcels combined. 160
161
Paul Guthrie: What is the ownership pattern? Are there a lot of owners, one owner? 162
21
163
Tom Altieri: I don’t have that specific information tonight. 164
165
Paul Guthrie: Is there any development on it at all. 166
167
Michael Harvey: Single family residents on those lots and one of the parcels is part of a larger farm. The Hare 168
Krishna part of their temple is on the other side of Dimmocks Mill Road there is a mish mash of existing land uses in 169
that general area. 170
171
Pete Hallenbeck: In my opinion at this point, fairly well developed. Most lots have something on them. 172
173
Tony Blake: One more question, that phantom line seems to bisect a bunch of lots, does that mean that the lots 174
have two land use and zoning classifications? 175
176
Tom Altieri: One base land use classification and correct, two different zoning classifications. 177
178
Tony Blake: This would serve to bring them in line and make them consistent across the lot. 179
180
Tom Altieri: That’s not part of this amendment. If it is something that this Board wanted to recommend to the County 181
Commissioners it would require another public hearing and notification and then we could consider that. 182
183
Tony Blake: I don’t think it’s worth it. 184
185
Craig Benedict: One other thing, this upgraded consistency statement, just something that we can use for future 186
reference. With this consistency statement, you see us referring to previous planning studies. One case was the 187
Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement another planning construct was the water and sewer boundary agreement was 188
another layer of the planning. As we proceed with these rezonings in the future, you’ll see us continue to use the 189
value of our small area planning processes to show consistency. The law has come back around to support what we 190
have been doing in the past by having multiple reasons for changing zoning. Some places around the state would 191
say, just because, so this is a way of incorporating our prior planning and give a good consistency statement. 192
193
Pete Hallenbeck: So to put this concept of the consistency statement into perspective, if we’re talking about taking 194
some parcel there and zoning it for some gigantic store or office complex that would be a consistency problem 195
instead we’re wrestling with AR versus R-1. 196
197
Paul Guthrie: Has there been any commentary from any of these parties that have an ownership interest on this 198
particular activity? 199
200
Tom Altieri: Very little. They all have received first class mail notification and the information. We had one citizen 201
that attended the public hearing that spoke to me after the meeting that just wanted more information. I provide him 202
the information, more detail on his zoning and the permitted uses and Margaret Hauth’s contact information with the 203
Town if he had any interest in how the zoning may have played out had his property stayed within the Town’s 204
jurisdiction. We did have a lot of interest back in January of this year when the Town was looking at both 205
relinquishing and expanding its ETJ, that involved another 200 or so properties and we did have about 50+ people 206
show up at that meeting. All but two were there because they owned property within the areas where the Town was 207
considering expansion. I think a lot of the people dropped off and there have only been a few phone calls, 3 or 4. 208
209
MOTION by Bryant Warren to recommend to the BOCC approval of the rezoning amendment. Seconded by Buddy 210
Hartley. 211 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 212
213 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the consistency statement. Seconded by Tony Blake 214
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 215
216
22
217 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to 218
the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to require that a 219
neighborhood information meeting be held at least 45 days prior to the public hearing 220
regarding applications for a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit. This item was heard at 221
the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 222 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 223
224
Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 225
226
Tony Blake: I have a couple of questions, it seems to me 45 days is obsessive but what we really need is a window 227
of time because you don’t want somebody introducing a plan and two years and then 45 days before they execute 228
have a neighborhood information meeting. 229
230
Michael Harvey: That doesn’t typically happen. 231
232
Tony Blake: It seems me that there should be a minimum and a maximum. The second is in the rural areas, 500 233
feet is not sufficient. What you will get are people who are really against whatever it is as opposed to a broader 234
audience of people who may benefit from it in a larger sense. I am pointing specifically to the fire station substation 235
we built. If we had strictly stayed with the 500 feet we would have gotten the people who didn’t want to live within 236
500 feet of a fire station instead of the larger population who would benefit from a reduction in insurance rates. You 237
are going to miss in this neighborhood information meeting, the point of view of the greater good. 238
239
Michael Harvey: You’re allowed to your opinion and I don’t want to argue with you on it. It is your opinion, I see pro 240
and con to it. The only comment I will make is that the notice that we send out is not the only means of advertising 241
we also post the property. I think when you take a look for example the Binks solar facility, which we did notify 242
people within 500 feet of the property, if you extend that to 1000 feet you would quite frankly only have captured 20 243
or 30 additional properties owners. Some of which were there because of the advertising signs we had put out at the 244
property. 245
246
Tony Blake: I invite people to do the research and look and see roughly how many notices you actually sent out on 247
these in the rural areas. I think you’ll see it 2, 3, 4 people. 248
249
Michael Harvey: I don’t dispute that there are situations where you have areas with large properties where even a 250
1000 feet wouldn’t make much difference. 251
252
Tony Blake: I understand that registered mail is a cost. It seems to me like there could be other ways to 253
communicate. Those are my comments. 254
255
Michael Harvey: Ok 256
257
Paul Guthrie: I want to go the other way, I think the bigger problem may be in urbanizing areas in terms of the costs. 258
I thought about our house and it is on a less than one acre lot and under the 500 foot rule, everywhere except one 259
location you’d pick up maybe 6 or 8 maybe 10 houses. Right across from us is a condominium with about 25 units. 260
So to do anything that requires a Special Use Permit, the homeowner would maybe need 35 registered letters. I can 261
conceive of this in a larger or fringe of an urban area having a high density property of one property among many 262
others that could raise the costs for the applicant significantly. I am a little concerned about what that does to the 263
small, not to the large corporate well-financed organization, but the small organization that for one reason or another 264
needs a Special Use Permit. Assuming it is compatible with the general character of the neighborhood, having to 265
spend that money. 266
267
Michael Harvey: Again, Mr. Blake is not incorrect and you’re not incorrect either. There are pros and cons to both 268
sides of the equation. 269
270
23
Bryant Warren: I noticed in the past when you get ready to do something there are signs put up all around the 271
neighborhood and area, even if we stick with the 500 feet that should be sufficient enough especially if you continue 272
putting the signs up. 273
274
Laura Nicholson: Not to belabor the point, but isn’t there a way to just conditionally make it 500 feet for an urban 275
area but as a rural area make it larger? That way it’s not changing the whole fabric, could you change it depending 276
on.. 277
278
Michael Harvey: I don’t know how comfortable I would be with that because that gives greater utility to a Class 2 279
Kennel for example locating in one area in the County versus another area in the County. I think that I’m going to err 280
on the side of caution and treat all applicants the same. 281
282
Pete Hallenbeck: Actually, I’ll comment on that, we seem to run into this problem a lot that we almost need a settled 283
density function. Something that tells you how dense is this and that is used as criteria for notification area. The 284
problem with that is you can argue over a number, you can argue over a function and whatever you come up with 285
people putting up kennels will gain the system to do what they want. It’s one of those difficult problems that never 286
have a right answer. 287
288
Craig Benedict: As part of our discussion more recently about the use of technology and how to get information out 289
to people different than the mailings, definitely the signs on the property so we are going to start putting our 290
application out there. Evidently there’ll be some mapping and that could be with that and people will see the signs 291
and be able to look on line to see what’s happening. I think we’ll use technology, even the statutes are saying that 292
how we advertise is being liberalized to include media. 293
294
Pete Hallenbeck: Tony you talked about a sample window. 295
296
Tony Blake: I was thinking more within a certain minimum distance from the project start and a maximum as well. 297
298
Lisa Stuckey: Are you worried they’ll do it like 60 days out? 299
300
Tony Blake: Yea, or six months and by then everybody has forgotten or then all of a sudden everybody says, I 301
remember but it was too long ago. 302
303
Michael Harvey: Let me try to address that point. Applications are typically submitted currently 60 days to 70 days 304
before a public hearing, depending on what public hearing. Class A is County Commissioners, four quarterly public 305
hearing and Class B is Board of Adjustment. So you have a window usually of 50 to 60 days before public hearing 306
when application becomes submitted, it is then scheduled for a public hearing. We basically have a five day window 307
according to our ordinance to ascertain whether or not the application is complete and either reject it or accept it and 308
then submit it for review. Essentially how this process is going to work now is basically once we determine the 309
application is viable, meaning all components have been submitted and its complete, we are submitting it for peer 310
review, not only to internal county departments but external planning partners. The Department of Transportation is 311
a key example. We then have to send out notices advertising the meeting because of the timeline and the window 312
before the public hearing so basically you’re getting a letter from the planning department 14 day minimum before the 313
neighborhood meeting. That’s when we have to send it out as the ordinance is currently proposed. The 314
neighborhood meeting has to be held 45 days prior to the public hearing is scheduled. So it is conceivable if an 315
applicant asks to withdraw from one hearing or postpone to a hearing they would have to then also potentially have a 316
second neighborhood meeting if the first one isn’t held. I don’t think you’re going to go 6, 8 months or a year with 317
people having a gap between the neighborhood meeting to a public hearing. With the amount of money involved. I 318
understand what you are saying but I think we’re better served by an ordinance amendment that says this has to 319
happen a minimum of days before the hearing which then gives everybody sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. 320
321 MOTION by Laura Nicholson to recommend approval of the UDO text amendments. Seconded by James Lea. 322
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 323
324
24
MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 325 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 326
327
328 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To either provide input or make 329
a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 330
to change the existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related 331
items/ amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 332 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 333
334
Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract 335
336
Craig Benedict: What I put on the Board here is what we presently have. We usually give the Planning Board a 337
briefing on what is coming up at the public hearings, this is kind of informal. We did have the joint public hearing here 338
and then this was referred back to the Planning Board and then back to the Commissioners for action. As you 339
answer these questions, we’ll find out, does the Planning Board make recommendations here or do they make 340
recommendation somewhere else? We will draft it up, as you come to some sort of consensus, we’ll try to sketch 341
something up for clarity. 342
343
Pete Hallenbeck: I am not going to read what is in attachment one, I’ll just make a couple of quick comments. First 344
we are going through something different here, it’s not a text amendment or something laid out for us. It’s an 345
opportunity to say what we’re thinking. With that comes the obligation to try to get our thoughts organized. I think the 346
main thing is the joint meetings were a problem just because of the quorum and I think you could move that so they 347
are not joint meetings. However, I think you can, somewhere between require and strongly urge, have the Planning 348
Board members attend. I think it is really important, since we are giving recommendations, to have as many people 349
as we can present to hear what is going on because there is such a difference between reading something and 350
hearing someone present it. There is talk in the meeting about holding the Planning Board either before or after. I 351
think Planning Board before I like a lot, Planning Board after the decision is like closing the barn door after the horse 352
is gone. I’m not quite sure what we’d do, that was discussed. I think citizen notification which is in here is a good 353
deal and it would be nice if that notification includes a description of the process so people know what to do. Part of 354
what happened in the solar project is people were scrambling with the time they had and they weren’t sure what the 355
next steps were and also the dates. I think when you combine what we just voted on with the 45 day and you add in 356
the changes we are looking at now and if that notification spells out what is going to happen, it should be a different 357
picture than what we had before. I like treating legislative quasi-judicial mixes as quasi-judicial and that led to those 358
recommendations. So you can sort of see what I am thinking from that attachment one. What we’ll do here is just go 359
around the room and take input that anyone would like to pass on to the Commissioners. 360
361
Perdita Holtz: I forgot to mention that Lydia Wegman sent an email earlier today about her views. I wanted to make 362
sure it got into the minutes that I did distribute her email. 363
364
Pete Hallenbeck: Yes and we should put her comments into the minutes since she is not here. She also talked 365
about it the Planning Board should be at the public hearing and she talked about how they should be required to 366
attend the public hearing. We’re seeing everybody wrestle with the same details. 367
368
Paul Guthrie: You took the first part of what I was going to acknowledge and suggest everybody read it carefully. 369
Lydia is a very smart person and has been in this business a long time. I must admit that I’ve thought a lot about this 370
issue and I really wasn’t a 100% percent sure where I was going with it so I decided to make it simple. We are in 371
business for one reason and that is to work for the County Board of Commissioners, present them with our 372
understanding of issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations as we gather as citizens in the County. I 373
would caution us as we shape this don’t violate that particular rule and if you decide that it’s necessary to change 374
that rule in a significant manner, then you need to decide whether the Planning Board is relevant. I would just say 375
that this is a very fundamental issue that needs to be carefully considered and I understand where the concern 376
comes and it is legitimate concern in terms of the quorum/non-quorum issue. It seems to me we ought to be able to 377
25
deal with that issue without tearing up the relationship of what a citizen advisory board is to the elected leaders of this 378
County. I think we should think in that line as we work on the process. 379
380
Pete Hallenbeck: I agree we need to find a way to get people there but we need to find a way to do it that doesn’t 381
penalize people who come to a meeting if we don’t have enough people there. That might be the best way to put it. 382
383
Laura Nicholson: I have a lot of comments, in light of the timeline that we were given to consider this I wonder if we 384
can’t divide it. It seems like there are a few things that are easy and specific and there are a few things that are really 385
squishy so if could just get through some of the specifics. In regard to the quorum, I obviously haven’t been here 386
long enough to understand why the quorum was ever an issue but it just seems like a communication thing. If we’ve 387
made it clear that you are supposed to be at as many monthly meetings and you can and be at the quarterly public 388
hearing, and are given insufficient notice, and we double check to make sure there’s enough people there, I don’t 389
see it as an issue. I think it is a little insane to do this whole roundabout to change this whole process that seems 390
important because we can’t get our act together internally and I think it could be fixed internally so it doesn’t have to 391
be this whole big process. And the frequency of public hearings, I don’t know if that is something that is really 392
specific and easy to figure out or not but I’m just curious if we couldn’t just divide it. So talk about a few things we 393
can iron out tonight and a few things we go back and ask for more time to figure out. 394
395
Pete Hallenbeck: Again, it strikes me how to get people there because I think there’s agreement that’s really 396
important but if we make mistakes and people can’t show up for whatever reason, how do you keep that from 397
throwing everything off track? We do serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners so they could certainly come up 398
with some club and stick approach to make everybody come to the meetings but I would leave that decision to them. 399
400
Bryant Warren: Reading this I’m a little concerned with, I feel like it is on the step of dissolving the Planning Board 401
and just going straight to the County Commissioners. I’ll apologize I did miss the public hearing last month, I got my 402
days mixed up and thought it was the next night. But it is very seldom that I’ll miss a public hearing or a meeting. I 403
will make sure I’m here and I don’t understand how the Planning Board can make a recommendation to the BOCC 404
before the public hearing is being held because I really think they need to be involved in the public hearing in order to 405
make an adequate recommendation to the BOCC. I think we can do something, I only been on the Board for a 406
couple of months now so I don’t know what went on in the past regarding the quorums. I do feel like if you’re a 407
member of the Planning Board then it is your obligation to make sure you attend the meetings. I think what we need 408
to do is stress that we need to keep things the way they are, continue the public hearing, continue with the Planning 409
Board playing a very big role in it so they can make the recommendations they need to, because evidentially, if they 410
don’t, then you might as well dissolve the Planning Board and not even have it. That’s my recommendation. 411
412
Pete Hallenbeck: One challenge that came out of this whole discussion that hit me was during the quarterly public 413
hearing, I referred to citizens that want to go to the top they want to go to the decision makers and sometimes it’s 414
hard to get citizens to come to an advisory board, they want to talk to the Commissioners. Part of the reason for 415
making sure that this notification process tells people about the Planning Board is to give them more opportunities for 416
input. The before and after comes down to what Craig has up on the board. We have a public hearing then Planning 417
Board then BOCC action. I think that’s good I think that’s critical and I think the Planning Board has to get input so 418
they can make the recommendation to the Commissioners. When I talk about having a Planning Board meeting after 419
what I am talking about is once the Board of County Commissioners has made decision, I don’t think there is any role 420
for further input from the Planning Board. I do think it’s critical and would even say they shouldn’t make a decision 421
before the Planning Board has had an opportunity to make a recommendation. Any time the Commissioners have 422
the option of doing it and just saying wow, this is just too much to handle all this input, they can kick it back to the 423
Planning Board and we can talk it over and it will come up at the next meeting, they have that option. So, yes if the 424
impression that the Planning Board is somehow being diminished in its role, no I don’t want that. I do want to make 425
sure we don’t hold up the citizens that show up and I’d like to find a way to encourage citizens to come to the 426
Planning Board to get their concerns known earlier. Part of that is what I’m talking about in here about the Planning 427
Board meeting with the public if the public could come to these meetings, it is a bit of a dry run. The other thing that 428
came up in that meeting is another problem we’ve always had which is would that we had a crystal ball to predict the 429
no-brainers from the ones that are going to be controversial. If we can get citizens to come to the Planning Board 430
26
with input earlier, we can get a better feel of what is going on. The Commissioners can see that when they read the 431
minutes and I think those are ways the Planning Board can be more engaged than it is now. 432
433
Bryant Warren: The problem with that is they want to meet with the top people and by having a joint public hearing 434
appearing with both then they are both getting the information and people are showing up for it. 435
436
Pete Hallenbeck: I wouldn’t be surprised if it continues in the same way but I also don’t want to penalize people who 437
want to learn how the systems works and try to get the most out of it. So if they have a 45 day notice and they come 438
to the Planning Board and they’re organized and they come to us and say here’s the concern and talk about it then 439
the Commissioners can read it. That’s the closest we’re going to come to that no-brainer crystal ball. They will be 440
much more informed, the Commissioners will, than if all this just hits them for the first time. 441
442
Bryant Warren: Right now we have one every 4 months, if it goes to every 2 months, is there not some way if we 443
need another public hearing we can call one or do we have a time frame that would keep us from doing that. 444
445
Craig Benedict: The Unified Development Ordinance does set out a public hearing specific dates of 4 a year. We 446
can amend the UDO to say there are other times we can consider amendments. As Perdita put up there, there are 447
three types of hearing, the legislative ones are typically a little bit easier. There is a good possibility we could move 448
some of those legislative items to a regular meeting and have some more opportunities for them. We know that the 449
quasi-judicial are usually the ones that are a little bit more labored because of the testimony and that would probably 450
clog up a regular meeting so having the quarterly public hearings isolated for them will probably remain a good idea. 451
We can consider regular Commission meetings to have a public hearing. 452
453
Bryant Warren: I know a lot of developers want to get it out, get it to the public, and get it back as quickly as they can 454
so they can start generating money from it. That’s probably what we’re trying to do is to accommodate some of them 455
so I don’t see anything wrong with it. 456
457
Pete Hallenbeck: We have the full spectrum of the developers would love a two month process and a lot of citizens 458
would like a nine month process. What you’re talking about with additional meetings, I know Commissioner Jacobs 459
was concerned that if you put additional public hearings on the normal Commissioner calendar, that’s where the 460
crystal ball for the no-brainers comes in. You would hate to put, for example, that solar project on the end of a 461
budget meeting cause it would take too long, you really won’t be doing the citizens any service, everybody would be 462
tired by the time it was midnight and probably wouldn’t accomplish what you wanted. If you know, that crystal ball, 463
that this was going to be a 30 minute with no problem. 464
465
Herman Staats: Pete, so I understand correctly, the process that is on the white board now, is what we currently 466
use? 467
468
Pete Hallenbeck: Correct. 469
470
Herman Staats: Am I understanding you to say that we should have an additional Planning Board meeting with the 471
public and if so where in that process do you propose to put it? 472
473
Pete Hallenbeck: The question is the first item, these quarterly public hearing are on a certain schedule but we meet 474
every month. There’s an opportunity to have that 45 day notice and have people come to a Planning Board meeting 475
and get citizen feedback quicker and then that feedback can be presented at the next available quarterly public 476
hearing it is unlikely that the Commissioners would decide at that time but that’s where the no-brainer, crystal ball 477
comes in. It is far more likely that they will take that citizen input and kick it back to the Planning Board. We would 478
also be at that meeting, however the carrot and stick approach the Commissioners work out for getting us there. 479
480
Lisa Stuckey: So if I’m a citizen and I am bringing something forward, you’re suggesting that there be a public 481
hearing in front of the Planning Board and then a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners and 482
then it comes back to the Planning Board. 483
484
27
Craig Benedict: Maybe it doesn’t have to go here afterwards. There are differences between the legislative and 485
486
Lisa Stuckey: But wait, because they were saying they wanted to give people a third or fourth opportunity to speak 487
without question when it came back, as a former member of the school board, every time you hold a public hearing, 488
you will get people to come and the more anxious they are about the outcome, the more they will come and they the 489
longer they will talk. It is just a lot of time. I am not passing judgment on whether or not they should be allowed to, 490
it’s just a tremendous amount of time for the boards. 491
492
Craig Benedict: There could be different processes for legislative versus quasi-judicial. The reason we have a 493
process now to just have written testimony after this public hearing is because you’re trying to set a point in time 494
where the record is closed, let’s make a decision, and if we keep on opening things up very late in the process then it 495
doesn’t end. That was part of the reason, especially for quasi-judicial matters, for legislative matters, the 496
Commissioners can choose to let them hold it in three minutes, don’t repeat what we’ve heard here. They can 497
diplomatically say that. 498
499
Lisa Stuckey: It won’t work. 500
501
Craig Benedict: Also it shows in the agenda package that the Commissioners, when they have this public hearing 502
over here, they can do three things; they could close the public hearing, this is what we are suggesting as potential 503
options. They could close the public hearing this night and they can set a date to make a formal vote on it, or if it is 504
contentious they could send it back to the Planning Board to return then for a date certain, or one that has never 505
worked well in the past is they can actually decide that night, close the public hearing and say we have enough 506
testimony to decide. That has always been a lot for them but over the many years there’s been a few where they 507
thought that were very simple, one was actually a school site for the Orange County school that was an SUP and 508
they needed to get it built and they wanted to approve it there but the process didn’t allow them to do that at that 509
time, to vote the same night. It had to go back. 510
511
Bryant Warren: So you’re talking about on the public hearing that is joint now it will not be a joint public hearing, it 512
would be just the Commissioners? 513
514
Craig Benedict: That would be just the Commissioners and as the Chair said, we would suggest the Planning Board 515
attend here or they could watch it on Granicus or they could watch a video of it or they could look at the minutes. 516
(referring to board) This would not be a formal, this isn’t the formal public hearing here, it’s just a point where we can 517
let people know in a neighborhood information meeting that the Planning Board is going to be hearing this item. It is 518
what’s called a Planning Board hearing, formal hearing will always stay with the Commissioners that’s what state 519
laws says. 520
521
Bryant Warren: I don’t think you’re going to get as many people showing up for just a public hearing with the 522
Planning Board as you’re going to get to show up for the Commissioners and Planning Board combined. 523
524
Craig Benedict: It’s true, the Planning Board and staff may be able to answer some questions here at this pre-525
meeting. At this crystal ball meeting. Even at this point here, we’re going to be educating the public because that’s 526
what the Commissioners suggested. Let them know about what process we’re going through, is it legislative, is it 527
quasi-judicial let them know what levels of input there are, is it going to be formal expert or can it be anecdotal i.e., 528
we don’t think that fits the neighborhood. We can do a lot of education here, having something early where the public 529
can be invited. It probably would be a lot more attendance at Planning Board meetings than you’ve had in the past. 530
It still goes to the formal public hearing, let’s call that the legal public hearing. Then the Commissioners have the 531
opportunity to decide at that point to bounce it back or to themselves two weeks hence. 532
533
Perdita Holtz: This Planning Board meeting where he crossed off formal review, the Planning Board recommendation 534
meeting, where there would be notices that actually went out and the property would get posted with a sign to let 535
people know that the Planning Board meeting was happening, it would not be a formal public hearing, it would just be 536
a Planning Board meeting with changing the way we notify the public about Planning Board meetings so that people 537
would know the Planning Board meeting was happening, they would be able to come and speak, it wouldn’t have to 538
28
be written comments only and at the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Board would make a recommendation 539
on whether they thought the application should be approved or not, on legislative items. Craig is a little bit mixing 540
legislative and quasi-judicial together. Then the item would go to public hearing with the Planning Board 541
recommendation. At the public hearing the BOCC could decide, man there’s so many people here that maybe didn’t 542
talk at the Planning Board meeting; we really should kick it back to the Planning Board for them to consider this other 543
information that came out at the public hearing. Or, the BOCC could decide this is one of those no-brainers, the 544
people who have been on the Planning Board before will remember the discussion about no-brainers, this is a no-545
brainer, we can close the public hearing tonight and we can just vote on it, or they can say, well, you know the 546
Planning Board gave us a recommendation, nothing major has come out but I want to mull this over more and the 547
BOCC can say let’s schedule it for a later meeting. 548
549
Loss of recording device/full memory- approximate 7 to 9 minutes lost. 550
[There was some discussion about how notices about the Planning Board meeting would be sent via first class mail 551
to adjacent property owners and a sign would be posted on the affected property, in the case of map amendments]. 552
553
Pete Hallenbeck: It is important that the notifications be a blend of the dry legal requirements of notification and a 554
nice human readable, ok guys here’s how it’s going to work- we’re going to have to this meeting here’s what you can 555
do, this is an opportunity for you, so it explains the process and people know what is going on. 556
557
Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments; I don’t know how much power we really have. I think we’re maybe 558
assuming that we have more power than we do here. We are really looking at the UDO and deciding whether or not 559
a project meets the criteria of the UDO, we can’t just all of a sudden say, no we don’t like that, and the second part of 560
it is, I think we’re all here to represent some part of the County. I represent Bingham because I live there and 561
because I have other contacts in the community and it seems to me that we should be part of the notification list for 562
any public information session in our area of representation. We should be at least as strongly encouraged to attend 563
that public information meeting on behalf of the Planning Board and all the Planning Board members be encouraged 564
to attend any public information meeting as that somewhat cloudy crystal because I think you can tell from a public 565
information meeting how many people show up as to what kind of a response you’re going to get and what the real 566
concerns and questions are that need to be addressed up front. I don’t really understand the quasi-judicial role we 567
have, I understand that we stand up there and give testimony but if our power is limited to interpreting the UDO and 568
trying make whatever changes proposed fits within the UDO and it either does or it doesn’t and staff is far more 569
versed in the UDO than I am. I find their recommendations are pretty bang on. All of what I have to say in a quasi-570
judicial way is hearsay, right? 571
572
Pete Hallenbeck: The role of the Planning Board is this oversight, are we meeting the requirements of the UDO. 573
Yes, you’re right, but that’s a level of detail you have to have. I would point out, though, that there’s also a document 574
called the Comprehensive Plan. If the UDO is the rules, the left brain, the Comprehensive Plan is the heart and soul, 575
it’s the right brain part of it. There are times when we’ve reviewed things and it’s met all of the requirements but then 576
you’ll find something in the Comprehensive Plan that’s not right and I think it’s not power per say but it’s a very valid 577
role of the Board is to point this out. An example of that is the Comprehensive Plan encourages that all subdivisions 578
have sidewalks and yet every time we run into it there is no money for sidewalks and DOT doesn’t want it. There is a 579
conflict there and we don’t have power over that but we can certainly point it out and I think that’s also true with 580
representing the areas you’re from. 581
582
Tony Blake: Yeah, but I don’t find that to be quasi-judicial in essence. You can point it out in a quasi-judicial hearing 583
but it’s not some... 584
585
Pete Hallenbeck: Quasi-judicial is such a different beast because people get sworn in and there’s testimony. It really 586
changes the game a lot and our role in quasi-judicial is very strict. 587
588
Lisa Stuckey: We’re supposed to be the judge in a quasi-judicial, aren’t we? 589
590
James Bryan: In quasi-judicial, it’s the governing board- the deciding body that is the judge. From a legal 591
perspective, for planning boards’ involvement, it’s dangerous. Especially, how we have it where you close the public 592
29
hearing and then you have the statements. I think that’s right before appeal, for a number of reasons, I don’t know if 593
the Board really wants to get into all of that but my recommendation would be that because of all of the legal 594
concerns with all that let one board handle it, the Board of Adjustment, that’s all they do and then you also have a 595
corollary to that because when the public goes to these meetings and they want to know, look I’m a neighbor and I’m 596
against this, quasi-judicial they can’t say anything. That’s objectionable, you’re not supposed to allow them to go and 597
speak to that. So if you have one board where they know, oh Board of Adjustment that’s when I have to have my 598
expert there to testify and any time you go before the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Board, that’s 599
when I’m allowed to give my opinion because they do policy and legislative matters. It’s clear for the public. 600
601
Lisa Stuckey: So, the quasi-judicial, and I guess the mix will move out of the Planning Board? 602
603
James Bryan: That would be my recommendation. 604
605
Perdita Holtz: Well, the legislative part of the mix would not but we need to figure out what we want to do for 606
legislative versus quasi-judicial before we tackle that funny beast of the mix. 607
608
Lisa Stuckey: But quasi-judicial is leaving us. 609
610
Bonnie Hammersley: No, as the County Manager I have to speak. The issue tonight is some kind of 611
recommendation from this Board to the County Board of Commissioners, they make the final determination. One 612
thing I would want to add thought as you all talked about your power or your worth, this Board is a highly valued 613
board in county government and is in all the counties I’ve been in. The County Board of Commissioners depend on 614
you greatly for your recommendations and what you do and so I want you for that but no determination has been 615
made on what is going to happen. That’s what this discussion is about. It would be a recommendation to the County 616
Commissioners and whether the Commissioners would agree with that, they would make the final determination and 617
I don’t know what that is. 618
619
Maxecine Mitchell: I’m sitting here thinking I want to share in my own way, when I decided to be on this Planning 620
Board, I came to represent my community. I don’t feel comfortable in any decision we make, I have to be there to 621
hear what the people have to say. I sit here every month and hear the staff from their perspective and I get a good 622
understanding on their challenges, what they are trying to do as a whole, I then like to come to the public hearing 623
meeting and I cautiously listen to the people. Within the decisions we make to the UDO and the Comprehensive 624
Plan when we have a chance that helps me to figure out if it a good thing for the community. Then my 625
recommendation that I give to the County Board of Commissioners, I’m looking at it from the community perspective 626
because I have to live here. You may not live in my neighborhood, in my area, and I don’t want rules making it hard 627
for me to enjoy the life here in Orange County. I take this very seriously so I don’t want whatever we do, I want to 628
hear from the public, as well as coming here every month and hearing from the Planning Board and hearing the 629
County Commissioners and what they want and make it all work the best we possibly can. I understand the legal 630
process but for me that’s top concern because we have to live here in Orange County so we have to keep it where 631
people can enjoy the County and not feel like they want to move to Durham or Alamance County, that’s the way I see 632
it and I want to find the best way to say that in the decisions we make. I try my best to show up to the public hearings 633
and I go to work at 12 at night and the night of that long meeting, I left that meeting and went right to work because 634
that’s my commitment to the citizens of Orange County to be there. I think that staff and the Board of Commissioners 635
get benefit from it. 636
637
Pete Hallenbeck: One good thing coming from this discussion is that it’s an interesting opportunity for everyone to 638
think about the role of the Planning Board and I think we are all basically on the same page. If anyone has another 639
rule they think is critical. 640
641
Paul Guthrie: I mentioned one and that is the fact that we provide the Board of Commissioners with a screen with 642
which they can filter through information as they deal with some very tough issues. 643
644
30
Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, with a blend of the feedback and the community and public input. Also I think there is 645
representation of the areas and there is also that everybody here has a diverse skill set and drawing on both of those 646
really helps with these opinions that we can give the Commissioners. 647
648
Tony Blake: Is it safe to say that any quasi-judicial process is preceded by a legislative? 649
650
Perdita Holtz: In quasi-judicial matters it depends on how you’re zoned on whether you have to get a Special Use 651
Permit and so at some point zoning was applied to the property but you can’t say that it precedes it by a month or a 652
year of something like that. 653
654
Tony Blake: No, what I’m saying is the maybe when we run up against this situation where we think, maybe the 655
County is being too heavy handed but we don’t really have the power to do anything but interpret the facts against 656
the UDO and it either is or it isn’t, right? Michael is the oracle on that, we have a handoff or a way to pass along to a 657
more powerful body, the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Commissioners whoever it is and say here’s our 658
legislative view to take into your quasi-judicial. I don’t know. 659
660
Perdita Holtz: No, it’s not for most of the types of Special Use Permits that we see. The only time that there’s a 661
legislative component is if there is a rezoning associated with also needing a Special Use Permit and that happens in 662
the case of some subdivisions when you get larger subdivisions in the rural area. 663
664
Tony Blake: Yeah, I was thinking of that dog kennel up on 70 where they weren’t really in compliance. They wanted 665
to do something, they couldn’t do something without being in compliance first and then being in compliance was too 666
expensive. It really got dicey and at the end of the day, basically, we were told we couldn’t do anything outside of the 667
UDO but at the same time it didn’t qualify for the Board of Adjustment and so there was this limbo thing and then it 668
was thrown over to the County Commissioners who changed the decision. 669
670
Perdita Holtz: Yes, that really was a messy one. 671
672
Tony Blake: That’s the kind of situation I’m thinking of that it just really seems like we could be more graceful. 673
Changing gears here if we got in early at the community information meetings and tried to make that at least as 674
important as attending the quarterly public hearings for the representatives of that group to bring back to the Planning 675
Board I think that would go a long way towards your crystal ball. 676
677
Pete Hallenbeck: Two things here, on page 72 there’s that summary and that Perdita came up with and 88% of the 678
time things are legislative and 3% of the time it is a mix. You never want to ignore a minority of cases but you also 679
don’t want to optimize the system on one low probability parameter. Also, Tony, I wanted to comment and this will 680
sort of speak to what Maxecine was talking about, I like the idea that you notify Planning Board members if there is 681
neighborhood information meeting in their district. I think that’s a great thing to do. 682
683
Michael Harvey: With all due respect, I think that the policy should be that every Planning Board member gets 684
notified and they can choose to attend if they can or cannot. That way everybody benefits. As neighborhood 685
meetings are scheduled the Planning Board gets notified and every member has an opportunity to attend. 686
687
Tony Blake: I would agree. 688
689
Michael Harvey: The reason I saying it that way is if Tony Blake can’t show up, maybe other members can and the 690
fact that Tony was not able to show up on a given evening. I think if you’re asking staff to make sure you’re notified 691
of every NIM then we can just do that as a policy. 692
693
Pete Hallenbeck: You’re right on the money, that’s more functional and easier to implement. 694
695
Paul Guthrie: I have a question for those of us who live in the County but are under Chapel Hill planning 696
management, how do we get notified? Because most of the planning of what that has done is under Chapel Hill’s 697
Planning Board. There was a point in time in the past the County Commissioners made a recommendation for 698
31
appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Board, from the area in which I live in, and the first thing that happened, it 699
happened to be me as the nominee, and the first thing that happened was Chapel Hill Planning Board and the 700
Council decided to eliminate that position so I think that we need to talk about those fringe areas that are in the 701
extraterritorial jurisdiction and see if we can get the process working there too. I’m in the southeast corner of the 702
County and it is going to be one of the big growth areas in a very small area over the next few years, I’m afraid, and 703
there is a lot going on but you usually have to read about it in the newspaper to find out about it. 704
705
Perdita Holtz: So you’re suggesting that we work with Chapel Hill Planning’s Department for them to overhaul their 706
practices on how they notify? 707
708
Paul Guthrie: No, I’m just saying it would be nice to know when those things are going on or how many newspapers I 709
need to subscribe to. 710
711
Perdita Holtz: It’s Chapel Hill’s planning jurisdiction and we don’t necessarily always know what is going on. 712
713
Pete Hallenbeck: I think the key thing is, you being in Chapel Hill, if there’s any neighborhood information meetings, 714
you’ll find out about it in the County because Michael’s suggestion was right on the money. It’s easy to implement 715
and everybody’s informed. 716
717
Buddy Hartley: I feel like the process we have now is working. The question is can we get a quorum at the public 718
hearing. That’s the question. The process is working, staff is doing their job. Staff is giving us the information for 719
whatever is taking place and we are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners, whether they like our 720
recommendation or not, they do what they want to do. So, I do like the fact of possibly having the public being able 721
to come to us before the public hearing but then the question is are we going to have a quorum at the public hearing. 722
I don’t see a big problem with that we just need to let staff know in advance if we cannot make that meeting so they 723
know. We should be able to get a quorum at the public hearing. 724
725
Perdita Holtz: Well it’s really far in advance because the legal ad gets published and notices get sent out, the legal 726
ad is due to the paper like three weeks before the public hearing. 727
728
Buddy Hartley: So we want to be able to have a quorum at the public hearing, we either do or we don’t. 729
730
Lisa Stuckey: Aside from the time somebody was late, and I was one of them one time, it’s been very close. There 731
were other meetings, I can think of two others, maybe three, where we were waiting for people to come. 732
733
Maxecine Mitchell: But I usually get an email and if not an email somebody calls. Does not everybody get that same 734
thing as a reminder? 735
736
Perdita Holtz: Yes, Tina sends out emails asking about quorum. 737
738
Maxecine Mitchell: I have it on my calendar but when I get the email I remember, that’s right I do have a public 739
hearing. 740
741
Buddy Hartley: And she does call. 742
743
Maxecine Mitchell: Yes, if she doesn’t hear from me, she’ll call. I just wondering, is that not working for everybody to 744
remember that there’s a public hearing? 745
746
Perdita Holtz: Often we call because enough people have said no, and so it’s getting very close on whether we’re 747
going to have quorum and so now we’re scrambling to get on the phone with people who haven’t responded to see if 748
they can show up or not. 749
750
Pete Hallenbeck: You can put a lot of procedures in place but the bottom line is we had a lot of trouble and if it 751
happens again something has got to change. I would ask, it’s not clear to me, what the value of having a true joint 752
32
meeting where the Planning Board has a quorum versus requiring Planning Board members to attend and if you 753
have bad attendance then the Commissioners can do something about it, like say thank you for your service but 754
you’re not cutting it. We’re going to be there and we’re going to hear the public hearing input. The commissioners 755
certainly have the ability while we’re there, even if it’s not a joint meeting, to ask if there are any comments from the 756
Planning Board. It’s well within their purview so I just don’t see that dropping the official joint with a quorum 757
requirement, I don’t think that will change the process a whole lot. What it will do is not hold up a meeting where you 758
have 100 citizens there. 759
760
Craig Benedict: From what I’m hearing from the discussion, there seems to be somewhat of a role of the Board in a 761
differentiation between how they act on a legislative matter, where they can hear opinions left and right, they can 762
hear the community and they can see the site versus the quasi-judicial nature where your role is more structured. 763
Not that we are making any determinations tonight, but maybe when we do this interim report, maybe there are two 764
different processes that we follow for legislative matters versus a quasi-judicial and right now they’re clustered 765
together and maybe we should take a look at the role of the Board on a legislative matter and how we get input 766
versus a quasi-judicial matter follow a different tract. Does that sound reasonable? 767
768
Pete Hallenbeck: In general, what I’m hearing, and I realize there is variation everywhere, is everybody agrees there 769
is great value in having the Planning Board at the quarterly public hearing. The challenge is if you don’t have a 770
quorum, we don’t want that to derail anything. I am also hearing people are happy with this concept that the Planning 771
Board can take citizen input so we can get that sooner and hopefully that combined with the 45 days will just make 772
everything go better. Most of what we’ve been talking about is for the legislative processes which are 88% of the 773
time. The quasi-judicial is a different process and we need to work on knowing what our role is in that. That may be 774
something staff and the attorney can work on to educate us on that a little bit better but again 88% of the time it is 775
legislative and it would be great to also notify all Planning Board member of any neighborhood information meeting 776
that is going on so we have a chance to get out there and see what is going on. Those are the main points I’m 777
pulling out. Is there anything major anyone can think of? 778
779
Laura Nicholson: So, is the idea that we will have quorum and we’ll all just internally say we are going to be better 780
about getting quorum or was there some barrier that maybe some of us that are new don’t understand why we 781
couldn’t get a quorum before? 782
783
Pete Hallenbeck: My personal opinion is to drop the quorum requirement because we’ve blown it two or three times 784
and if we blow it one more time, it is just, it’s getting to the point it’s not excusable and that’s also based on the fact 785
that if we can just impress upon people how important it is to be there, it’s not clear what the quorum is doing and the 786
Commissioners can still ask Planning Board members who are present for comments and input. 787
788
Laura Nicholson: It’s just funny that you’re saying we need to make sure that we all know that it’s really important to 789
be there but it’s not a requirement. If it’s really important to be there it should be a requirement. 790
791
Pete Hallenbeck: It should but then when you don’t have it, we were lucky that we had only a 30 minute delay. What 792
would happen if you had a meeting and you didn’t have quorum and you tell all these people I’m sorry we just don’t 793
have the people, we’ll try this again in three months. 794
795
Laura Nicholson: I agree I just don’t see how we can’t have a quorum. 796
797
Lisa Stuckey: Why don’t we ask staff, what’s the problem? Do we know why people haven’t shown up? What’s 798
been the issue? 799
800
Perdita Holtz: I think it just depends on the personalities that you have on the Board. How seriously people take their 801
position. 802
803
Tina Love: There has never been a time when staff went to the meeting without a quorum. I have never left work at 804
the end of the day that staff didn’t have a quorum. If I haven’t heard from you, I get on the phone and I call you and I 805
keep on calling until I reach you, and I’m sorry about that, but we have to ensure there is a quorum. Then staff gets 806
33
to the meeting and for whatever reason, and things do come up last minute but there just isn’t a quorum. I don’t 807
know what other process we can do to fix that. 808
809
Tony Blake: Send the Orange bus. 810
811
Maxecine Mitchell: For me, I know we get a copy of the calendar every month, I put it on my personal calendar and 812
an alarm goes off and I say hey you’ve got a meeting. I don’t care if it’s an hour before, I’ll throw on my clothes and 813
get up here because I’ve made up in my mind I’m committed and I know it’s part of my responsibility on the Board. If 814
something comes up, an emergency, the first thing I try to do, I’m calling from South Carolina when my sister passed 815
away to say she passed I can’t make it. Things like that, you can’t help but if you’re here you should be making it to 816
the meeting. I think it doesn’t have to be a rule we just have to be committed and show up unless it is out of our 817
control. 818
819
Laura Nicholson: I just think if the quorum isn’t a rule then we’re making ourselves seem less important. Like we 820
can’t make it to a quorum, we’ve already embarrassed ourselves by not being there so let’s just not hold ourselves 821
accountable and I think we should hold ourselves accountable by saying there has to be a quorum. 822
823
Pete Hallenbeck: If the quorum requirement were effective, we would never have not had a quorum and I see this as 824
the price of failure of value of success and the price of failure having the quorum is we hold up the public. The value 825
of success is we have a quorum, the meeting starts but after that I don’t see a lot of difference because the 826
Commissioners can still ask our opinion and we are still there to get input. I think that’s why I come down on the side 827
of dropping the quorum requirement. It’s just that simple weighing of the price of failure and the value of success. I 828
don’t see any difference in the outcome. 829
830
Tony Blake: What’s the reason for the joint meeting? 831
832
Pete Hallenbeck: I think Laura’s right on the money, it does bring the Planning Board out, it makes it part of the 833
process, it give value to it, adds importance to it. By the same reason if we don’t show up it makes it look like the 834
Planning Board isn’t important it doesn’t care and the people are not there and you’re holding up the citizens. 835
836
Laura Nicholson: Is it possible that it was a communication issue, so for example, I knew I was going to be ten 837
minutes late so I emailed Tina but I don’t know if she got my email so maybe it’s that we need cell phone numbers of 838
staff so that we can call people and say hey, I’m going to be late or this came up or maybe it’s just because I’m new. 839
840
Tina Love: One other thing we need is alternative numbers, cell phone numbers for Planning Board. 841
842
Laura Nicholson: So I see it as a communication issue that is holding up the quorum process and if we just over 843
communicate rather than under communicate it will solve itself. 844
845
Perdita Holtz: It really wasn’t the issue of someone being ten minutes late and calling. It was people having full 846
calendars and just not making it to the meeting. 847
848
Laura Nicholson: And they don’t know that in advance? 849
850
Perdita Holtz: I don’t want to speculate on when people know in advance. 851
852
Laura Nicholson: I’m new so I can’t comment but to me it seems simple you’re supposed to be there, you’re there 853
and if you’re not you tell somebody. 854
855
Perdita Holtz: That’s a wonderful outlook. 856
857
Pete Hallenbeck: Sometimes just the ebb and flow of life just doesn’t work out. 858
859
34
Buddy Hartley: Things come up and when things come up, you contact staff and you let them know, I can’t make this 860
meeting for whatever reason. Everyone won’t be able to always make meetings and if that happened with 3 or 4 861
people for the same meeting, you might not have a quorum. 862
863
Lisa Stuckey: It’s not a regularly scheduled meeting for us, it’s an odd meeting and I think that’s part of the problem 864
and it’s on a Monday instead of Wednesday when we normally meet. Honestly when you’re talking about going to 865
more meeting I wonder how many Planning Board members can really go to those neighborhood meetings. 866
867
Perdita Holtz: I’m a little fuzzy on a certain aspect of what you’ve discussed tonight; I hear that you want to attend 868
the public hearing whether those are quorumed or not quorumed that you want to attend to hear the public. 869
870
Lisa Stuckey: But if they change it and they’re doing it six or eight times a year, are we really committed to that? 871
I would be extremely skeptical. 872
873
Perdita Holtz: That is a question at this time, I don’t really think they are going to be changing the frequency but 874
that’s just my feeling from what we’ve heard. 875
876
Bonnie Hammersley: I will support Perdita on that. One of the things we have is for the November 24th quarterly 877
public hearing we don’t have any agenda items and so it’s difficult to try to justify adding more meetings so right now I 878
don’t see that being the will of the Board to change it. 879
880
Perdita Holtz: I hear that you want to attend the public hearing what I’m fuzzy on is I’ve also heard that you want to 881
do public meeting where the public can come to the Planning Board meeting and comment beforehand. There would 882
be an official agenda item, we would send out notices to any affected property owners and they could come and talk 883
with you. At that point, would you all make a recommendation at that Planning Board meeting and then attend the 884
public hearing or do you still want to wait to make the recommendation after the public hearing? We’re just talking 885
about legislative not quasi-judicial for this. What I am trying to clear on, because I have to write something up for the 886
BOCC, is you want to attend the public hearing and you also want to have a pre-meeting where the public can come 887
and attend. If it involved a piece of property the public is going to get mailed notices and we are going to put notices/ 888
a sign saying come to the Planning Board meeting and let them know what you think. At that meeting will you all 889
make a recommendation prior to the public hearing or do you want to wait until after the public hearing to make a 890
recommendation? 891
892
Pete Hallenbeck: I think we can no more guarantee we can make a recommendation than the Commissioners can 893
guarantee they can make a decision at the quarterly public hearing much as happened with the solar project. I think 894
the best the Planning Board can do is to provide feedback based on our knowledge on the communities we come 895
from and maybe comment on what people say and yes there is a bit of a challenge there because there may be time 896
when all we can do is except that input and frankly there won’t be a whole lot we can say that is terribly intelligent 897
other than thank you for the input. 898
899
Perdita Holtz: So after the public hearing you want to make a recommendation still so my concern is that on 900
legislative items, that do not have a neighborhood information meeting, you are now adding an additional meeting 901
before the public hearing that is going to make the process longer. I want to make sure that. 902
903
Pete Hallenbeck: I don’t think I was saying it that way. 904
905
Perdita Holtz: You’re having a Planning Board meeting that we are going to send out notices. 906
907
Craig Benedict: We’ll send out the letter out and decide. 908
909
Perdita Holtz: No, they’re saying they don’t want to decide, I know that is what we talked about two weeks ago but 910
this is not what’s being talked about tonight. They want to wait to decide until after the public hearing. 911
912
35
Herman Staats: My own personal feeling about making a recommendation is what I said earlier, if you have 913
opportunity for public input but no one comes then yes we can make recommendations based on the written 914
guidelines but you still don’t have public input. So the whole goal of us discussing this tonight was to increase and 915
have a better access to public input but if they don’t come then we’re not increasing public input. I thought this whole 916
process came up of how do we get more feedback from the public and how do we get them involved. 917
918
Perdita Holtz: That’s one part of it. 919
920
Maxecine Mitchell: Right now, I’m going to go with leaving things the way they are right now. 921
922
Perdita Holtz: Increasing the public involvement, that’s certainly one part of it Herman, about increasing the public 923
involvement however, the increasing of public involvement is really pertinent to quasi-judicial matters and so I am 924
trying to nail down more of what you are all thinking about the legislative matters and we’re going to have to tackle 925
quasi-judicial at some other time. 926
927
Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I agree, just talking legislative and I think I agree with Herman that if we can make a 928
recommendation or decision, we will but there may be circumstances where we just can’t. 929
930
Michael Harvey: Is the concern that not enough citizens are interested in showing up and you’re going to make a 931
recommendation in a vacuum. 932
933
Pete Hallenbeck: No, if nobody shows up and they have met all the requirements for what they are trying to do and it 934
meets the UDO, I say we make a decision and say yes, we’re all for this. I think the times where we wouldn’t make a 935
decision would be like the solar array. 936
937
Paul Guthrie: It’s not judicial, we’re not encumbered on that solution that we have something, nobody shows up, we 938
have a question about it, we could send that to the Commissioners and it could be incorporated in the call for the 939
public hearing. 940
941
Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, all that is possible and again it’s part of being an advisory board there 942
943
Tony Blake: Let me just suggest just opposing the whole thing for just a second here. Why not add, and I think other 944
boards have this thing that they have sort of a County Commissioner liaison. Why not require that liaison to be here 945
for quasi-judicial, no quasi-judicial right? Then they can carry that feedback back to the other County 946
Commissioners. 947
948
Pete Hallenbeck: We’re going to stick with the legislative, quasi-judicial is a very strict process. 949
950
Perdita Holtz: There are reasons there’s not a BOCC liaison for the Planning Board and I don’t think there is going to 951
be. 952
953
Pete Hallenbeck: I think the changes we’re talking about is we have the 45 days, we’re just saying let the public 954
come and present input either in writing or verbally at the Planning Board meeting that’s part of the notification they 955
get. We will discuss it there will be times when we can make a recommendation and there will be times when we’ll 956
just throw our hands up and there will probably be times when we go, we don’t really want to get near this thing and 957
we kick it back to the Commissioners. 958
959
Paul Guthrie: Would that be mandatory or just advisory? Could we simply say you may wish to come to a Planning 960
Board meeting prior to the public hearing? 961
962
Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, but part of this is to explain the process, is that exact language. You’re not required but if you 963
care to this is great as it gives us better input sooner, the Commissioners read your feedback before the quarterly 964
public hearing. That explanation should enough to let a citizen realize how the process works. 965
966
36
Paul Guthrie: Probably a good idea. 967
968
Laura Nicholson: To me there is just some things that seem really cut and dried and there are some things that are 969
really squishy. Is there a way we can delineate that and say these things we agree on and bring a recommendation 970
on these things and these things we still want to talk about more, is that a possibility? 971
972
Pete Hallenbeck: Part of why I tried to say it’s important to be at the QPH not wild about the quorum and you’re 973
comments you really think the quorum will help. The Planning Board taking citizen input, it sounds like everybody is 974
good with that and more input is good. We realize this is legislative that is 88% of what we see, all Planning Board 975
members get notification of any neighborhood information meetings and we realize that the quasi-judicial is a 976
problem for another day we need more education as there are very strict rules. That’s ok because we’ve just dealt 977
with 88% of what we deal with and I would say that’s the summation of what we are putting before the 978
Commissioners along with this process. 979
980
Craig Benedict: Chair, based on the direction the Commissioners gave the manager and the attorney and staff is this 981
interim report is not going to make decision so, that interim report will say probably some things are easier to achieve 982
and some things are a little bit harder so I think in essence we are going to get some ideas on which way we can 983
move with it. Where’s there’s some clarity and which areas might need a little more time. That’s why they said the 984
November 6th meeting wouldn’t have everything done by then. We’ll let them know where we are in the process that 985
we were getting consensus on some areas and we are also determining that there are differences, clear differences, 986
on how the Board’s role is for quasi-judicial versus legislative and how we get community input that might take a little 987
longer. 988
989
Pete Hallenbeck: That’s also why we’re not going to vote tonight on this and what we recommend. We’ve talked 990
they get to sludge through it and see what we’re thinking and it goes on from there. Ok, the last item on the agenda, 991
I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn 992 993 994 AGENDA ITEM 11: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 995
a. Board of Adjustment 996
997
998 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT: 999 1000 MOTION by Bryant Warren to adjourn. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 1001 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1002 1003 1004
Email from Lydia Wegman: 1005
1006 From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:lnwegman@gmail.com] 1007 Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:12 PM 1008 To: Perdita Holtz 1009 Subject: Re: October Planning Board Materials 1010
1011
Hi Perdita, 1012
1013
Thanks for that helpful explanation of the status of the recommendations on the public hearing process. I am very 1014
sorry to be missing the discussion tonight. As a new member of the Board, I feel I would benefit from hearing the 1015
views of the folks who have served on the Board longer than I. I do, however, have two thoughts to offer, which are 1016
laid out in the next paragraph. In addition to that, I plan to read the minutes of tonight’s discussion and then offer my 1017
thoughts on the conclusions reached, if any. I know this is not the best way to engage in discussion, but given that I 1018
am out of town, I think it’s the best I can do. 1019
1020
37
Here are my views on two issues for tonight’s meeting: First, I do not think the Board of Adjustment should handle 1021
Class A SUPs. I think those should continue to come to the BOCC and to the Planning Board for a recommendation 1022
to the BOCC. I feel that decisions on these SUPs concern the way in which the county is using the precious land 1023
within its boundaries and those decisions should be left to the elected, not appointed, officials. I think it’s important 1024
for the Planning Board to offer its views to the BOCC. My second thought is that the the Planning Board should 1025
make its recommendations to the BOCC after the conclusion of the public hearing, as is done now. I think the 1026
Planning Board should be required to attend the public hearing and am not sure why there has been such a problem 1027
with attendance at the quarterly hearings. Is there really such a problem? If so, I suggest that the Planning Board be 1028
asked to solve it. I don’t think the solution is to cut the Board out of that process. But even if the Board is not 1029
required to attend the public hearing, it should be required to listen to the hearing before offering its views to the 1030
BOCC. The information at a public hearing is in my view essential to helping the Board thoughtfully consider what 1031
recommendation to make. 1032
1033
I hope these views can be considered at tonight’s meeting. Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing about the 1034
discussion at the meeting. 1035
1036
Lydia 1037
1038 1039
1040
1041
1042
38
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 5, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report / Work Plan for County Commissioners’ Annual
Planning Retreat
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Annual Report / Work Plan Form
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, 245-2578
PURPOSE: Provide an annual report and work plan input to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) in preparation for its annual planning retreat.
BACKGROUND: Each year the County Clerk’s Office collects information from each of the
County’s advisory boards to prepare a report for the annual BOCC planning retreat in January.
The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory
boards/commissions, as well as proposed activities for the upcoming year.
Staff and advisory boards are asked to collaborate to complete the form that has been provided
by the Clerk’s Office and return by December 5. Proposed activities are to be consistent with
the goals of the BOCC.
The Annual Report / Work Plan form (Attachment 1) has been completed by staff for Planning
Board review and comment. Some topics of prime interest include:
1. Updates to housing and senior housing facilities to address new concepts.
2. Update a few zoning categories to address trends in office, research and development, and
applied manufacturing.
3. Land use protection of economic development zones by monitoring negative land use
activities or regulating incompatible land uses.
These topics are accented on the final two pages of Attachment 1.
The Planning Board is involved with approximately 40 - 60% of the work Planning Department
staff is responsible for (the percentage varies by year, depending on specific work being
completed in a given year). For the upcoming year, Planning staff will be working on some
items for which other advisory boards have primary responsibility. Examples of these tasks are
transit issues, transportation planning, and economic development issues (not related to the
39
UDO) in partnership with the Economic Development Department. Some work items the
Planning staff is responsible for do not go to an advisory board for a recommendation (for
example, water and sewer engineering and the annual report related to the Schools Adequate
Public Facilities ordinance [SAPFO]).
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board:
1. Review the attached document prior to the meeting.
2. Discuss members’ ideas about any additional activities to be worked on in 2015.
3. Either:
a. Approve the Annual Report and Work Plan Form in Attachment 1, or
b. Direct staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report /
Work Plan form and bring the final form back to the December 3, 2014
Planning Board meeting for approval.
40
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Planning Board
Report Period: 2014 calendar year for annual report; 2015 calendar year for work plan
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT/ WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of Commissioners welcomes input from various advisory boards and
commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please complete the
following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background
materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form.
Board/Commission Name: Planning Board
Person to address the BOCC at work session- if applicable- and contact information:
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair, (919) 732-6551, pete@eflandfd.org
(please note the Chair may change in January when the Planning Board holds
elections – the Chair at the time the work session is held will address the BOCC)
Primary County Staff Contact: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; secondary
contact: Perdita Holtz, Planner III (Planning Systems Coordinator)
How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any special
meetings and sub-committee meetings? On average, twice per month (12 regular
meetings + 4 Quarterly Public Hearings + special or sub-committee meetings).
Brief Statement of Board/Commission’s Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
Under the authority of NC General Statute, the BOCC created the Planning Board
to embark upon a continuing planning program, including but not limited to the
preparation and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, in
protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future
residents, landowners and visitors. The duties of the Planning Board are listed in
Section 1.6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
What are your Board/Commission’s most important accomplishments?
Within last 2 years:
• Annandale at Creekwood major subdivision preliminary plat.
• Triple Crown Farms major subdivision concept plan.
• UDO text amendment to require a neighborhood information meeting for
governmental uses.
• UDO text amendment to establish a new conditional zoning district for
Agricultural Support Enterprises and various accompanying changes to the
text.
More recently:
• UDO text amendment to change standards related to home occupations.
• UDO, Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Atlas Amendments to adopt two new
zoning overlay districts in Efland (denied by BOCC in Feb. 2013 and brought
back to February 2014 quarterly public hearing).
• UDO text amendments related to the public hearing process.
• UDO text amendment to require a neighborhood information meeting prior to
public hearings for Special Use Permit applications.
Attachment 1 41
• In 2014, two property-owner initiated applications for rezonings/text
amendments were processed. The Planning Board reviewed these and issued
a recommendation to the BOCC on each application.
• Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas amendments
related to the Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area –
Joint Land Use Plan
• Pleasant Green Woods Phase IV major subdivision concept plan and
preliminary plat.
• Triple Crown Farms major subdivision preliminary plat.
• Stroud’s Creek major subdivision concept plan and preliminary plat.
• Class A SUP for solar facility in Cheeks Township.
• Amendments to Joint Planning Land Use Plan & Agreement with Chapel Hill
and Carrboro related to density clarifications, agricultural uses exempt from
zoning regulations, and agricultural support enterprises.
• Reviewed and commented on the draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually.
• Monthly Planning Board meetings
• Quarterly Public Hearings (4)
• Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings and special meetings
as required
• Review applications for ordinance amendments, major subdivisions,
and Class A special use permits and provide recommendations to
the BOCC
• Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative
procedures and other means for carrying out plans
Describe this board/commission’s activities/accomplishments in carrying out BOCC
goal(s)/priorities, if applicable.
The Planning Board is involved in the ongoing implementation of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. Potential projects listed in the “Implementation Bridge,”
such as updates to home occupation standards, continue to be worked on as do
small area plan implementation measures, such as the Efland zoning overlay
districts.
If your board/commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory Board involved
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process, please indicate your board’s
activities/accomplishments as they may relate to the Comprehensive Plan’s goals or
objectives.
(The Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, EDC, OUTBoard,
Commission for the Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture
Preservation Board, Affordable Housing Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council)
The processing of small area plan recommendations specifically addresses an
objective included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Following are specific
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives that have been part of the Planning
Board’s recent work:
Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and economy consistent
with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
42
Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential
and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public
transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed internet access, streets, and
sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This
could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning
districts where adequate public services are available.
Objective LU-1.2: Evaluate and report on whether existing and approved locations for
future residential and non-residential developments are coordinated with the location of
public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer services, high-speed internet access, streets and
sidewalks).
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.
Objective LU-3.1: Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and
rural land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community
facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the Land Use Plan.
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 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient,
and responsive.
Objective LU-6.1: Undertake a comprehensive effort to inform and involve the citizens
of Orange County in the land use planning process.
Objective LU-6.2: Maintain a cooperative joint planning process among the County
municipalities and those organizations responsible for the provision of water and sewer
services to guide the extension of service in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan,
and the policies of the municipalities.
Economic Development Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic
development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances
high quality employment opportunities for County residents.
Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local
businesses, and mitigate these barriers.
Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that
serves existing development supports future development, and is consistent with the
County’s land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment
and community character.
43
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2015 as they relate
to established BOCC goals and priorities.
If applicable, if there a fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff time, other resources) associated
with these proposed activities (please list).
The Board will continue its work in partnership with staff to further implement
recommendations contained within small area plans and the UDO Implementation
Bridge and to implement existing and new BOCC priorities, some of which may
emerge at the January 2015 BOCC retreat:
1. Public Hearing Process: Finalize UDO text amendments to make changes to the
existing public hearing process
2. Efland Overlay Districts: UDO Text, Zoning Atlas, and Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to add two new overlay zoning districts in the Efland area and specify
design standards for the areas. (This item was denied by the BOCC in February
2013 and was brought back to the February 2014 quarterly public hearing. Staff is
currently working with community members to educate the community about the
overlay districts and determine if changes should be made. This item is anticipated
for adoption consideration in March 2015).
3. New and/or Revised Zoning District: UDO text amendment to adopt a new
general use zoning district and/or “fine tune” existing ED zoning to match locational
attributes for targeted research and development industry and applied light
manufacturing. Consider appropriate mixed use areas acknowledging the other
areas will have a stronger non-residential use program.
4. Clustering in Rural Areas: Consider rural village concepts. Examine innovative
septic systems whether in individual or community settings.
5. Population Projections: Analyze regional population and employment projections
(including MPO 2040 and the development of the MPO 2045 MTP). Rationalize
and offer ‘ground truth’ (i.e. what can realistically be built) to the amount and
location of new development noted from population modeling (i.e. Community VIZ).
Work with municipalities to aggregate their projected ceiling density totals based on
their densification efforts and create composite countywide total by adding
unincorporated projections. Use in update to Comprehensive Plan Data Element.
6. Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative
changes at the State level
7. Streamline Regulations: Continue to streamline regulations where possible
8. 2015 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2015 BOCC retreat
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming
year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners’ attention?
1. Rural Enterprises: Continue to expand rural enterprises by completing work on
“Agricultural Support Enterprises” in the Rural Buffer. Determine need to address
water & sewage disposal issues in the Rural Activity Nodes to encourage
development in these nodes.
2. Emergency Access: Work with appropriate staff/departments to better ensure
properties can be reached by emergency personnel (e.g., driveway width and
clearance, bridge weight limit signage and sufficiency to allow a fire truck to pass,
gate width, curve radii sufficient for emergency vehicles).
44
3. Mass Gathering/Special Events: Revisions to UDO regarding mass gathering and
special events (must wait until after Emergency Services/Attorney’s Office enacts a
Mass Gathering Ordinance)
4. Pre-zoning for Economic Development Projects: Continue to “prezone” areas
where possible to focus growth in appropriate areas with consistent land uses,
thereby improving the review and approval process.
5. Adult Entertainment: County should adopt an adult entertainment ordinance that is
consistent with State and Federal laws.
6. Nuisance Ordinance: Consider a nuisance ordinance for Economic Development,
Commercial, and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes and areas
adjacent to these land use classifications to “protect” these areas slated for
economic development projects.
7. Transportation Issues: Need for better public transit in rural areas, including senior
citizen mobility, and “transit oriented development.” Accent focus on transit
dependent populations and their connection to other transit infrastructure.
8. Affordable and Senior Housing: On-going need for affordable housing
opportunities, including senior housing, in the county. Also include the role of MHP’s
in affordable housing.
45
46
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 5, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Public Hearing Process
Changes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Discussion Points Between Planning
Board Chair and Planning Staff
2. Flow Chart of Possible Process for
Legislative items
INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Perdita Holtz, Planning, 245-2578
Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2592
PURPOSE: To continue discussion on the public hearing process changes presented at the
September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing, with a focus on the quasi-judicial process, and
provide input to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
BACKGROUND: The quarterly public hearing materials (available at
http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/140908.pdf) provide background on this issue and are not
included as part of this item in order to minimize the length of the materials included. The
discussion that occurred at the public hearing can be viewed at http://orange-
nc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=754. As was briefly discussed at the
public hearing, some points of the process are related to policy and do not need to be written
into the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) while other aspects of the process do need to
be included in the UDO. If there are concerns or questions about whether particular points are
policy-related or necessary for the UDO, staff (Planning and Attorney’s Office) can assist in
making this determination.
At the conclusion of the public hearing there were three points of consensus among BOCC
members:
1. Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process.
2. Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members at public hearings.
3. Public hearing legal ads do not necessarily need to be Consent Agenda items, circulation
via e-mail is likely OK. (Note that this is an internal process component that is not written
into the UDO and does not require Planning Board involvement).
The original impetus regarding this topic was as follows:
1. Remove the Planning Board as an official board at the public hearing (e.g., do not require
a quorum of Planning Board members).
2. Increase the frequency of public hearings (currently held 4 times per year on dates
specifically set aside only for public hearings).
47
Because these two points necessitate changes in existing process, additional discussion has
arisen. The most important points to consider are:
• Does the Planning Board recommendation occur before or after a BOCC-only public
hearing?
• Does increasing the frequency of public hearings cause too great a change in BOCC
meeting agenda internal processes and potentially impact BOCC meetings/calendars
too much?
• What is the role of the Planning Board in quasi-judicial matters (Special Use Permits) if
the Planning Board is no longer an official board at the public hearing?
• Additionally, a separate text amendment related to neighborhood information meetings in
advance of Special Use Permit applications has raised questions about how the public
can be more involved in matters prior to the public hearing.
In analyzing this topic, Staff believes it may be helpful to breakdown future discussion based on
the type of decision being made:
1. Legislative
a. Comprehensive Plan Text
b. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
c. UDO Text
d. Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments (general use districts and conditional
zoning districts)
2. Quasi-Judicial
a. Class A Special Use Permits (SUP)
3. Legislative/Quasi-Judicial Mix
a. Conditional Use District (a rezoning that also requires a Class A SUP)
At the present time, Orange County’s process is generally the same for these three different
(from a legal perspective) types of public hearings. However, the process can be different for
each type if the local government so chooses. Quasi-Judicial matters have very specific legal
requirements whereas there is significant discretion in Legislative matters.
Staff compiled a list of public hearing items since May 2011 (the date was chosen because the
UDO was adopted in April 2011) to determine the breakout of the types of items Orange County
has considered in recent years and the initiator of the item (Application by an Individual or
County-initiated). The following table illustrates the information:
Summary by Application Type/Initiator
Total Legislative Quasi-Judicial Legis./ QJ Mix
Applicant 16 (24%) 8 6 2
County 50 (76%) 50 - -
Totals 66 58 (88%) 6 (9%) 2 (3%)
Planning staff met with Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck on September 25 to discuss this
topic. The most salient points discussed during this meeting are included in Attachment 1 and
may be helpful in framing thoughts. The Planning Board extensively discussed this topic at its
October 8, 2014 meeting (minutes are available as a separate item on the November 5th
Planning Board agenda). Discussion at that meeting intermingled Legislative and Quasi-
Judicial processes but was clear enough on Legislative items to allow staff to prepare an interim
report for the November 6th Board of County Commissioners meeting. The interim report
48
includes the flow chart in Attachment 2. The BOCC item will be available on or shortly after
October 31st at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/agenmenu.asp. Part of the
recommendation for the November 6th BOCC meeting is for the BOCC to close the public
hearing on this item because the text amendment that was heard at the September 8th quarterly
public hearing is expected to change significantly enough that the text amendment will have to
be heard again at a future public hearing, perhaps in February 2015.
Focus on Quasi-Judicial Process
Planning staff suggests the Planning Board focus on the quasi-judicial process at the November
5th meeting. Relevant information is included in Attachment 1 and specific aspects to be
discussed should include:
1. Should the Planning Board make recommendations on quasi-judicial matters?
a. It should be noted that years ago, the Planning Board did not make
recommendations on Class A Special Use Permits. The practice came in to being
because there was confusion on what the Planning Board’s role is for those
projects that are both Legislative & Quasi-Judicial (e.g., Conditional Use District,
which was called “Planned Development” in the former Zoning Ordinance).
2. If the Planning Board continues to make a recommendation, when does the Planning
Board’s recommendation occur? (Before or after the public hearing).
3. If the Planning Board continues to make a recommendation, what exactly is the Planning
Board meeting since quasi-judicial matters require evidence to be presented by experts
and comments by non-experts should not be allowed and should not be part of the
decision process.
The Attorney’s office intends to attend the November 5 Planning Board meeting and could
address questions Planning Board members have in regards to quasi-judicial or other legal
matters.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing staff will complete the necessary work required for this project.
Changing the public hearing process is not expected to cause significant financial impacts
(negative or positive). Legal ads and mailed notifications, if required, would have to be sent
regardless of the process. Additional notifications (sent via first class mail) would increase
overall costs slightly. Internal work flow, both within the Planning Department and in other
County Departments that have involvement with agenda setting, may need to be
updated/changed, depending on the whether public hearing items can be placed on regular
BOCC meeting agendas (as opposed to keeping the existing process of quarterly public
hearings only). Initial meetings with these departments have indicated that necessary changes
can be accommodated.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Review and discuss as necessary the proposed public hearing process for Legislative
Items (Attachment 2).
2. Discuss members’ ideas about what the process should be for quasi-judicial items
and the Planning Board’s role in quasi-judicial items, particularly if it is no longer
attending the quarterly public hearings as an official board.
49
Synopsis of September 25, 2014 Meeting between Planning Board
Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning staff
Legislative Items
1. Current process of keeping the public hearing open in order to allow for written
comments only after the public hearing is awkward.
2. People realize the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is final decision maker
so they tend to address the BOCC and see the Planning Board (PB) more as
“middle management” since the PB is advisory only.
3. If there was a PB meeting early-on, before the public hearing, that was noticed (first
class mail notifications to adjoining property owners plus post a sign on the property
for map amendments), the PB could be involved in projects/amendments early in the
process. This could be a “win” on several points:
a. Would result in more notification time for the public and people are informed
of the process earlier.
b. The PB meeting (the public could comment) could be viewed as a “dry run”
for the formal public hearing and could help all “sides” frame their
thoughts/arguments better.
c. The PB meeting could help determine which items have high public interest
and which items have lower public interest. (The BOCC might get a taste of
public reaction before the public hearing).
d. Having the PB make its recommendation after it has heard the opinions of all
sides at its meeting would enable the BOCC to have more options for action
at the conclusion of the public hearing:
i. Close the public hearing the night of the hearing and either:
1. Vote that night (this would enable quicker decisions on the items
that have lower public interest [once called the “no brainers” by
a former PB member]).
2. Schedule the decision on an item for a future BOCC regular
meeting.
3. Send the item back to the PB for reconsideration if the BOCC
believes that new information came forward at the public
hearing that had not been considered by the PB at its earlier
meeting.
ii. In legislative matters, it is not necessary to leave the public hearing
open since comments can be made at all meetings. Statutes require
only that a public hearing that meets statutory notice requirements be
held.
Attachment 1
50
e. The requirement for written comments only after the public hearing could be
dropped and the BOCC could hear from interested parties again at the
meeting they make a decision (if the BOCC opted not to vote the night of the
public hearing)
4. The PB Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) is involved early on in shaping any
County-initiated UDO text amendments, so any PB members who are interested in a
text amendment have fairly early “access.”
Quasi-Judicial Items
1. There are concerns about the Planning Board being involved in any
recommendation on quasi-judicial (QJ) items if they are not an official board (quorum
required) at the public hearing. There are ways around this concern but the
Planning Board will have to be very careful about how it allows public comment and
how that comment weighs into its recommendation.
2. QJ items involve a yes/no checklist of whether a project meets the requirements
spelled out in the UDO. By and large, review is relegated to determining whether a
specific standard is met or not and if all standards are met, the permit must be
issued.
a. If the PB is not in attendance at the public hearing, it should not make findings
on the requirements contained in Section 5.3.2(A)(2) which are:
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.
2. The three points listed directly above are the main findings that must be made
in order to issue a permit and are the basis of much of the expert testimony that
is made at the QJ hearing.
3. Some PB members in the past have mused that going through the checklist felt a bit
like “rubber stamping” an approval.
4. If the PB is to remain part of the QJ process, consideration should be given to
having the PB make its recommendation prior to the QJ hearing in order to avoid
51
any confusion about whether evidence is being collected after the official QJ
hearing.
Legislative/Quasi-Judicial Mix
1. This is an awkward process in all North Carolina communities that use this type
of process.
2. In the mid-2000s, Statutes were amended to allow a new type of zoning
(conditional zoning districts, a purely Legislative process) that could negate the
purpose of the Legislative/QJ Mix.
a. In Orange County, these projects are:
i. Any requests for the Conditional Use District
ii. Subdivisions containing 41 or more lots in Rural Designated areas
iii. Subdivisions containing 80 or more lots in Urban Designated areas
3. The Staff Attorney has suggested that new conditional zoning districts could
replace this approval process. This is an idea that merits additional
consideration.
4. Resolution on how to handle the Legislative/QJ Mix process will be dependent on
decisions made on the individual processes, so discussion cannot be framed
until this occurs.
Conclusions
Mr. Hallenbeck will lead the Planning Board in discussing this matter at its October 8th
meeting and stated he believes discussion should strongly consider the following:
1. Have the PB recommendation come before the public hearing on Legislative
items.
a. Have PB involvement early on with notice (first class mail and a sign
posting) to adjoining property owners (in the case of map amendments).
b. Implement the idea of posting upcoming items on the Planning
Department website so people can be apprised of upcoming items earlier
and can attend the PB meeting to voice their comments. (This would be
particularly relevant in regards to text amendments since no mailed
notices occur with text amendments).
2. Remove the PB from the QJ process.
a. The PB would no longer make a recommendation on QJ matters.
52
Pre-Application Conference
Application Submittal
DAC (Development Advisory
Committee) Review/Comments
Publish Legal Ad / Mail
Notifications for Public
Hearing
Quarterly Public Hearing
(BOCC only) *
Required for rezonings to Conditional Zoning
Districts. Strongly recommended for all other projects
(e.g., text amendments, general use districts)
Staff Representatives of various County
departments and other agencies, as needed
BOCC Decision *
An increase in frequency is no longer being suggested.
Staff recommends trying the new process for a period of
time before potentially revisiting whether the frequency of
public hearings for legislative items should be increased.
Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend
but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order
to hold the hearing.
The public hearing would be closed at the conclusion of
the hearing. Written comments would no longer be the
required method of making comments after the public
hearing.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the BOCC could do the
following:
1. Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date
(items would no longer be listed on the public
hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the
public could make oral comments).
2. Refer an application back to the Planning Board for
further review.
3. Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
This is a proposed new step in the process to
accommodate the ability of the Planning Board to
hear from the public prior to making a
recommendation and to involve the public in the
process earlier.
The draft legal ad would no longer be a Consent Agenda
item. It would be circulated via e-mail to BOCC members
a few days prior to publication with the County Manager,
Attorney, and Planning Director resolving any conflicting
comments.
Planning Board Meeting to
Review Application / Make
Recommendation *
Mail Notifications (for map
amendments only) via first
class mail about the Planning
Board meeting to
adjacent/nearby property
owners and post sign(s) on
property
The Planning Department intends to begin
posting a list of applications received on its
website so members of the public can be
informed about projects early in the process.
The public could comment at the meeting where the
Planning Board reviews legislative items (the existing
requirement for written comments only would be
removed). Planning Board action could be:
1. Make a recommendation to the BOCC.
2. Make a preliminary recommendation to the
BOCC with a request that if significant new
information is presented at the public hearing,
the BOCC will send the item back to the
Planning Board for further review and a
potential new recommendation.
Attachment 2
* = Public could speak
53