Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 1203141 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, December 3, 2014 Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 3-4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for December and January i. Next regular meeting on January 7, 2015 • Elect Chair & Vice Chair for the year 3. 5-14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 5, 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. none OVERVIEW ON COUNTY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: To receive an overview on the County’s economic development activities, as requested at the November 5th Planning Board meeting. Presenter: Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director 8. 15-36 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 and November 5 Planning Board meetings. 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 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) 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 3 *Planning Board Member Attendance Required SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 January 2015 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 February 2015January 2015 De c 2 8 - J a n 3 Dec 28 29 30 31 Jan 1, 15 2 3 HOLIDAY Ja n 4 - 1 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7:00pm *PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) Ja n 1 1 - 1 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7:30pm Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) Ja n 1 8 - 2 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HOLIDAY 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Whitted Meeting Facility) Ja n 2 5 - 3 1 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 7:00pm BOCC Work Session (Southern Human Services) Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 4 D R A F T 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 NOVEMBER 5, 2014 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey (Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove 7 Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 8 Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 9 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Bryant 10 Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 13 Grove Township; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, 16 Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 23 a) Planning Calendar for October and November 24 b) Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on November 24, 2014 has been 25 cancelled 26 c) Chapel Hill ETJ Expansion Request 27 28 Craig Benedict gave an overview of the ETJ Expansion Request. 29 30 Craig Benedict: There is an area of the Joint Planning Area of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the 31 transition area. In order to fund certain infrastructure improvements, Chapel Hill would be able to contribute more if 32 it was part of their ETJ. That request will be going to the BOCC on November 18. 33 34 Tony Blake: This goes from the town operation center to the south. 35 36 Craig Benedict: This is a 1,000 acre area and would include the whole section northwest of Chapel Hill. 37 38 Paul Guthrie: I would encourage you that before the next one comes up that a standard process be created for this. 39 The communications from Chapel Hill for the County is minimal at best. 40 41 Andrea Rohrbacher: I agree with Paul about the communications but because of other issues with this area, they 42 monitor very carefully and have been active participants, this has come up before. 43 44 Craig Benedict: The BOCC asked me to meet with ETJ and Joint Planning area representatives in Mebane, 45 Hillsborough, Carrboro and Chapel Hill to see if they understand the role of being a representative in an area that 46 does not vote. 47 48 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 49 October 8, 2014 Regular Meeting 50 51 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 52 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 53 54 5 D R A F T 2 55 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 58 59 Introduction to the Public Charge 60 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 61 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 62 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 63 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 64 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 65 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 66 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 67 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 68 69 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 7: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ ANNUAL 72 PLANNING RETREAT: To discuss the input form for the annual BOCC planning retreat in early 73 2015. The annual report informs the BOCC of past year’s activities of advisory 74 boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning. 75 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director. 76 77 Craig Benedict reviewed the annual report/work plan 78 79 Paul Guthrie: What is the definition of negative land use? 80 81 Craig Benedict: It could be an adult entertainment establishment. We have been working with the attorney’s office to 82 develop what are also known as sexual oriented businesses. Regulations cannot be completely prohibited of such 83 uses but you can regulate them. 84 85 Paul Guthrie: I assume that terminology as defined will not encroach upon other things you don’t have jurisdiction 86 on. For instance, farming. 87 88 Craig Benedict: Farming will continue to be exempt from zoning law. 89 90 Lydia Wegman: The rural enterprise item, is this agricultural support enterprises already in the UDO? 91 92 Craig Benedict: It is in the UDO for areas in the rural part of the County outside the rural buffer. There is dialogue 93 with Chapel Hill and Carrboro about any uses such as ag support enterprises being allowed in the rural buffer. There 94 needs to be joint approval. 95 96 Lydia Wegman: Will that come to the Planning Board? 97 98 Craig Benedict: It has been to the Planning Board already as far as the abridged list of uses for the rural buffer. If 99 Chapel Hill or Carrboro suggest a shorter list, we will bring it back to this Board. 100 101 Lydia Wegman: Is there a way to get more information in writing about the list and what is being considered? 102 103 Perdita Holtz: It is on the February 2014 quarterly public hearing materials, the one about the rural buffer. 104 105 Tony Blake: The new zoning you are talking about, what specific areas? Would it be the Efland area and the Eno 106 area? 107 108 6 D R A F T 3 Craig Benedict: Our economic development zones. There are areas around Hillsborough and the 109 Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane corridor. 110 111 Paul Guthrie: Do you see this as a way to begin to bank potential sites that are quick to move or as a classification to 112 ease individual requests? 113 114 Craig Benedict: Both. You do want to ease the development process but the first part of your question was if there 115 are sites that would have a better retailability, you do need to preserve those sites for retail. 116 117 Tony Blake: I have been reading about form based codes and zoning. This sounds like you are leading up to that. 118 119 Craig Benedict: It is more of a mixed use with parameters of development. 120 121 Tony Blake: I would love to hear from Steve Brantley. To come and talk to us and give an overview. 122 123 Lisa Stuckey: When I came, we were talking about the implementation bridge. Have most of those things been 124 ticked off or no longer relevant? 125 126 Tony Blake: Transportation, not so much. 127 128 Craig Benedict: There are still items that need to be implemented and are step by step like the Efland Mebane Small 129 Area Plan. 130 131 Lisa Stuckey: This was a document that came out of the UDO process. Things they didn’t address. 132 133 Craig Benedict: We called it the bucket list. You can’t address all these things at once. 134 135 Perdita Holtz: The easy stuff has been done and now we have moved into the hard stuff like the public hearing 136 process changes. 137 138 Lisa Stuckey: Sometimes things become irrelevant and sometimes things get forgotten. 139 140 MOTION made to approve the report and work plan presented by Craig Benedict by Andrea Rohrbacher. Seconded 141 by Laura Nicholson. 142 VOTE: Unanimous 143 144 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To continue discussion and 145 provide input on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the 146 existing public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related 147 items/amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing 148 and was discussed at the October 8 Planning Board meeting. Discussion is expected to focus 149 on the quasi-judicial process. 150 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 151 152 Perdita Holtz reviewed PowerPoint Chart 153 154 Paul Guthrie: If there is a different presentation at the BOCC from what was given to this Board, what would 155 happen? 156 157 Perdita Holtz: If it were significant, we could say this is a significant difference, you may wish to send it back to the 158 Planning Board and the BOCC would decide. 159 160 Paul Guthrie: If you want to catch up to speed on what happened, where would you get that? 161 162 7 D R A F T 4 Perdita Holtz: It is on video and eventually minutes are done by the County Clerk’s office but they are not done 163 within two days. It usually takes a couple of weeks at least. 164 165 Lydia Wegman: The Planning Board meeting would occur first. Most of the public will probably blow off the Planning 166 Board meeting. If they come to the BOCC and make a presentation that the Planning Board didn’t see or consider, 167 how will the BOCC know they are seeing something the Planning Board didn’t see that might be significant and 168 change the recommendation? 169 170 Perdita Holtz: There would be a report that tells the BOCC who spoke at the Planning Board meeting. Also, staff 171 could let the BOCC know if something significant is being raised at the public hearing that wasn’t at the Planning 172 Board meeting. Then the BOCC could decide if it should go back to the Planning Board. 173 174 Paul Guthrie: Worst case scenario, would it be possible for this Planning Board de nova after that decision to say we 175 didn’t hear any of that? 176 177 Perdita Holtz: That would depend on if the BOCC made a decision the night of the hearing or not. 178 179 Paul Guthrie: There are 99 times out of 100 you would never have a problem but it is that one time it could be sticky. 180 181 Lydia Wegman: It says the public hearing will be closed at the conclusion and written comments would no longer be 182 required for making comments after the hearing. If the public hearing is closed, what would be the forum for making 183 comments? 184 185 Perdita Holtz: On a legislative items, anybody can comment anytime. The current process is that the public hearing 186 is left open for written comments. 187 188 Lydia Wegman: It the public hearing is closed then what does it mean to submit comments in any form? 189 190 Perdita Holtz: For legislative items, the public hearing is a statutory requirement that you hold a public hearing but 191 you can receive comments before and after that formal hearing. 192 193 Lydia Wegman: If the BOCC has already made the decision, there is no opportunity for anyone to make comments. 194 195 Perdita Holtz: They should comment before the public hearing at the Planning Board or at the public hearing. 196 197 Lydia Wegman: What is the purpose of having this additional opportunity for comment after the public hearing is 198 closed. 199 200 Perdita Holtz: There isn’t an additional opportunity via statutes, people can continue to comment. It is not like a 201 quasi-judicial process. 202 203 Craig Benedict: In the three cases the BOCC can decide, if they defer their decision, any input that comes from the 204 citizens can still be considered. If it gets referred back to the Planning Board, the citizen can still provide comment. 205 The only case it would not work is if the BOCC heard everything they thought they needed to decide that night. 206 207 Tony Blake: Where along this process line is the community information meeting? 208 209 Perdita Holtz: The information meeting 45 days ahead of time is associated with Special Use Permit applications 210 which are not legislative but are quasi-judicial. 211 212 Michael Harvey: Neighborhood meetings are also for major subdivision and fire stations. 213 214 Tony Blake: That is a localized place to make comments and the Planning Board rep should be notified and invited 215 to that meeting. This seems to cry out for a Neighborhood Information Meeting. 216 8 D R A F T 5 217 Perdita Holtz: We were kind of looking at it as the Planning Board meeting would be the prelude to the public 218 hearing. 219 220 Tony Blake: They are involved by the applicant. You are making the distinction that these are not text amendments. 221 The Neighborhood Information Meeting is more important for something like this that is not a text amendment than a 222 Special Use Permit. 223 224 Perdita Holtz: The whole point of having the Neighborhood Information Meeting for the Special Use Permit is so 225 people can understand that is a very special process and that you will have to hire experts to represent you. 226 227 Tony Blake: A concrete example is the Mountains to Sea Trail. I would think that sort of process would be valuable 228 there. 229 230 Perdita Holtz: I think that DEAPR is holding meetings on the Mountains to Sea Trail. 231 232 Tony Blake: I am getting pounded by this new gas pipeline. 233 234 Michael Harvey: The BOA held a public hearing on the gas line proposal which was advertised and notifications 235 were sent. We were on tenuous ground as to whether the hearing was required but we had the hearing and went 236 through the process. 237 238 Bonnie Hammersley: I met with PSNC’s representatives with the Chair and Vice Chair and how we can inform 239 people better about those issues. 240 241 Paul Guthrie: Having managed the acquisition of trails for snow mobiles and hiking, etc. in Wisconsin I can tell you 242 that it would be good to keep a master file of all communications that come in whether the are timely or not for 243 information. 244 245 Lisa Stuckey: Going back to the discussion of the suggestion to change our process, if it’s related to the change, 246 now is the time. Perdita, do you need a vote or consensus? 247 248 Perdita Holtz: For a consensus that says this flowchart captures the discussion at last month’s Planning Board 249 meeting. 250 251 Laura Nicholson: I like the flowchart and I think it does capture what we have been talking about. When you get to 252 the last bubble it gets wordy. It says Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend, could we say 253 expected to attend so it sounds more like we care about being there. 254 255 Lisa Stuckey: In the description of the Planning Board’s responsibilities and what people see when they are thinking 256 about applying to the Planning Board, it doesn’t mention the quarterly public hearings, it mentions only the monthly 257 meetings. 258 259 Laura Nicholson: I agree. If it is in there as an expectation then the idea is that you should know that upfront. 260 261 Lisa Stuckey: Now there is a quarterly public hearing, people have been making comments at our meeting, the 262 process hasn’t been explained to them, we are expanding the number of times a person can comment from only the 263 quarterly public hearing to our meeting in a more formalized way, the public hearing, they have another chance to 264 speak. We are expanding the number of times people can speak; do you think it will slow the process? 265 266 Perdita Holtz: On controversial items, possibly. 267 268 Buddy Hartley: I like the setup. It does do what we have talked about for years. 269 270 9 D R A F T 6 Lisa Stuckey: Is there a consensus? 271 272 Lydia Wegman: People need to understand if the BOCC makes a decision that night, it is over. People need to 273 understand upfront that is a possibility. 274 275 Tony Blake: I agree with the caveat that if you are changing zoning there should be a public information meeting. 276 277 Perdita Holtz: That would make the process longer. 278 279 Lisa Stuckey: In the letter that goes out, notifying the people of the Planning Board meeting, there could be a note of 280 encouragement that if you have questions or concerns, attend and make your feelings known. 281 282 Laura Nicholson: At the bottom bubble, it says the public hearing will be closed at the conclusion of the hearing and 283 written comments will no longer be made. You say hearing a lot and you are talking about written comments would 284 no longer be required, you might want to say solely written comments wouldn’t be required. 285 286 Perdita Holtz: This flowchart is for people who are somewhat familiar with the process, so they can make decisions 287 about changes from the existing process, it’s not to be distributed to lay people who know nothing about how the 288 process works. 289 290 Andrea Rohrbacher: From my experience, no matter how hard you try, you will have someone who says I didn’t 291 know. 292 293 Perdita Holtz: Moving on to the quasi-judicial process. Reviewed abstract. Three questions that may frame the 294 discussion. One, do you think the Planning Board should make recommendation on quasi-judicial. Two, if you 295 decide you want to continue to make a recommendation, when would that occur? Three, if the Planning Board is no 296 longer attending the public hearings as an official board, what would the Planning Board meeting be? 297 298 Paul Guthrie: Does the BOCC feel they need a buffer? 299 300 Perdita Holtz: I don’t know what the BOCC feels. 301 302 Paul Guthrie: It may be a little bit of a pain if we have to look at a million items but it could serve a useful purpose 303 and it could expedite the process. 304 305 Tony Blake: 99.99% of the time, staff is correct that it meets or doesn’t meet….but there are cases where there is 306 something they are not aware of. 307 308 Lisa Stuckey: But we can’t receive that information. 309 310 Tony Blake: If staff says it meets this checklist and you know otherwise, that is not testimony…. 311 312 Lisa Stuckey: When we go through the checklist, is that before or after the public hearing? 313 314 Perdita Holtz: After the public hearing. 315 316 Lisa Stuckey: The Planning Board is not allowed to take additional testimony so we can’t insert things we have 317 heard. 318 319 Craig Benedict: You can ask questions. You can ask the applicant to provide information. 320 321 Lisa Stuckey: Can you ask a member of the public who spoke? 322 323 Craig Benedict: You have the right to cross examine anyone at the hearing. 324 10 D R A F T 7 325 Lisa Stuckey: If we don’t have a quorum and we come back to our meeting, are we allowed to go forward with the 326 checklist? If a quorum of the Planning Board is not required at the public hearing, can we proceed? 327 328 Lydia Wegman: What would be the role of the Planning Board after the public hearing? 329 330 James Bryan: From a legal standpoint, the public hearing, as the trial, once that is closed, there will be no other 331 comments considered by the Board except for the Board talking among themselves and to their attorney. My belief 332 now is the current process, if we have a written comment after the hearing is closed, it should not be considered from 333 a legal perspective. 334 335 Lydia Wegman: The way it is set up now, any comment that comes in after the public hearing are a problem? 336 337 James Bryan: Yes. 338 339 Lydia Wegman: Your concern is whatever comments are coming in have to come in at the public hearing or before 340 the public hearing? 341 342 James Bryan: At the public hearing, at the trial because everything the Board hears, all the parties, which is a legal 343 term, anything the Board hears, I get to hear it being spoken to them, I get to question whoever speaks it to the 344 Board. 345 346 Paul Guthrie: Does that also preclude the BOCC in considering the trial of discussing it? You used the analogy of 347 the jury system. A jury can discuss in its own quarters. Who is the jury? 348 349 James Bryan: The BOCC. After the public hearing is closed, the only words they can hear are what they heard at 350 the hearing. As a practice, in some jurisdictions, there is no planning board meeting. Other jurisdictions have it set 351 up where it goes to the planning board first and they have a mock hearing. A dry run. 352 353 Lydia Wegman: Also an opportunity for citizenry to have information about what is required. 354 355 James Bryan: Every jurisdiction is different. This place has a lot of educated folks and a lot of money which is 356 different than others that don’t have those things. 357 358 Maxecine Mitchell: We are pretty much serving as a double check to the staff to make sure the applicant did 359 everything according to the rules and laws of the County who, if they meet them and let them move forward so if a 360 project happens in my area, I can know and prepare my neighbors. 361 362 Michael Harvey: Staff is preparing a script based on the evidence entered into the record and testimony at the 363 hearing. Some items are based soley on the testimony of the public hearing. 364 365 Bryant Warren: Being on the Hillsborough Planning Board, this is totally different. We met then the Planning Board 366 met and made recommendations. This sounds different and if we are not going to be in the public hearing, just the 367 BOCC, then they will have the final say then there is nothing we can do about it. We can have an information 368 meeting prior to that. I don’t really see any place for a Planning Board in this process. 369 370 Perdita Holtz: Special Use Permits applications will have a Neighborhood Information Meeting 45 days ahead of the 371 public hearing. 372 373 Bryant Warren: What about having that informational meeting at the Planning Board meeting and let them be there. 374 375 Perdita Holtz: We will look at that but sometimes the way the schedule works in quarters and having ORC Ordinance 376 Review meetings sometimes, we might not be able to do everything in one night. There can be a scheduling difficulty 377 when you have more than one meeting. 378 11 D R A F T 8 379 James Lea: It sounds like there is plus to making recommendations or just having quasi-judicial meetings. 380 381 Tony Blake: In this way our role is to inform more than represent. 382 383 Perdita Holtz: Should that pre-meeting with the Planning Board be the Neighborhood Information Meeting together? 384 385 Lisa Stuckey: In these cases, the folks are hiring lawyers so this is more expense to them. Maybe the lawyer is at 386 the neighborhood meeting and then to our meeting and then they will do the public hearing. 387 388 Lydia Wegman: In your list you say if the Planning Board continues to make a recommendation so are you assuming 389 there is a room as a legal matter to make a recommendation if the Planning Board meeting occurs before the 390 meeting of the BOCC? 391 392 James Lea: It sounds like we are not making recommendations. 393 394 James Bryan: You have the public hearing. The first person to speak is staff who introduces it, reviewing the packet, 395 and one item will be the Planning Board recommendation. 396 397 Lydia Wegman: The Planning Board could hear whatever we are hearing from the public from the applicant and 398 make a recommendation prior to the public hearing that would go into the record that the BOCC would consider? 399 400 James Bryan: Right. The BOCC can’t make a decision based on that recommendation. But it could prompt them to 401 ask the right questions. 402 403 Tony Blake: Wouldn’t staff do that anyway? 404 405 Paul Guthrie: Prior to the formal legal hearing, could this group discuss the project and appear as a witness for 406 information at the legal hearing? 407 408 James Bryan: It depends on the facts but in general, no. I would object. 409 410 Bryant Warren: You said if the Planning Board wanted to be at the informational meeting and they had questions 411 about it and they wanted staff to bring it to the BOCC during the quasi-judicial hearing, would that be a 412 recommendation? As long as it is presented to the BOCC. 413 414 James Bryan: There is a difference between hearing it and using it as a basis for the decision. 415 416 Lisa Stuckey: Do we clarify things or muddy the waters? They can hear it but not base anything on it. 417 418 James Bryan: Attorneys will do that. Give you background information, sort of context for it. 419 420 Tony Blake: Even presenting new facts that are not in evidence, that is not sufficient? 421 422 James Bryan: Right. 423 424 Lydia Wegman: A recommendation could be considered by the BOCC if I understand correctly. 425 426 Paul Guthrie: Are staff communications directly to the BOCC privileged? 427 428 James Bryan: No. 429 430 Paul Guthrie: So they are considered just another testifier? 431 432 12 D R A F T 9 James Bryan: Anytime that staff sends anything to the BOCC it is called a work product and under the public records 433 of law that is available. If it is quasi-judicial, staff isn’t supposed to be talking to the Board about the particular 434 question at hand. You deal with it by divulging the communication at the hearing so everyone knows. 435 436 Paul Guthrie: The recommendation of staff to the BOCC has to be done as a witness format? 437 438 James Bryan: Yes. Again, the statutes aren’t the best in the world. The conventional thinking is that you have a 439 board that acts as judges and anyone there has to be a party to it. 440 441 Maxecine Mitchell: My understanding from what I’ve heard, legally we really have no say but we can put information 442 out that would make the BOCC look more in depth at what they are presented. I am ok to say if the Planning Board 443 makes the recommendation. I guess I would go with before. If the Planning Board continues to make 444 recommendations, we don’t really need to be at the public hearing meeting. 445 446 Bryant Warren: If we get the information from the informational meeting, we make recommendations to staff and 447 they can give it to them. I don’t see the need for us to be at the public hearing. 448 449 Andrea Rohrbacher: For question one, I would say, yes, we still should make a recommendation and for question 450 two it should be before the public hearing and attendance at the official meeting where all the testimony is being 451 presented would be optional for the Planning Board. 452 453 Paul Guthrie: On one hand, I think one of the positive roles of this Board is that it can begin to articulate the 454 sentiment of both itself and people it deals with on issues of public concern. On the other hand, the way this system 455 is set up the way we have been talking about, the only way we can do it is at a very early stages of the process or 456 outside the confines of this Board and this Board’s responsibility. I don’t think that helps the public decision process 457 at all. I have great problems with the recommendation but I am not sure there is anything else to do. 458 459 Buddy Hartley: In the process where we haven’t got to the public hearing yet, we would have seen the application, 460 correct? 461 462 Perdita Holtz: You normally don’t see the application until it goes out in the quarterly public hearing materials now. 463 We are 99.99% sure we are adding the neighborhood informational meeting 45 days ahead of time. 464 465 Buddy Hartley: I think it is fine to make it before. Basically we see if everything meets the criteria and we make the 466 recommendation. 467 468 James Lea: Item one I would say I would say yes and item number two I would say before and item three I don’t 469 know. 470 471 Laura Nicholson: Yes on item one, before on item two, I just think we have a responsibility to our townships, the only 472 way we could influence or affect anything is before. 473 474 Tony Blake: We are not really making a recommendation but making a suggestion. I wouldn’t mind having the 475 opportunity of making a recommendation. I would also like to say that the Planning Board needs to know about this 476 stuff earlier in the process so that when someone puts a sign out there and we get a call from someone in the 477 community we don’t have to say we don’t know what you are talking about. 478 479 Perdita Holtz: One of the things we could institute as part of the neighborhood information process is to email you all 480 the notice that is going out to the public. 481 482 Tony Blake: Even some more background on the project. 483 484 Perdita Holtz: I think there will start being information on the website and we can provide a link. 485 486 13 D R A F T 10 Tony Blake: Question one, yes; question two before; question three I think we need more information earlier. 487 488 Lydia Wegman: I do think the Planning Board should be making recommendations on quasi-judicial matters and I do 489 think the recommendation should occur before the public hearing along the lines of what we are talking about. I am 490 concerned about having an informed recommendation. There needs to be a process between the Neighborhood 491 Information Meeting and the public hearing for the Planning Board to make a recommendation. The only concern I 492 have about the Planning Board not being at the public hearing is if the BOCC should want to take more time to 493 consider and continue the public hearing so if the BOCC wanted the Planning Board to offer more input subsequent, 494 there would need to be a way for the Planning Board members to hear what went on at the public hearing. 495 496 Perdita Holtz: There have always been issues where some people make it to the public hearing but the same people 497 don’t make it to the Planning Board meeting. 498 499 Lisa Stuckey: I don’t think we should make recommendations. I don’t think going through that process up until now 500 has been productive, we rely on staff if they meet all the requirements, we have to recommend it be approved. It 501 seems a very artificial process. The real thing happens at the public hearing. 502 503 Paul Guthrie: Could a member or members of this group that have discussed this prior to any of the formal legal 504 steps be subpoenaed by the applicant to testify at the hearing. 505 506 James Bryan: Yes. It is very rare but the chair gets to decide and you get to appeal that to the whole Board and they 507 have subpoena power and if you don’t show up, the Court of Justice can require you to get a contempt of court. 508 509 Tony Blake: Can we be deposed in the legal sense? 510 511 James Bryan: The subpoena will most likely require you to show up at the hearing and they you will be ask 512 questions. 513 514 Bonnie Hammersley: I wanted to say on behalf of the County Board of Commissioners that on the 24th there is not 515 going to be a quarterly public hearing because there aren’t any items and also no dinner because there is no 516 meeting. They wanted to extend to you that at any time you want to schedule a meeting like that in 2015, they would 517 love to spend that time with you. 518 519 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 520 a. Board of Adjustment 521 522 Michael Harvey: The BOA approved the PSNC pipeline. We will have a meeting in December for an appeal. Local 523 residents are appealing a decision by the County to rescind a notice of violation involving a gun range. 524 525 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT: 526 14 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 3, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Public Hearing Process Changes DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Flow Chart of Possible Process for Quasi-Judicial items 2. Example of Checklist Used for Quasi- Judicial Items INFORMATION CONTACT: (919) Perdita Holtz, Planning, 245-2578 Craig Benedict, Planning, 245-2592 PURPOSE: To review a possible public hearing process for quasi-judicial items, as discussed at the November 5 Planning Board meeting. BACKGROUND: The Planning Board discussed proposed changes to the public hearing process at its October 8 and November 5, 2014 meetings. At the November 5th meeting, the Board agreed that the flow chart for a possible process for legislative items (included in the agenda materials: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/11.5.14PBPacket.pdf) captured the discussion at the October 8th meeting. Discussion at the November 5th meeting focused on a possible process for quasi-judicial items (draft Minutes for the November 5th meeting are part of the agenda packet for the December 3rd Planning Board meeting). Staff has prepared a flow chart for quasi-judicial items for the Planning Board’s review (see Attachment 1). Attachment 2 is the Findings of Fact checklist used during the review of quasi-judicial items. It is included so that Planning Board members can be informed/reminded of the review process that is necessary for quasi-judicial items. At the November 6, 2014 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting, the BOCC received the information available at that time and discussed the topic (agenda materials are available at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/141106.pdf and the video may be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/occlerks/granicus.asp). The BOCC also voted to close the public hearing on this topic at this time, as staff recommended. The hearing has been closed because it is expected that the proposed text amendment will be changed significantly enough from the materials presented at the September 8th quarterly public hearing that a new public hearing will be necessary. At this time, staff expects that the topic will be an item for discussion at a future BOCC work session. Part of the work session materials will be the Planning Board’s input, as reflected in the flow charts and meeting minutes. 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 15 (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 review and discuss as necessary the attached possible public hearing process for quasi-judicial items to ensure it captures the discussion that occurred at the November 5 Planning Board meeting. 16 Possible Review Process for Quasi-Judicial Items Pre-Application Conference Application Submittal & Posting * DAC (Development Advisory Committee) Review/Comments Publish Legal Ad / Mail Notifications for Public Hearing Quarterly Public Hearing (BOCC only) * Required for all Special Use Permit applications Staff Representatives of various County departments and other agencies, as needed BOCC Decision An increase in frequency for quasi-judicial items is no longer being suggested. Planning Board members would be encouraged to attend but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order to hold the hearing. Sworn testimony by experts (who are provided by the applicant or parties with standing) is necessary for quasi- judicial items. The public hearing should be closed at the conclusion of the hearing unless additional information has been requested. Additional information would need to either be in writing (if appropriate) or the hearing would be continued to a date/time certain for additional oral testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing, the BOCC could do the following: 1. Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date. 2. Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review. 3. Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing. Text amendment requiring this new step was adopted by the BOCC on 11/18/14. Planning Board members will be encouraged to attend the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Attempts will be made to schedule the NIM the same evening as the regular Planning Board meetings so that Planning Board members can more easily attend the NIM. However, it might sometimes not be possible to hold both meetings on the same night due to timing requirements and because Ordinance Review Committee meetings needs to be held periodically as well. 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 * The Planning Department intends to begin posting a list of applications received and deemed sufficient on its website so members of the public can be informed about projects early in the process. Staff also intends to produce and provide planning process brochures outlining how input is provided by the public and applicant. The Planning Board meeting (which would be held on a date after the NIM but before the formal public hearing) could be a “dry run” for the public hearing. At this time, staff is suggesting that the public would be allowed to speak at the Planning Board meeting (e.g., “testimony” would not be required at the Planning Board meeting, but speakers would need to be informed that their comments would not be considered testimony and, therefore, could not be a basis for decision at the formal public hearing). Neighborhood Information Meeting (minimum of 45 days prior to public hearing) * Attachment 1 * = public participates 17 18 CASE NUMBER: EXAMPLE FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF PERTAINING TO A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY [NAME] REQUESTING A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO [PROJECT & LOCATION] Applications for a [PROJECT] are required to demonstrate compliance with general and specific standards as set forth in Section(s) 5.3.2 (A) and (B) as well as 5.9 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the UDO requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) 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; In addition, the Board shall make findings certifying that the application is complaint with the following specific standards: (1) Specific standards for the submission of Special Use Permit applications as outlined within Section(s) 2.2 and 2.7 of the UDO, (2) Applicable provisions of Article 3 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) of the UDO, (3) Applicable landscape provisions detailed within Section(S) 5.9 and 6.8.6 of the UDO, (4) Specific regulations governing the development of individual Special Uses, in this case regulations detailed within Section 5.9.6 of the UDO, (5) Section 5.3.2 (B) relating to the method and adequacy of the provision of: a. Sewage disposal facilities, b. The adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection, and c. The adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site (6) The aforementioned general findings outlined within Section 5.3.2 (A) (2). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist in deliberations. Attachment2 19 SECTION 2.2 AND 2.7.3 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 2.2 The application for a Class A Special Use Permit shall be on forms provided by the Planning Department. X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained the completed application packet for the request. ___Yes ____No 2.2.4 (D) Applications must be accompanied by the fee amount that has been established by Board of County Commissioners. Application fees are nonrefundable. X__Yes ____No Staff testimony from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing that the applicant had paid all applicable fees as required by the adopted fee schedule. ___Yes ____No 2.7.3 (B) (1) A full and accurate description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational characteristics. X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a detailed narrative outlining the nature of the request as well as a formal, professionally prepared, site plan. ___Yes ____No 2.7.3 (B) (2) The names and addresses of the owners of the property X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained the required information ___Yes ____No 20 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS 2.7.3 (B) (3) Relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific standards governing the Special Use X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained the required detail including a site plan denoting the boundary of the property. ___Yes ____No 2.7.3 (B) (4) Twenty-six (26) copies of the site plan prepared by a registered N.C. land surveyor, architect, or engineer. X__Yes ____No Staff testimony from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing indicating required copies of the site plan, prepared by Strata Solar and sealed by Mr. Brent Niemann License Number 026475 were submitted as part of Attachment 1. ___Yes ____No 2.7.3 (B) (5) If the application involves a Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 26 copies of the Plat prepared in accordance with Section 7.14 shall be provided. _X__ Not applicable The Project does not involve a preliminary subdivision application. __ Not applicable 2.7.3 (B) (6) A list of all parcels located within 500 feet of the subject parcel and the name and address of each property owner, as currently listed in the Orange County tax records. X__Yes ____No Attachment(s) 1 and 4 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained the required information ___Yes ____No 2.7.3 (B) (7) Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. X__Yes ____No While no buildings are proposed for the site, Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan containing elevations of the proposed solar arrays. ___Yes ____No 21 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS 2.7.3 (B) (8) 26 copies of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement as required by Section 6.16 of the UDO _X__ Not applicable The Project will not result in any disturbance requiring the submission of an Environmental Assessment per Section 6.18 of the UDO. As such this requirement is not applicable. __ Not applicable 2.7.3 (B) (9) Method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the permitted activity, which shall be by some method other than open burning. __X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the packet, as well as applicant testimony, from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing referenced the submitted site plan containing a note stating the project will comply with applicable County Zoning and Solid Waste Management regulations. ___ Yes ___ No 2.7.3 (B) (10) Statement from the applicant indicating the anticipated development schedule for the build-out of the project. __X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the packet, as well as applicant testimony, from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing indicating the project would be completed within a year of approval of all required permits. ___ Yes ___ No 2.7.3 (B) (11) Statement from the applicant in justification of any request for vesting for a period of more than two years (five years maximum) X Not applicable The applicant is not requesting vesting of the project. __ Not applicable 22 SECTION 2.7.5 CLASS A SPECIAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS A. The Planning Director shall give public notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing B. Such notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County once a week for two successive weeks, with the first notice to be published not less than ten days not more than we days prior to the date of the hearing. C. The Planning Director shall post on the affected property a notice of the public hearing at lest ten days prior to the date of said hearing. D. Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to all adjacent property owners not less than 15 days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property and whose manes and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records. _X Yes _X Yes _X Yes _X Yes ____No ____No ____No ____No Attachment 4 of, and staff testimony from, the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing indicating public notice was sent via certified mail on February 7, 2014 for the February 24, 2014 Public Hearing. This included photo copies of the certified mal receipts. The legal ad was published in the News of Orange and the Herald Sun on February 12, 2014 and again on February 19, 2014. The property was posted on February 12, 2014. As previously indicated public notice was sent via certified mail on February 7, 2014. Attachment 4 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing abstract contained staff’s mail out certification, a copy of the notification letter, copies of the certified mail receipts dated February 7, 2014, and the mailing labels as provided by the applicant for all property owners within 500 feet. ___Yes __Yes ___Yes ___Yes ____No ___No ____No ____No 23 SECTION(S) 3.3 BASE ZONING DISTRICT – AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AND 6.3 LAND USE INTENSITY MEASURES ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 3.3 and 6.3 of the UDO provides the land use intensity measures governing the development of projects within the County. The applicant has applied for a Special Use Permit within the Rural Residential (R-1) general use zoning district. The dimensional and ratio standards associated with the R-1 zoning district are as follows: Minimum lot size – 40, 000 square feet X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet indicating the properties subject to the application totaled 52 acres of land area. ___Yes ____No Minimum lot width – 150 feet X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan indicating the lot(s) had 686 and 620 feet, respectively, of frontage along Redman Road (SR 1311) ___Yes ____No Required front yard setback – 40 feet X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan indicating the arrays will be setback approximately 47 feet from Redman Road (SR 1311) ___Yes ____No 24 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Required side yard setback – 20 feet X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan indicating the arrays will meet the required 20 foot side yard setback. ___Yes ____No Required rear yard setback – 20 feet X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan indicating the arrays will meet the required 20 foot rear yard setback. ___Yes ____No Floor Area Ratio - .088 sq. ft. or 199,330 sq. ft. (52 acres x 43,560 x .088) _X__ Not applicable Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan indicating no buildings are being proposed for the property ___ Not Applicable Minimum gross land area _X__ Not applicable Not applicable – This proposed project is not subject to the minimum gross land area requirement as detailed within Section 3.3 of the UDO ___ Not Applicable Required Open Space - .84 or 1,902,700 sq. ft. (43.68 acres) (52 acres x 43,560 x .84) _X_ Yes ___No Applicant and staff testimony from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing indicating there is approximately 45 acres of open space as defined within Article 10 of the UDO. ___Yes ___ No 25 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Required Livability Space _X__ Not applicable Not applicable – This proposed project is not subject to the minimum required livability space as detailed within Section 3.3 of the UDO ___ Not Applicable Required Recreation Space _X__ Not applicable Not applicable – This proposed project is not subject to the minimum required livability space as detailed within Section 3.3 of the UDO ___ Not Applicable Required Pedestrian/landscape ratio - .21 or 475,675 sq.ft. (10.92 acres) (52 acres x 43,560 x .21) _X_ Yes ___No Staff testimony from the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing indicating there is approximately 11.7 acres of pedestrian/landscape space on the property comprised as follows: 1. Required Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer – approximately 1 acre 2. Stream buffer area – south west portion of project – 9.6 acres 3. 50 foot Type D land use buffer along eastern property line – 1.1 acres ___Yes ___ No 26 SECTION 5.9.6 (C) SOLAR ARRAY – PUBLIC UTILITY ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 5.9.6 (C) of the UDO establishes additional submittal requirements and standards of evaluation for a solar array public utility 5.9.6 (C) (1) In addition to the information required by Section 2.7, the following shall be submitted as part of the application: 5.9.6 (C) (1) (a) A site plan showing all existing structures on the property, any proposed buildings or structures that are necessary to support the proposed array, existing and proposed storage areas, parking and access areas, topography at a contour interval of five feet, any officially designated floodplains or alluvial soils. X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information. ___Yes ____No 5.9.6 (C) (1) (b) Plans and elevations for all proposed structures and arrays as well as descriptions of the color and nature of all exterior materials X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information. The site plan indicates no buildings are proposed for the site. ___Yes ____No 27 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS 5.9.6 (C) (1) (c) Landscape Plan, at the same scale as the site plan, showing existing and proposed trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscape materials. X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information. Existing foliage is going to be preserved along the eastern and southern boundary line to satisfy required landscape requirements. ___Yes ____No Section 5.9.6 (C) (2) Standards of Evaluation 5.9.6 (C) (2) (a) All on-site utility and transmission lines shall, to the extent feasible, be placed underground. X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information, specifically Note 20. _ _Yes ___ No 5.9.6 (C) (2) (b) The height of proposed arrays and support structures shall not exceed 40 feet. X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information, specifically in the elevation drawings of a typical array. _ _Yes ___ No 5.9.6 (C) (2) (c) Individual arrays/solar panels shall be designed and located in order to prevent reflective glare toward any inhabited buildings on adjacent properties as well as adjacent street rights-of- way. X__Yes ____No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information, specifically Note 21. ___Yes ____No 28 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS 5.9.6 (C) (2) (d) A clearly visible warning sign concerning voltage must be placed at the base of all pad-mounted transformers and substations. X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information, specifically Note 16. _ _Yes ___ No 5.9.6 (C) (2) (e) All mechanical equipment of principal solar energy systems including any structure for batteries or storage cells, shall be completely enclosed by a minimum eight (8) foot high fence with a self- locking gate, and provided with screening in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.8. X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information. The applicant is proposing an 8 foot high fence and a 50 foot wide Type D land use buffer as required within Section 6.8 of the UDO. _ _Yes ___ No 5.9.6 (C) (2) (f) The applicant shall submit proof of liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage demonstrating a minimum coverage limit of $ 500,000.00 per occurrence. X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a narrative indicating proof of insurance would be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff recommends a condition of approval be that a copy of the policy be submitted prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy _ _Yes ___ No 29 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS 5.9.6 (C) (2) (g) A Type D Land Use Buffer shall be provided along any portion of the perimeter of the parcel, easement, or leasehold area located adjacent to property zoned, or otherwise utilized for, residential use except where such property is owned, leased or consists of other utility easements currently used for electrical distribution or transmission purposes. Existing vegetation may be used to satisfy the landscaping requirements. X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a site plan denoting required information. _ _Yes ___ No 5.9.6 (C) (3) Decommissioning X_ Yes ___ No Attachment 1 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained a narrative detailing the applicant’s understanding of our decommissioning requirements and further indicating they will comply with these applicable standards in the event the use of the site as a solar array – public utility is ceased. _ _Yes ___ No 30 Section 5.3.2 (B) SPECIAL USE – SPECIFIC STANDARDS CLASS A SPECIAL ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 5.3.2 (B) In addition to the general standards the following specific standards shall be addressed by the applicant before the issuance of a Special Use Permit Section 5.3.2 (B) (1) Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. X__Yes ____No Attachment 3 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained correspondence from staff indicating there are no problems with respect to compliance with this standard. No sewage system or well is proposed. Waste will be disposed of by a private contractor. Orange County Solid Waste has indicated they have no concerns associated with the project. ___Yes ____No 31 Ordinance Requirements PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 5.3.2 (B) (2) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. X__Yes ____No Attachment 3 of the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing packet contained correspondence from staff indicating there are no problems with respect to compliance with this standard. Fire protection will be provided by the Efland Volunteer Fire Department, rescue service by the Orange County Emergency Management, and police protection by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. The Fire Marshal indicates they had no problem with the proposal as submitted. Staff has verified with the deputy chief of the Efland volunteer fire department (Pete Hallenbeck) his department has no concerns. No concerns have been expressed by the Sheriff’s office. ___Yes ____No Section 5.3.2 (B) (3) Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. _X_Yes ___No NC DOT has indicated they have no concerns over the project. A condition of approval is Strata Solar shall obtain a NC DOT driveway permit prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity associated with the project. ___Yes ____No 32 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) SPECIAL USE – GENERAL STANDARDS CLASS A SPECIAL ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS In accordance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2), the Board of Commissioners shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for a Special Use can be approved: ** NOTE – staff does not make specific recommendations with respect to these findings ** Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (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. Based on evidence presented at the hearing including: i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. ii. Staff testimony on the project’s compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the March/April Planning Board meetings. iii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis Iannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning Board meetings. iv. Adjacent property owner e-mails and applicant responses. Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public. Will __Will Not 33 PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (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). Based on evidence presented at the hearing including: i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. ii. Staff testimony on the project’s compliance with the UDO from the Public Hearing and the March/April Planning Board meetings. iii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis Iannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO including the affidavit entered into the record at the Public Hearing and written correspondence submitted to the March and April Planning Board meetings. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the project would not have an impact on adjacent property value. Will __Will Not 34 PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (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. Based on evidence presented at the hearing including: i. Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan. ii. Applicant testimony from Mr. Louis Iannone, Mr. Bret Niemann, Mr. Gabriel Cantor, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, on how the project complied with the UDO Is __ Is Not 35 RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not received any information that would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan, and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant complies with the specific standards and required regulations as outlined within the UDO. Provided the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners finds in the affirmative on the specific and general standards, the Board could make a positive finding on this application. In the event that the Planning Board makes the determination that the permit can be issued, Planning Staff recommends the attachment of the following conditions to the Special Use Permit: (1) The applicant shall cause a formal and detailed landscape and tree preservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Orange County Planning Department within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. (2) A revised site plan shall be submitted denoting the required Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio for the project as required under Section 3.3 of the UDO. This revised sheet shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. (3) That the applicant complete and submit a formal application to the Orange County Inspections Department requesting authorization to commence construction of the proposed solar array. The application, including all applicable fees, shall be submitted within 180 days from the approval of the Special Use Permit. (4) That the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office shall review and approve the final site plan, as part of the normal building permit review process, and that any and all modifications be made to address fire code issues and access prior to the issuance of the permit authorizing the commencement of land disturbing activities. (5) The applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled, map to the Orange County Fire Marshal’s office and the Efland Volunteer Fire Department denoting the location of all storage areas for batteries, master cut-off switches, and other similar devices to ensure the protection of emergency responders in the event of a catastrophic incident on the property. This map shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the County allowing for operation of the facility to commence. (6) That prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity the applicant shall submit all necessary stormwater, grading plans, and erosion control applications to the Orange County Erosion Control Department for review and processing. These applications shall be submitted within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP. (7) That the applicant shall submit the approved site plan to NC DOT for review and comment. In the event it is determined that the applicant is required to apply for, and receive a, driveway permit from NC DOT to allow for the project to be developed, the applicant shall submit all necessary applications as required by NC DOT within 180 days from the issuance of the SUP and provide planning staff with a copy of the issued permit. 36