HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 080515ORANGE 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, August 5, 2015
Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.
3 - 4
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
a. Planning Calendar for August and September
• September 2 – Planning Board Meeting
• September 8 – Quarterly Public Hearing
3.
5 – 8
9 - 13
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 1, 2015 ORC Notes
July 1, 2015 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
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7.
COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS
a. Board of Adjustment
b. Orange Unified Transportation
8. 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
◄ July August 2015 September ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
2
3
4
5
ORC – 6:30 &
Planning Board
7:00 pm
WCOB 004*
6
7
8
9
10
Board of
Adjustment
7:30 pm
WCOB 004
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
OUTBoard
7:00 pm
WCOB 004
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Notes:
* Planning Board Member Attendance Required
WCOB = West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough)
3
◄ August September 2015 October ►
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted Building
2
ORC – time TBD &
Planning Board
7:00 pm
WCOB 004*
3 4 5
6 7
Holiday
8
Quarterly Public
Hearing
7:00 pm
Whitted Building*
9 10
BOCC Work
Session
7:00 pm
Southern Human
Services Center
11 12
13 14
Board of Adjustment
7:30 pm
WCOB 004
15
Regular BOCC
Meeting
7:00 pm
Southern Human
Services Center
16
OUTBoard
7:00 pm
WCOB 004
17
BOCC/City of
Mebane Joint
Meeting
5:30 pm
Whitted Building
18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29
BOCC/Schools Joint
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted Building
30 Notes:
* Planning Board Member Attendance
Required
WCOB = West Campus Office Building
(131 W. Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough)
4
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 1, 2015 3
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 8
Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 9
Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; 10
11 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 12
Planning Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 13 14 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 15 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS 16 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 17
To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the UDO to modify the existing 18
regulations pertaining to recreational facilities. 19 20 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 21
22
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 23
24
Paul Guthrie: Could a resident sponsor a club in his name and finance play on that field? 25
26
Michael Harvey: No sir. Not the way it is written. 27
28
Tony Blake: I can create my own non-profit and put in a putting green. 29
30
Michael Harvey: Not the way it is written, but part of this process is requesting the need for different wording. I am 31
asking for your questions and comments. This (amendment) is designed to adopt the land use regulations and 32
standards (of recreational land uses) where we don’t have them and define what we would like to see in residential 33
settings. Also, to eliminate what staff believes is unnecessary rezoning and permitting requirements. 34
35
Tony Blake: If I am a farmer and I want to donate land to a non-profit for a recreational sport (facility), would that be 36
permitted? 37
38
Michael Harvey: It would have to go through the SUP process. There are certain facilities we don’t want in 39
residential settings due to their impacts. This also does not stop a county park. 40
41
Tony Blake: Is the intent to control the gun range use specifically? 42
43
Michael Harvey: No, not that use specifically but we will be adopting development standards associated with them. 44
45
Tony Blake: If you want to control that specifically, it would probably be a noise ordinance. 46
47
Michael Harvey: This amendment process was not started simply to regulate gun ranges. It was started because 48
the County shouldn’t be regulating a land use, or assigning or ascribing permitting processes, based on the 49
ownership status of the property owner. 50
5
51
Lisa Stuckey: What about the HOA in a subdivision that wants to put a ball field on an open space? 52
53
Michael Harvey: Perfectly legal because it is technically approved as part of the subdivision process. 54
55
Tony Blake: What if they want to do it retroactively? 56
57
Michael Harvey: The same thing as long as they comply with the ordinance with respect to compliance of Article 7 58
which is subdivision standards. Again, County parks would not be affected by this. 59
60
Lydia Wegman: Regarding Section 5.7.2, shooting ranges, no outdoor range shall be closer than 30 feet to the 61
property range? 62
63
Michael Harvey: That is reference to commercial shooting ranges, like an archery range. In these instances 64
shooting would only be allowed indoors. Private, residential shooting areas, the required setback is 300 feet. 65
66
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS 67 PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS REVISIONS 68
To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the DUO to revise the public 69
hearing process. 70 71 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 72
73
Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract and began presentation. 74
75
Tony Blake: This is where I was confused. I see the notes regarding the public meeting on page 43, but where is the 76
neighborhood information meeting described? 77
78
Perdita Holtz: It is in the neighborhood information meeting section, Section 2.9. 79
80
Tony Blake: Are any changes being made to that? 81
82
Perdita Holtz: No 83
84
Tony Blake: I was going to suggest that the Planning Board member representing that township should be invited into 85
the neighborhood information meeting and that’s an important change. 86
87
Perdita Holtz: If it’s a matter of inviting someone, that can be done administratively and not have to be written into the 88
UDO. If it’s something that you want to require then that’s something that can be written into the UDO or into the 89
Planning Board Rules of Procedure. 90
91
Lisa Stuckey: That wouldn’t be appropriate in a quasi-judicial situation? 92
93
Perdita Holtz: The Neighborhood Information meeting isn’t a quasi-judicial meeting, but to explain how the process 94
works to neighbors. 95
96
Lisa Stuckey: I would touch base with a lawyer because it seems unlikely that you wouldn’t get information not 97
available to BOCC and other Planning Board members upon which you would base your votes. 98
99
Tony Blake: The only thing you would get is information would be the neighbor’s comments. 100
101
Pete Hallenbeck: In the quasi-judicial world, if those neighbors are not experts, you can’t take it into consideration. 102
6
103
Lydia Wegman: To me, this is an information meeting. 104
105
Pete Hallenbeck: When the neighborhood meeting happens, it quasi-judicial in play? 106
107
Perdita Holtz: The Planning Board meeting is not quasi-judicial. From an ideal legal standpoint, the attorneys would 108
like the Planning Board to not be involved. 109
110
Tony Blake: The neighbors are looking to us and if we don’t have any information, what is the point of us at all. 111
112
Craig Benedict: We are trying to make that meeting more process oriented with information about the process. 113
114
Pete Hallenbeck: When does the quasi-judicial process start? 115
116
Michael Harvey: I would argue it starts the day the application is accepted to review by the Planning Department and 117
all subsequent meetings that occur as a result are part of the quasi-judicial process. 118
119
Paul Guthrie: I agree with all that has been said, but be careful because you are about to go past an advisory board 120
and cut off input that can make wiser decisions. At what point, what do I stop thinking about what I know and have to 121
stop and say what I hear. You need to be careful about how you define that if you want true, good, long term advisory 122
committee members. 123
124
Lydia Wegman: If the neighborhood information doesn’t include a presentation by the applicant then it would not be 125
helpful. 126
127
Craig Benedict: It includes a review of the project. 128
129
Lydia Wegman: There will be time for questions? 130
131
Craig Benedict: There may be. The information will be available. This is a dry run so everyone will know what is 132
proposed. 133
134
Perdita Holtz: Continued presentation. 135
136
Paul Guthrie: How long after the hearing do we have a record so there is a good reference to what is acceptable as 137
evidence and what isn’t? 138
139
Perdita Holtz: All evidence is going to have to be made at the hearing. 140
141
Paul Guthrie: How long does it take to get that record and will the 60 days be adequate? 142
143
Perdita Holtz: You generally make a recommendation in less than 60 days. 144
145
Paul Guthrie: Be sure that works within your process. 146
147
Perdita Holtz: Continued presentation. 148
149
Paul Guthrie: Question on specific language, Section 1B(c) on page 71. 150
151
Perdita Holtz: That is not the part being changed. 152
153
Paul Guthrie: May need to think about the language in the policy saying basically this document overrules the 154
advisory committee structure set up by the BOCC. 155
156
7
Perdita Holtz: Only the BOCC approves the specific advisory board policies. 157
158 AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT 159
8
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 1, 2015 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 7
Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 8
Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 9
Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, 10
At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 13
Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 16
Planning Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II. 17
18
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19
20
Pete Hallenbeck: Called meeting to order 21
22
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 23
a) Planning Calendar for July and August 24
25
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26 a) APRIL 1, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 27
b) JUNE 3, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 28
29
Pete Hallenbeck: Andrea Rohrbacher’s name was listed at Laura Rohrbacher. Tony supplied an email that 30
should be attached to the minutes. 31
32
Perdita Holtz: There were also the April 1 ORC notes that I emailed out. 33
34
MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the Planning Board minutes with corrections and the attached email. 35
Seconded by Tony Blake. 36
37
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 38
39
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 40
41
No changes to the agenda. 42
43
AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 44
45 Introduction to the Public Charge 46
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina 47
General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold 48
the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is 49
to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall 50
do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents 51
9
and business through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and 52
promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will 53
make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public 54
services during our deliberations, decision, and recommendations. 55
56
Public Charge 57
The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The 58
Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, 59
both with the Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of 60
the Board or any resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the 61
offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal 62
control. Should decorum rail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 63
such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 64
65
AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 66
67
Pete Hallenbeck: I have no comments. 68
69 AGENDA ITEM 7: APPLICATION FOR A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to 70
the Board of County Commissioners on a Special use Permit application seeking 71
approval of a school redevelopment/master plan for Emerson Waldorf School’s 72
existing facility located at 6211 New Jericho Road within the Chapel Hill Township. 73
This item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 74
75
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 76
77
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 78
79
Pete Hallenbeck: Is there a requirement for sprinklers for schools? 80
81
Patrick Mallet: Part of the review with Jason Shepherd, Orange County Fire Marshal, is whether it is a 82
situation whether they go left or right, they may or may not require sprinklers, there are ways we can 83
overcome that. This is why we have the recommended condition that all building plans are reviewed by the 84
Fire Marshal to ensure compliance with applicable standards. 85
86
MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve pages 49-54 of the agenda packet. Lisa Stuckey seconded. 87
VOTE: Unanimous 88
89
MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general 90
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted based 91
upon the evidence listed on page 55 and there are no items to the contrary. Laura Nicholson seconded. 92
VOTE: Unanimous 93
94
MOTION made by Tony Blake that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property based 95
on the evidence provided and there is no counter evidence. Andrea Rohrbacher seconded. 96
VOTE: Unanimous 97
98
MOTION made by Lydia Wegman that the location and character of the use if developed according to the 99
plan submitted will be harmony with the area in which it is to be located. Tony Blake seconded. 100
10
VOTE: Unanimous 101
102 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to recommend the special use permit for approval and all thirteen 103
recommended conditions. Laura Nicholson seconded. 104
VOTE: Unanimous 105
106
AGENDA ITEM 8: APPLICATION FOR A CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to 107
the Board of County Commissioners on a Special Use Permit application seeking 108
to develop a solar array/public utility station on a portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of 109
property located at 1612 white Cross Road within the Bingham Township. This 110
item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 111
112
Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 113
114
Pat Mallett: Reviewed abstract and revised site plan. 115
116
Lydia Wegman: The 65 foot buffer is not reflected in the conditions on page 85? Should it be reflected 117
there? 118
119
Pat Mallett: We are noting that this was provided into the record as evidence; I would believe that it is 120
covered. 121
122
Lydia Wegman: So this plan, plus this statement about the 15 foot additional setback… 123
124
Pat Mallett: I would think you could include that as part of your recommendation. 125
126
Beth Trahos: I am an attorney with Smith, Moore, Leatherwood and I am here tonight on behalf of the 127
applicant. The 65 foot buffer was very carefully designated on the plans which are part of the approval 128
itself. We are held to the 65 foot buffer in the conditions that are included in the plans. We will draft a 129
written condition for inclusion as well that echoes the requirement of the site plan itself. 130
131
MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve the recommendations on page 78-82. Tony Blake seconded. 132
VOTE: Unanimous 133
134
MOTION made by Tony Blake that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general 135
welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and 136
there is no evidence to the contrary. Laura Nicholson seconded. 137
VOTE: Unanimous 138
139
MOTION made by Lydia Wegman that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property 140
based on the evidence provided on page 84 and there is no counter evidence. Andrea Rohrbacher 141
seconded. 142
VOTE: Unanimous 143
144
MOTION made by Tony Blake that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan 145
submitted will be harmony with the area in which it is to be located with no evidence to the contrary. 146
Andrea Rohrbacher seconded. 147
VOTE: Unanimous 148
149
11
MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend the special use permit for approval and all eleven 150
recommended conditions. Laura Nicholson seconded. 151 VOTE: Unanimous 152
153
AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT): To begin review of a 154
request to rezone 112 acres of property from Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno 155
Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District to Master Planned Development 156
Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection 157
Overlay District in order to allow for the development of Hart’s Mill Village within 158
the Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public 159
hearing. 160
161
Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 162
163
Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 164
165
Paul Guthrie: Is it a common sewage disposal system or individual? 166
167
Michael Harvey: Common septic system with about 6 acres devoted to supporting a septic area. 168
169
Paul Guthrie: They need to carefully structure the ownership model as to who is responsible. 170
171
Buddy Hartley: If this is done like condominiums, the sewer is basically handled by the state, permitted, it 172
could be checked, they should have an association which pays homeowners dues that takes care of the 173
streets, etc. 174
175
Michael Harvey: I am asking you for questions or comments in the next couple of weeks, email me by July 176
17, 2015. This will come back to you. My goal is to bring this back at the September meeting. 177
178
Lydia Wegman: Is there any different impact when you have however many people living there in 34 units 179
and running a farm. 180
181
Michael Harvey: They enjoy the same rights as any 112 acre parcel of property owner that lives on the 182
property. If they are engaging in an activity otherwise, they would have to go through the appropriate 183
review and approval process. 184
185
Maxecine Mitchell: I want to encourage us to not to knock against it. It is really neat. I was hearing all the 186
concerns. I was thinking about neighborhoods. Let’s embrace them and help them out. 187
188
Tony Blake: I agree, but this is a hybrid between a condominium and farm. There are different rules. 189
190
Pete Hallenbeck: Everyone is for this. Whatever they do, since they are creating their own zoning district, 191
so whatever they do, they have to go back and modify that. 192
193
Buddy Hartley: Would there be any private security? 194
195
Michael Harvey: Here is my list of additional questions for the applicant. You would like to see the 196
promotional materials and have a better understanding of how they are marketing this vision, this board 197
would like the applicant to consider the future and additional uses they may want to include, request for a 198
12
breakdown of farm uses and what they would like to do, and have you thought about security concerns or 199
thought about security services. 200
201
Lisa Stuckey: If they use irrigation will they have enough water 202
203
Michael Harvey: Site plan shows irrigation and a pond. 204
205
Pete Hallenbeck: Email any additional questions to Michael. 206
207
AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 208 A. Board of Adjustment 209
Michael Harvey: Updated the board on the denial of a cell phone tower in June. 210
211
B. Orange County Transportation 212
None 213
214
AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 215
13