Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 010913Approved 3/6/13 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 9, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River 8 Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 9 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 10 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township 11 Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township 12 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; 15 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz; 18 Special Projects Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 19 20 21 HANDOUTS GIVEN AT MEETING Planning Calendars for 2013 22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 25 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2013 28 29 Buddy Hartley nominated Pete Hallenbeck to serve as the Planning Board Chair for 2013. No other members were 30 nominated. Planning Board members voted unanimously to appoint Pete Hallenbeck to serve as Chair. 31 32 Buddy Hartley nominated Alan Campbell to serve as the Planning Board Vice-Chair for 2013. 33 Larry Wright nominated Lisa Stuckey to serve as the Planning Board Vice-Chair for 2013. 34 (paper ballots were distributed and cast) 35 Tina Love tabulated the votes. There was a tie. 36 (Alan Campbell arrived) 37 Alan Campbell: I decline the nomination. 38 Lisa Stuckey was appointed as the Vice-Chair for 2013 39 40 Larry Wright: Congratulations to the officers. 41 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 44 a) Planning Calendar for January and February 45 46 47 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 48 DECEMBER 5, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 49 50 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the December 5, 2012 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 52 53 54 Approved 3/6/13 2 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 6: 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 PUBLIC CHARGE 70 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 71 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 72 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 73 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 74 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 75 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 76 77 78 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 79 80 Pete Hallenbeck: Larry, as outgoing Chair, would you like to make any comments? 81 82 Larry Wright: It has been a pleasure to serve you as chair. I have learned and witnessed that this Board and this 83 county does work from the grass roots level up and the BOCC does listen to the Board. Your role on this Board is 84 very important and over the time I have appreciated seeing some people who were reluctant to speak up make their 85 opinions known and they are doing this now and I am happy to see you flourish. One thing I consider very 86 important, and I hope new members continue to observe, is that you exercise your right to have a dissenting 87 opinion and there are times when the BOCC does listen to the dissenting opinion and they move on that. Buckhorn 88 road was a prime example because the majority voted against Buckhorn. Thank you for allowing me to serve. 89 90 91 Agenda Item 8: Kennel Processes and Regulations – To continue discussion on BOCC-requested input 92 into the processes and regulations for kennels. This item was continued from the November 93 7, 2012 regular meeting when the work plan was acted upon, the Planning Board Chair and 94 Vice-Chair asked that this be a discussion item for the January 9, 2013 agenda. 95 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 96 97 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract on page 15. 98 99 Alan Campbell: On the chart under “Review Process” and “Staff Review and Approval” for Durham and Chapel Hill, 100 does that mean it is discretionary? Also, is that a good thing in your mind? 101 102 Michael Harvey: Obviously, it is similar to Orange County staff reviewing and approving a proposed kennel 103 operation. They have their version of the UDO with guidelines and standards and their obligation is to ensure the 104 project complies with all of those standards. They review a site plan and make the determination that complies with 105 development regulations in issuing a zoning compliance permit allowing the project to move forward. I think you 106 have a policy in this county where the elected officials have determined that certain uses due to their nature 107 deserve a heightened level of review. I am not speaking against Class II Kennel being a special use permit. I think 108 Approved 3/6/13 3 there are issues involved with their locations that warrant a heightened level review. If you are asking if staff would 109 be comfortable approving it, with the ordinances we have and the standards, I am comfortable with approving or 110 denying anything as long as I have justification. 111 112 Alan Campbell: My question gets into the notion that if you have a special use permit that you are held to if they 113 meet the requirements then you have to approve it but if it is discretionary then you have more room. 114 115 Michael Harvey: If you, as an applicant, prove you comply with the code, I also have to issue the permit. If there 116 are interpretative issues, then you have the right to appeal me. 117 118 Alan Campbell: If you have someone who opened a kennel where they were not supposed to and don’t meet any 119 requirements, what is the enforcement mechanism? 120 121 Michael Harvey: If we find an illegal kennel, we initiate zoning enforcement actions which mean we can issue civil 122 citations daily in the amount of $500 after appropriate notices of violation are issued. We can seek an injunction 123 from the court. They are technically guilty of a misdemeanor if they violate the land use regulations so we have 124 enforcement procedures we can initiate. 125 126 Alan Campbell: One of the problems with animal enforcements is that if it is the middle of the night, they will not 127 address that issue. 128 129 Michael Harvey: If is it a land use issue, we initiate an enforcement action. You, as a property owner, do have 130 rights to appeal. If you choose to continue an action we have told you is illegal, we have lots of means to make 131 sure you comply. 132 133 Lisa Stuckey: If you are doing a Class II, maybe I or II, you have to get a permit for Animals Services for each of 134 those and then for Class II, you have to get your Class B Special Use Permit. You have to get the Class II kennel 135 permit within 30 days of occupancy, would that be 30 within the start of the kennel? Can you open it up and 28 136 days later go get your permit? 137 138 Michael Harvey: Animal Services provides initial feedback on the proposal and they have met with the applicant 139 and looked over the plan. We have documentation to submit to the Board of Adjustment but they can’t do final 140 approval until they make application and submit the building plans. They can’t submit the building plans until they 141 have a building permit submitted by the inspections department stating this meets building code so we usually allow 142 that grace period for Animal Services to issue the permit on a legally issued kennel operation. 143 144 Lisa Stuckey: Does that mean you can have the dogs there before you are issued the permit? 145 146 Michael Harvey: The way it is currently worded and the way Animal Services regulations are worded that is a 147 correct statement. 148 149 Lisa Stuckey: Is that a good idea? 150 151 Michael Harvey: One of the reasons is that Animal Services gives you 30 days to get the final permit. 152 153 Tony Blake: When I spoke to the kennel owner where we are, he said he felt there was a fair amount of confusion 154 between the state regulations and the county regulations but I think what you are describing is the case where 155 someone has a lot of dogs and someone decides to convert to a legitimate kennel operation. 156 157 Pete Hallenbeck: Didn’t you say part of those 30 days was to avoid the time crunch? 158 159 Michael Harvey: Yes. And Animal Services has to sign off on the building permit to say that it meets their code 160 before a building permit is issued. 161 162 Approved 3/6/13 4 Tony Blake: But doesn’t the state have to come out as well? 163 164 Michael Harvey: I don’t know the answer to that question because it is not a provision of the UDO. 165 166 Lisa Stuckey: We wouldn’t let people move into a house or building until all the approvals are finished. 167 168 Michael Harvey: If they get a Certificate of Occupancy and Animal Services signs off on the issuance of that permit 169 and it just takes 30 days to get the paperwork done to say you have your permit, I don’t see that it is a hardship 170 since Animal Services has been involved in the process from day one approving the kennel operation. You have to 171 get the Class B Special Use Permit before you can initiate construction. 172 173 Herman Staats: Relating to the seasonal housing of hunting dogs, is that considered a kennel operation? 174 175 Michael Harvey: If you have over 20 animals, you are technically in violation of the code as it is written. 176 177 Herman Staats: If it is fewer than 20? 178 179 Michael Harvey: If you are keeping them for competition, show or sport then you have to have a Class I Kennel 180 Permit. 181 182 Larry Wright: If you have a research facility and they are .... so you can have two types of research facilities, one 183 operated by the state and one by the pharmaceutical company for profit, how is that handled? 184 185 Michael Harvey: A research facility is an independent land use category in the table of permitted uses. The 186 animals are not being transferred, moved in or changed out for commercial endeavors but experimented on. 187 188 Pete Hallenbeck: What has been the biggest problem when people come in to get kennels? 189 190 Michael Harvey: Adjacent property owner reaction. 191 192 Pete Hallenbeck: Historically, is that main concern noise? 193 194 Michael Harvey: Noise plays a component piece, diminished land value, traffic, not in my back yard. 195 196 Pete Hallenbeck: With the added feature of barking dogs. Barking dogs are an interesting one because the noise 197 technically doesn’t meet the criteria for the noise ordinances in terms of how many decibels, it is not a constant 198 noise. The problem is that it is still annoying and the answer may be if the BOCC wants to deal with a barking dog 199 ordinance. 200 201 Michael Harvey: Animals Services has regulations governing barking but the comment is will there be an animal 202 services officer available at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. 203 204 Pete Hallenbeck: The rules are in place but you really need a way to enforce them at 2:00 a.m. 205 206 Rachel Hawkins: Is it because of the kennel at New Hope that these questions come up? 207 208 Michael Harvey: There are several kennels. 209 210 Rachel Hawkins: What do people want us to do? 211 212 Michael Harvey: Deny them. 213 214 Rachel Hawkins: But they are already there. 215 216 Approved 3/6/13 5 Michael Harvey: All the cases we have had so far, the adjacent property owners have failed to submit just cause. 217 218 Johnny Randall: Is there an odor component to this? 219 220 Michael Harvey: The UDO makes some reference to air pollution but no smell provisions. 221 222 Larry Wright: I have served on several animal use committees in conjunction with my work at the NIH and these 223 facilities are certified and are subject to be recertified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am not sure what the 224 source of the odor is but these boards that certify them and many are well established with veterinary schools so it 225 is a certification process. PETA is there all the time. It has been very gratifying to see the tight control and 226 safeguarding the animals being used in research. 227 228 Maxecine Mitchell: Did you find anything that anyone is doing that is better than what we have in place? 229 230 Michael Harvey: I wouldn’t say it is better or worse but it works better for them. 231 232 Maxecine Mitchell: Dogs are going to make noise but does our regulation muffle the sound? 233 234 Michael Harvey: The last two applications we had, there was an acoustical engineer brought out to talk about how 235 the applicant would construct the structure to address that issue and on the New Hope Kennel is they don’t like it 236 but they don’t hear the dogs. 237 238 Pete Hallenbeck: It is interesting to note that Chapel Hill’s answer is to have the kennels in non-residential areas 239 and Carrboro’s answer is to sound proof. 240 241 Michael Harvey: In Carrboro, it is approved through the same process that we use. 242 243 Rachel Hawkins: What are we doing with this information? 244 245 Pete Hallenbeck: Receive the update and provide feedback. 246 247 Michael Harvey: At some point, we are going back to the elected officials and provide them with your comments 248 and comments from animal service and find out what they want to do. The ones that are already there have 249 existing special use permits. 250 251 252 Agenda Item 9: Implementation Bridge Priorities – To discuss Planning Board priorities for work to be 253 started and/or accomplished in 2013. At the November 7, 2012 regular meeting when the 254 work plan was acted upon, the Planning Board Chair and Vice-Chair asked that this be a 255 discussion item for the January 9, 2013 agenda 256 Presenter: None, discussion only 257 258 Pete Hallenbeck: We have heard Planning Board members say they have opinions about things they would like to 259 change. I would like to get information from you about things you would like to address. I would like to look at some 260 of the parts of the county ordinance that would have an impact on emergency services delivery. Does anyone have 261 an item they would like to discuss? 262 263 Tony Blake: I have become interested in transit oriented development and how it fits. 264 265 Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to reference Attachment 2 which is the work that goes on the planning department to 266 define things. One of the ongoing tasks is to take this list and come up with a priority and there are a number of 267 topics already listed in the implementation bridge that are going to be working into this document. 268 269 Approved 3/6/13 6 Larry Wright: There are a couple of areas that our ordinance doesn’t address. One is adult entertainment and the 270 other is gaming. Even though gaming looks like it is not doing well that doesn’t mean in the future it will not be legal. 271 I think we should identify that before something comes up. 272 273 Pete Hallenbeck: That makes sense. Another item on my list is home offices. The current ordinance is that you can 274 have two people. I think if you are in a rural area, you could have three or four people and not adversely impact the 275 community. How can we balance that against with making sure you don’t annoy your neighbors? 276 277 Johnny Randall: There is mention of protection of natural resources but a lot of times it doesn’t say what that means. 278 What does it mean to protect a natural area? 279 280 Tony Blake: I also have an interest in the regulations for rural economic development areas. 281 282 Andrea Rohrbacher: The home business is also of interest to me. I am also interested in the outdoor events and 283 mass gatherings and some definitions to make it clear to citizens if they are having an event, they need a permit with 284 specifics. 285 286 Pete Hallenbeck: The home business issue came up during the Efland Small Area Plan; it was contrasting someone 287 wanting to open a beauty salon versus an architect that may have a client show up occasionally. 288 289 Craig Benedict: The interest on the existing goals the county has from 2009 did mention the protection and 290 promotion of Economic Development Zones and how an adult entertainment establishment in the wrong area next to 291 one of our 400 acre economic development zones would kill it. Part of our research is; are there any external issues 292 that could affect the economic development zones we have. In the goals on page 23, I put code enforcement in 293 Economic Development areas (i.e. abandoned mobile homes or derelict houses), is there a way to bolster our code 294 enforcement efforts. We have limitations at the county level but for the protection of the work we have been doing 295 over the last few years, the image of those areas is a determining factor. 296 297 Larry Wright: I would like to support that to look into the nuisance ordinance and protect these economic 298 development districts. 299 300 Pete Hallenbeck: The BOCC has a retreat on February 1 so if there are things you are interested in, email them to 301 me and I will get with staff. 302 303 Lisa Stuckey: The issues that were raised by both of the towns on page 51, 52, etc…. 304 305 Perdita Holtz: Those have been resolved. 306 307 Lisa Stuckey: I am also interested in the home occupations. I was on the Chapel Hill committee when they passed 308 theirs. 309 310 Rachel Hawkins: What does theirs include? 311 312 Lisa Stuckey: It sounds more liberal that what the county has. We looked at the same issues impacts on neighbors. 313 The issue arose for Chapel Hill in a subdivision where there were home businesses with a lot of people coming and 314 going all the time with big trucks, etc. I think Chapel Hill would be a good one to look at. 315 316 Craig Benedict: I would like to review some of the BOCC goals adopted in 2009. (Craig will forward a copy to the 317 Board). 318 319 Johnny Randall: Another issue is less solid waste per capita with cost effective and environmentally responsible 320 disposal and management. That is a huge issue in Orange County since we are going to export out solid waste. 321 There is so much education that needs to be done and reducing solid waste is one of the easiest things to do. 322 323 Approved 3/6/13 7 Tony Blake: Are you suggesting regulating the private trash haulers? 324 325 Johnny Randall: I am thinking of changing the waste stream paradigm that a majority of people live by. 326 327 328 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 329 330 a) Board of Adjustment 331 332 Larry Wright: We met with the attorneys. Protect Rural Orange wanted UNC to go through the special use permit 333 process. The Board of Adjustment decided against that. We met with just the attorneys and went through the 334 minutes and consolidated the findings. They were codified and submitted. 335 336 b) Orange Unified Transportation 337 338 Alan Campbell: We had new members added so it looks like we have some renewed energy and interest from 339 Commissioners. Basically we had a standard meeting and reviewed the progress of various road projects and our 340 own wish list of work items for the coming year. 341 342 343 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 344 345 MOTION: made by Johnny Randall to adjourn. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 346 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 347 348 ____________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair