Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 040313Approved 6/5/13 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 APRIL 3, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 6 Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 7 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; 8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township 11 Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township 12 Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative 13 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22 a) Planning Calendar for March and April 23 b) Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 MARCH 6, 2013 28 29 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the March 6, 2013 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 34 35 36 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 37 38 Introduction to the Public Charge 39 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 40 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 41 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 42 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 43 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 44 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 45 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 46 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 47 48 PUBLIC CHARGE 49 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 50 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 51 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 52 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 53 Approved 6/5/13 2 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 54 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 58 59 Pete Hallenbeck: In your packet we had the summary of things people had talked about regarding directions to go 60 for the UDO and the Planning Board and I also enclosed 3 pages on what I have been thinking about with regard to 61 emergency services and home occupations. I don’t really want to discuss those tonight. I put those in there so 62 you could see an example of what I’d like to see from members. We have the first step, things we’re interested in, 63 I’d like as a second step to get more specific things. What I am purposing is that I’ll take all that and condense it in 64 and then we can all read it and when it’s time to discuss it, we have input from everyone and we’ve read it in 65 advance. It should be a wonderful discussion. 66 67 Lisa Stuckey: Are you going to send an email asking for us to submit it. 68 69 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I’ll do that. 70 71 72 Agenda Item 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation to 73 the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing 74 language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater 75 management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public 76 hearing and was discussed by the Planning Board at its March 6 meeting. 77 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 78 79 80 Michael Harvey: As you will recall last month we began looking at a purposed UDO text amendment where we 81 were wrestling with the notion of providing appropriate reference to recently approved stormwater management 82 guidelines. In doing this we identified several options and we were directed by the elected officials to get input from 83 OWASA. At last month’s meeting there was a unanimous consensus amongst the Planning Board that option C 84 was the preferred method. This option has been incorporated into the proposed amendment package you are 85 reviewing this evening and has staff approval as well. What will happen now when you develop your property for a 86 residential use, the way this now reads, is if you reach the stormwater land disturbance thresholds that we have 87 provided on page 18 of your packet, you will have to produce a site specific development plan. The Ordinance also 88 now contains language indicating you are going to show us everything on that one site specific development plan 89 so that erosion control and current planning are looking at the same document. What we’re hoping also is that 90 health is going to be looking at that same document so the three agencies that are clearly concerned about land 91 development and environmental protection are all going to be working from the same central document. We have 92 eliminated the 6% requirement, with respect to serving as a trigger for the submission of a professionally prepared 93 site plan, all together. Our opinion on the validity of this recommendation is bolstered by the fact that in attachment 94 3 of your packet, we have a letter from OWASA basically saying we don’t care. 95 96 Michael Harvey: A couple of clarifying points, as you will recall this doesn’t change impervious surface limits. One 97 of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Gordon at the quarterly public hearing is that we are going to be 98 lessening the protections for the University Lake both Critical and Protected overlay districts. This is simply not 99 true. 6% is still the impervious surface limit for this area of the County. There was a question at the last Planning 100 Board Meeting, what happens if you get your plot plan from an applicant and you think it’s over its impervious 101 surface allotment. Staff can still require, per the UDO, a formally prepared site plan. We have done that on a few 102 occasions in Orange County even in the less protected watersheds. From our standpoint this is a reasonable 103 compromise, it provides the link we were looking for in terms of referring people to the stormwater thresholds. We 104 are asking the Board to complete its review, you have OWASA’s statement and the ordinance amendment has 105 been rewritten to incorporate option c as suggested by the Board. 106 107 Approved 6/5/13 3 108 Maxecine Mitchell: So you’re saying that the cutting of trees is part of the impervious surface? 109 110 Michael Harvey: That would be part of land disturbance, as we discussed at the quarterly public hearing when 111 Commissioner Dorosin asked the same question but the simple act of cutting a tree does not mean you are adding 112 impervious surface area to your property. Once you built a house, you build a driveway (gravel), these actions 113 represent the placement of impervious surface area on your property which for the majority of the County is limited 114 based on your location within a Watershed Protection Overlay District. Say you have a wooded area and you clear 115 that for your septic field, you clear additional area for view shed, to support the development of your house, that is 116 land disturbance activities. What this ordinance amendment does is make reference to existing standards that if 117 you exceed this level of land disturbance, you have to do the formal stormwater plan and we will require the site 118 specific development plan with it. 119 120 Pete Hallenbeck: So what we’re looking at here is these disturbance limits that we’re reviewing on page 18 is that 121 disturbance defined as both the impervious surface and ground that you tear up for some reason. 122 123 Herman Staats: So that I understand, cutting timber is not land disturbance if you don’t dig up the roots or bulldoze? 124 125 Michael Harvey: Cutting timber can be in certain circumstances, as defined by erosion control, can be land 126 disturbance. There are situations where it is exempt because it is either a bona fide farm or if you’re not disturbing 127 the ground cover. In theory yes, that is true but once you disturb the ground cover then it becomes land 128 disturbance. 129 130 Pete Hallenbeck: Commissioner McKee was curious how this would impact someone who wanted to build a house 131 for parents or children on their land and I’ve had some emails and worked through some examples. My take is that 132 there is no simple way to sum up the impact of this and say as long as it’s only this size house, you’re good 133 because the process requires all these different aspects. What does house disturbance footprint, which is going to 134 be an impervious surface plus some area of around it, the driveway footprint, the septic tank, other areas. Also 135 having gone through the process of having built a house in the county, there is a bunch of stuff going on, and my 136 experience was that the sooner you engage the planning department with what you’re doing the better because 137 they can walk you through the rules and this is all part of the process of designing what you’re doing. I think the 138 best you can do to explain it to people is just make them aware of this process. 139 140 Herman Staats: I remember Commissioner McKee was asking about what someone could do if they got a piece of 141 land, the recommendation that we’re making is based on the state law, is that right? 142 143 Michael Harvey: The recommendation you’re making is, instead of having the existing standard which says 144 everybody in University Lake has to give you a professionally prepared site plan no matter what, we are basically 145 linking the submission of that site plan to the stormwater land disturbance thresholds we adopted last year. That to 146 us is a universal standard. No matter what we do this is here. It’s our position, and you have agreed with it, there’s 147 no need to have multiple caveats in the code which is what we have now. 148 149 Tony Blake: The County always has the sufficient cause to ask for one (site plan). 150 151 Michael Harvey: Yes, we do what is called a site assessment now for every project typically before they even apply 152 for a building permit. Site assessment is designed to identify all environmental factors and issues on any given 153 parcel of property. Its main purpose is to identify for health, in advance of their applying for a septic permit, what 154 areas can and cannot support a septic system. We use that process, that document that we produce using aerial 155 photography to identify these types of issues. 156 157 Pete Hallenbeck: My experience has been that if you can get the idea across to people to go talk to the County first 158 you can avoid a lot of headaches and they will help you understand these Ordinances and help you work through 159 the numbers and look at the options. 160 161 Approved 6/5/13 4 Michael Harvey: We’ve had a lot of success with the site assessment. People don’t like to do it but when they find 162 that its free and find that we identify issues before they go spending money, they seem to be somewhat happier but 163 they still don’t like the notion, it ultimately down to ‘it’s my property, I’ll do what I want’ and unfortunately that’s not 164 viable opinion to have in an age when zoning and land use issues are at the forefront of regulation. 165 166 Lisa Stuckey: I can envision a person who is under the limits and goes forward and then slowly but surely they 167 landscape more and more over years. 168 169 Michael Harvey: It’s not a cumulative issue. Impervious surface is a cumulative issue but land disturbance is not. 170 Having said that if you are required to adhere to an approved stormwater management plan and disturb property 171 invalidating that plan, you will have to take appropriate measures to address compliance with our regulations. 172 173 Pete Hallenbeck: There’s the incremental project where you add impervious surface and there’s the incremental 174 project where all the disturbed area from your previous project is grown over, has grass, is good and you’re 175 disturbing a new area and those are different things. 176 177 Michael Harvey: Right, you may recall when Terry Hackett appeared before you last April, different types of land 178 cover have different levels of credit for stormwater. A forest has the best and grass is not bad but it is the worst you 179 can have because it is just grassy field. As we continue to move forward, these regulations are going to become 180 somewhat more cumbersome. There are going to be more impacts on property owners and ability to develop 181 property and unfortunately this is the direction we are headed. 182 183 MOTION: made by Tony Blake to accept the Planning Department’s recommendation for Option C. Seconded by 184 Buddy Hartley. 185 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 186 187 188 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 189 190 a) Board of Adjustment 191 b) Orange Unified Transportation 192 193 Members and staff had some general discussion regarding cell towers. 194 195 196 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 197 198 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 199 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 200 201 __________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair