Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 120413Approved 1/8/2014 1 1 2 MINUTES 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 4 DECEMBER 4, 2013 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 9 Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 13 Township; Stephanie O’Rourke, Eno Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; 14 Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 17 Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Hitchens 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 26 a) Planning Calendar for December and January 27 b) 2014 Planning Board Meeting Calendar 28 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 NOVEMBER 6, 2013 ORC MEETING 32 NOVEMBER 6, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 33 34 MOTION by Buddy Hartley to approve the November 6, 2013 Planning Board and ORC notes with correction. 35 Seconded by Herman Staats. 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 40 41 42 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 43 44 Introduction to the Public Charge 45 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 46 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 47 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 48 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 49 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 50 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 51 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 52 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 53 Approved 1/8/2014 2 54 PUBLIC CHARGE 55 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 56 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 57 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 58 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 59 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 60 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 61 62 63 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 64 65 66 Agenda Item 7: Planning Board Annual Report and Work Plan for County Commissioners’ Annual 67 Planning Retreat – To review and approve the input form for the annual BOCC planning 68 retreat in January 2014. The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of 69 advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning. 70 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 71 72 Craig Benedict reviewed item 73 74 Lisa Stuckey: Does anyone have any questions? Do we have a motion that includes adding number 10? 75 76 MOTION by Buddy Hartley to approve the Planning Board annual report and work plan with the addition of number 10. 77 Seconded by Herman Staats. 78 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 79 80 81 Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Home Occupations: To 82 discuss the issues raised at the November quarterly public hearing on Planning Board – 83 Planning Director initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to 84 change the existing standards for home occupations, modify and clarify existing regulations 85 and definitions associated with home occupations, and allow for the exemption of special 86 events organized or affiliated with a government or non-profit agency and to decide on a 87 course of action for revisions to the proposed amendments. 88 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 89 90 Herman Staats: Are there any monetary values that guide whether something is considered an occupation? 91 92 Ashley Moncado: I have not seen anything in my research that puts a value on it. 93 94 Paul Guthrie: It is a big question in terms of the revised definition of what was covered but also because you are 95 technically out of compliance or illegal if you have one visitor and one retail sale out of your house the way this is 96 written. I think the definition is vague because the way it is worded and it pales behind the question of how many 97 transactions is the planning staff going to have to handle, and with these definitions there will be thousands. 98 99 Ashley Moncado: The purpose of this item is to be able to review the comments from the quarterly public hearing 100 and receive feedback from you to provide a proposal for review at the January Planning Board meeting. 101 102 Ashley Moncado reviewed the list of comments. 103 104 Paul Guthrie: We have a home business in our house, my daughter works full time in her house in Orange County. 105 I want to zero in on the standards of evaluations of all home occupations in paragraph in red on page 40. That 106 Approved 1/8/2014 3 statement by its character would suggest that if any one of those things occurred in your business you would be 107 required to file for at least a minor permit? 108 109 Ashley Moncado: Correct. Our intention of writing the on-site retail sales…what you are describing is that she is 110 not welcoming anyone on to the site. Everything is done online or on the phone. 111 112 Paul Guthrie: What about the internet sale. 113 114 Ashley Moncado: If you are looking at internet sales and no one is being welcome on site then they would be 115 exempt. As soon as you welcome people on the site and have a sales transaction, then you would have to go 116 through a minor home occupation. 117 118 Paul Guthrie: I went back to the UDO and in the context of this language that is what flagged this immediately. I 119 think we need to be careful as we expand this. 120 121 Tony Blake: I was reading the Carrboro response on page 31 and they brought up a couple of issues that were 122 transitive issues from allowing the other home base business and it talks about how many people and how many 123 vehicles and their security. These are the types of small businesses under the radar out there and I don’t want to 124 discourage them. We need to find a way to fix that. 125 126 Herman Staats: If this is a planning issue where we consider use of property, etc. then the implementation of it and 127 what guides that implementation is the question. Are we asking for links or copies of tax returns? How do we 128 implement this? If for farming, you have to have a dollar amount to be classified as a farm. 129 130 Perdita Holtz: Can I clarify that point. It is no longer the case that you have to have a certain level of sales to be 131 classified a bona fide farm; the state legislature changed it last year. There is no longer a minimum amount. 132 133 Herman Staats: My point is about being tax exempt with a certain dollar amount that defines that you a real farm 134 and deserve a tax exempt status. Is it the purpose of this permitting process to make someone selling a hundred 135 bucks a year to get a permit? Are there guidelines? 136 137 Paul Guthrie: The only difficulties are sales is very different in terms of that one sale. 138 139 Lisa Stuckey: A lot of sole proprietorships aren’t tax exempt. I don’t know where to draw the line. How onerous is 140 the process we have developed? 141 142 Michael Harvey: Under the current process, which is what the minor will end up being, the application package 143 requires the applicant show us the property using a plot plan, provide a floor plan of your house, and a detailed 144 narrative explaining the operations of the home based business. We can typically handle an application within 30 145 minutes if you want to wait for it, you pay your $90 application fee, we send you the approval packet, you sign it and 146 you are on record as having the permit being issued. 147 148 Lisa Stuckey: Is there an annual fee? 149 150 Michael Harvey: No. 151 152 Paul Guthrie: This is a backdoor business license. 153 154 Perdita Holtz: No, it is a land use regulation. 155 156 Tony Blake: We are interested in the impact on their property and their neighbors. The function of planning is to 157 say, we are looking for innovation, we shouldn’t hobble it. The rest of the regulation is for another department. 158 159 Approved 1/8/2014 4 Lisa Stuckey: If it is basically invisible to the neighbors, how much impact is that having on the neighbors? 160 161 Tony Blake: We are allowing some of these subdivisions to come in and they are next to a farm, it’s like the guy 162 moving next to the airport and complaining about the planes. 163 164 Lisa Stuckey: On page 40, I would like to get rid of 2A, 3A and 6. I think it is very inappropriate. 165 166 Ashley Moncado: To be clear, this isn’t about the office space but the day to day operations they would be allowed 167 to operate. 168 169 Lisa Stuckey: I think with number 2A4 that it shouldn’t be visible. Something should be added for visible impact. 170 171 Craig Benedict: There is a standard for normal storage for home occupations license which is 500 square feet. As 172 long as that is screened, you are saying it is ok. 173 174 Herman Staats: I am still concerned about implementation. 175 176 Tony Blake: What is the definition of a business? 177 178 Craig Benedict: If someone is claiming it as a business, and they have to meet tax laws, then they should have a 179 home occupation license. 180 181 Paul Guthrie: You just brought in all the telecommuters with that last phrase. 182 183 Tony Blake: The way people find out is if there is a complaint issue. 184 185 Perdita Holtz: Michael uses his discretion to find that out. 186 187 Michael Harvey: The goal of the UDO is not to stop Lucy Van Pelt from selling lemonade but allow reasonable use 188 of property so that your reasonable use doesn’t impact your neighbors. If you have an incidental home occupation, 189 selling a tree they cut down, does that activity rise to a level of business requiring the submitted of a home 190 occupation permit application for review and approval? Not unless you do it every day. 191 192 Ashley Moncado: We can look into adding language regarding no visible disturbance impact. If that is included, 193 would you see there would not be a need for landscaping and buffering or keep that intact? 194 195 Lisa Stuckey: I don’t know. To me that is a little bit of protection. 196 197 Ashley Moncado: If you exceed the setback standard, and you go beyond that you would not have provide 198 landscaping. 199 200 Craig Benedict: There was also a lot size involved. 201 202 Paul Guthrie: How will you enforce this if it approved? 203 204 Craig Benedict: We are permitting this amount; we know there is this amount. By this ordinance, we are allowing 205 this to happen or bringing more into compliance. We think we have resolved a lot of issues more than creating 206 issues. The implementation, we are doing public outreach, we may do a phase in but it is not going to be a hard 207 handed implementation because rural lifestyles are engrained. This will be a soft implementation. 208 209 Lisa Stuckey: You look this up, an accessory business use which is owned or operated. That is the definition. Is it 210 helpful for you to have a more concrete definition or is that adequate? 211 212 Approved 1/8/2014 5 Craig Benedict: We like to be as specific as possible. 213 214 Herman Staats: If this is put in place to provide more leverage in the case where it is needed for resolution of 215 complaints, then this will serve its purpose. 216 217 Tony Blake: I didn’t want to outlaw people who were not bothering anyone. I think the County wants to encourage 218 development. 219 220 Ashley Moncado: Any more comments? 221 222 Craig Benedict: We will have to see how these revisions you suggested are incorporated into the text and Ashley 223 will bring it back next month for a formal vote. 224 225 Ashley Moncado: After the Planning Board votes on this item in January 2014, it will go to the BOCC in February 226 2014. 227 228 Tony Blake: Did you make any attempt to address Alice’s concern about the size of the building in the minor? 229 230 Ashley Moncado: That was commented on for Board discussion tonight. 231 232 233 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Telecommunications 234 Facilities: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 235 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent changes in State law with 236 respect to the review and processing of applications proposing the development or 237 modification of telecommunication facilities. This item was heard at the November 25, 2013 238 quarterly public hearing. 239 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 240 241 Michael Harvey: Reviewed proposal. 242 243 Paul Guthrie: The operative word is physical. Do you feel that will limit your ability to object to a modification? 244 245 Michael Harvey: We had that discussion. The answer is no because when you read that section in totality there 246 are other requirements that the cell tower provider will have to adhere to. The County attorney wanted to put in 247 language indicating the physical dimensions (of the tower) are part of the key decision making process because 248 obviously the session laws, as imbedded here, allows for certain increases in height to certain standards (without 249 the need for County approval). 250 251 Michael Harvey: Anything over 200 feet you have to have illuminated. 252 253 Tony Blake: Most of the telecommunication towers we are putting up have requirements for generators and the 254 new one that has come out recently is anti-aviary protection, bird nests being built up there. They are using sound 255 and other means of discouragement, also solar panels on the tops of these towers as ancillary power. Are all those 256 covered in other areas of the UDO? 257 258 Michael Harvey: I would argue they are covered in the standard section for approval where you have to approve 259 any apparatus placed on the tower and prove said apparatus will not overburden the tower to cause structural 260 failure. So it is already covered. 261 262 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the UDO Text Amendment regarding wireless facilities in their jurisdiction with the 263 proposed amendment from the County Attorney. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 264 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 265 Approved 1/8/2014 6 266 267 Agenda Item 10: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Board of Adjustment 268 Operation: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 269 to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate recent changes in State law with 270 respect to items reviewed and acted upon by the Orange County Board of Adjustment. This 271 item was heard at the November 25, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 272 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 273 274 Michael Harvey: Reviewed item. 275 276 MOTION by Herman Staats to recommend to the BOCC the proposed amendments for the UDO Text Amendment 277 related to the Board of Adjustment operation and procedures as amended. Seconded by James Lea. 278 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 279 280 281 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 282 283 a) Board of Adjustment 284 b) Orange Unified Transportation 285 286 287 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 288 289 MOTION: made by Tony Blake to adjourn. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 290 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 291 292 ____________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair