Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 030514Approved 4/2/14 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 MARCH 5, 2014 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove 7 Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Tony 8 Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-9 Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large 13 Bingham Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 14 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 17 Special Projects Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 18 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Beth Trahos, Mike Brough, Donna Easterlin, Don Easterlin, Brent Niemann, Louis Lannoue, Rich 21 Kirkland, Gabe Cantor 22 23 24 HANDOUTS: Email from Alice Gordon to Peter Eckhoff; Email from Louis Iannone to Michael Harvey; Memorandum 25 from Michael Brough to Orange County Planning Board 26 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 29 30 Lisa Stuckey called the meeting to order. 31 32 Tina Love: The Board of Adjustment meeting for next Monday is cancelled but there will be a meeting in April. 33 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 36 a) Planning Calendar for March and April 37 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 FEBRUARY 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 41 42 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the February 5, 2014 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Paul Guthrie. 43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 44 45 46 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 47 48 49 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 50 51 Introduction to the Public Charge 52 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 53 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 54 Approved 4/2/14 2 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 55 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 56 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 57 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 58 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 59 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 60 61 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 62 63 Lisa Stuckey: I was notified that Home Occupations will be coming back to us in April. 64 65 Perdita Holtz: There was a BOCC meeting which is available on the County’s website under Meeting Videos. We 66 thought this agenda was going to be full so we decided to put it on April’s schedule. 67 68 AGENDA ITEM 7: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 69 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special Use Permit application 70 seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of property, totaling 71 approximately 52 acres in are, off of Redman Road between the railway and Interstate 85/40 72 in Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 73 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 74 75 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 76 77 Tony Blake: Were Ms. Wise’s concerns addressed? 78 79 Michael Harvey: She has not responded to me. I have met with her three times since the public hearing to review 80 the site plan with her and I will meet with her again to review this item. Strata Solar has reached out to her on two 81 occasions where they said here are our responses, we would like to meet with you. I can’t tell you whether she 82 agreed to that. 83 84 Paul Guthrie: Have there been any other letters since the public hearing? 85 86 Michael Harvey: No sir except this one. 87 88 Lisa Stuckey: Everything has to go into the public record, either orally at the public hearing or in writing although we 89 can ask for clarification tonight. 90 91 Michael Harvey: This packet will be entered into the record when the quarterly public hearing is reconvened 92 including this email and any other emails as we move forward. 93 94 Lisa Stuckey: Do you need any feedback from us? 95 96 Michael Harvey: Only if you have questions you want staff or Strata Solar to respond to by the next meeting. 97 98 99 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: 100 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application to rezone an approximately 12 ace 101 parcel of property located at 5908 US 70 East in Eno Township from Economic Development 102 Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1); Economic Development Eno High Intensity (EDE-2); and Lower 103 Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay to Economic Development Eno High Intensity 104 (EDE-2) and Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay. This item was heard at the 105 February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 106 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 107 108 Approved 4/2/14 3 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 109 110 Paul Guthrie: Who is operating the communications tower? 111 112 Michael Harvey: AT&T has an antenna on it and other telecommunication providers are located on it. I believe 113 Verizon has re-erected an antenna or either AT&T has changed out their existing antennas. 114 115 Lisa Stuckey: Those two rectangular pieces that look like a residence, is that part of a different lot? Would it be a re-116 division of the property to sell it? 117 118 Michael Harvey: Correct. 119 120 Lisa Stuckey: The remaining property, what are the divisions? 121 122 Michael Harvey: The blue line represents all this property and the red line is the area to be rezoned. 123 124 Lisa Stuckey: There are three parcels. So those two smaller parcels could be sold at any time without dividing the 125 property. 126 127 Michael Harvey: Yes, if they choose to do so. 128 129 Tony Blake: So the 12 acres in question is the entire red box including the building and that building is not a 130 separate lot. 131 132 Michael Harvey: That is the legal description supplied by the applicant’s surveyor. That is correct. 133 134 MOTION by Herman Staats to approve the Ordinance in attachment 2, approving the Rezoning Petition and approve 135 attachment 3 which is the Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Johnny Randall. 136 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 137 138 139 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: 140 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on an application seeking to amend Section 5.6.5 141 (A) (2) (b) Kennels (Class II) – Standards of Evaluation to reduce required setbacks for Class 142 II Kennels developed within the EDE-2 zoning district. This item was heard at the February 143 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 144 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 145 146 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. What I will state and ask the Board to remember is our recommendation is still 147 unfavorable and if this Board is going to make a recommendation to approve the request, we have provided 148 language in Attachment 3 of this document that incorporates the Easterlin’s request to amend the UDO in a manner 149 consistent with the UDO framework. If this Board is going to make an affirmative finding and recommendation, we 150 would ask you do it on the language contained in Attachment 3. 151 152 Buddy Hartley: Inside the black area, that area is used for the purpose of training dogs? 153 154 Michael Brough: A portion of that area is being used for the training of dogs. 155 156 Buddy Hartley: The building in the red box that is used for training purposes? 157 158 Michael Brough: Yes. It was constructed as a residence but it is not being used as that. 159 160 Approved 4/2/14 4 Michael Harvey: The staff was asked to provide a visual representation of the property that would meet the 161 appropriate setbacks as currently required. The Easterlins' are proposing this. We wanted to provide the Board with 162 what would comply and what exists. 163 164 Michael Brough: What we are making in the memorandum is that while that is an area that complies with the legal 165 requirements assuming the rest of the property was rezoned, there is a substantial portion of that property which 166 does not lend itself to the expansion of the exercise area. (Described map). There is an area they could build an 167 exercise area but that misses the point. From our perspective under the narrow circumstances this addresses, this 168 would be a very expensive proposition. What good does that achieve? It is multiple thousands of dollars. The point 169 of our request is it is a legislative matter when you weigh cost and benefits and the cost of this private business, 170 which serves a great purpose for the County and surrounding areas, is very high and the benefit is virtual non-171 existent in this case. There have not been any complaints by either of the surrounding property owners and they 172 were notified of this amendment. It gets down to this question; those objections are essentially theoretical in context. 173 These properties will not be developed until sewer gets there. When it does get developed, it is hard to imagine this 174 area being developed in any way not a substantially intensive use. You have situation where you have a problem we 175 are trying to solve. We have come up with a solution that works and is narrowly drawn and has no real negative 176 impacts on any but provides a legal and practical solution that we have been trying to solve for years. There is a 177 legitimate distinction between why we are limiting this to EDE-2 when it makes no sense to have 150-foot setback if 178 the adjoining property is not intensively zoned for development or residential development. Those circumstances 179 maybe 150 feet is all right but when you have a situation like this, it makes no sense to have 150-foot setback. 180 181 Michael Harvey: This property here is split zoned, this portion is EDE-1 so the 150 foot setback would apply, this 182 portion is zoned EDE-2. 183 184 Michael Brough: Years down the road if this property were developed, anybody who moved there would already 185 know what is there. 186 187 Paul Guthrie: Where is the current exercise yard? 188 189 Michael Brough: In the blue lines. 190 191 Paul Guthrie: Is this considered necessary, that space now being used as an exercise yard is clearly smaller than 192 the total area of proposed change so is it the configuration of the terrain of that limits its use or are there other 193 reasons. 194 195 Michael Brough: There are buildings there and topographic issues in the lower part of the site that slopes. There is 196 an area that is flat and open. Whether that is one third or one half of that site that could be developed but while you 197 could have some exercise area it is very expensive and you are giving up acres of your site in the northwest corner. 198 There are two elements the costs of pulling down the fence and putting up a new fence and the other element is that 199 the 150 foot setback requires them to give up a substantial amount of property it amounts to acres of lands. 200 201 Paul Guthrie: Is this an enlargement or maintaining the same level of animals that are cared for? Will you be 202 increasing or maintaining the same level of animal care? 203 204 Michael Brough: The long term plan would be that the property would be consolidated and then divided to segregate 205 out a lot around the existing tower and the rest would be submitted for a special use permit covering all the remaining 206 property and the particular uses at that time would be to have an expansion into the area that would be permissible. 207 208 Paul Guthrie: I understand the cost argument but is it necessary to tear down the old fence or will you recycle the old 209 fence? 210 211 Michael Brough: I can’t tell you. 212 213 Mrs. Easterlin: The cost I gave you was to use the existing fence. 214 Approved 4/2/14 5 215 Michael Brough: We have a cost estimate here that comes to $55,000. 216 217 Craig Benedict: I will make some general comments as you deliberate on a legislative decision to change the 218 aspects of a zoning district EDE-2. If it is a general problem, you can address things generally. As a companion to 219 that if it a specific issue, try to address the problem specifically or isolated. Another moral (standard) is each zoning 220 districts has uses that are permitted by right. That is what the Planning Board and BOCC have determined that those 221 are the most appropriate uses that permitted by right. Those are the ones that are anchors of a zoning district. 222 Special uses do not have the same standing in a zoning district as a use permitted by right. Before you change 223 regulations, is there a way to change how things are operated or change location of buildings. Also, if you make a 224 change in this zoning district, could it ever be used to justify changes in another zoning district? The last thing is that 225 we do not base regulation changes based on what the land is on now; we based it on what the land is zoned or what 226 the future land use is. 227 228 Lisa Stuckey: Under this proposed text amendment, would the fence still need to be at least 25 feet from the 229 property line? 230 231 Michael Harvey: If this is approved, yes. 232 233 Lisa Stuckey: So the fence has to be moved. 234 235 Michael Harvey: The fence has to be moved or the Easterlins' will have to purchase additional property to make it 236 comply with the 25-foot setback. 237 238 Lisa Stuckey: The wording doesn’t permit it to be close on the property line but always 25 feet. 239 240 Michael Harvey: When it is adjacent to property zoned EDE-2 the setback will be 25 feet. 241 242 Herman Staats: The blue line is the current fence; the black line is the setback in compliance. 243 244 Michael Harvey: The special use permit approved recognizing these structures as being part of the dog kennel 245 operation approved in 1986. It is the dog runs that create the problem. 246 247 Herman Staats: The setback refers to outside use or any use. 248 249 Michael Harvey: The ordinance states that the 150-foot applies to all buildings and outdoors exercise areas. There 250 was obviously a different interpretation in 1986. The rule does allow for the 150-foot setback to be waived if portions 251 where animals are housed are completely enclosed in the building. The interpretation that we have utilized since I 252 began work with the County in 2005 says that if all portions of the facility are in a building, no outdoor area at all , then 253 the 150 rule does not apply. 254 255 Tony Blake: So technically he is not in compliance. 256 257 Michael Harvey: I am not going to say this is non-conforming because I have a special use permit and approval that 258 says otherwise. 259 260 Buddy Hartley: The only place the animals are housed is in the original spot? 261 262 Michael Brough: The blue box with white areas is like portable carports. 263 264 Buddy Hartley: I am familiar with the area. You have more area for dog runs in the black box. 265 266 Michael Brough: There is area there but the problem is that it will cost thousands of dollars to do it. As you have 267 already pointed out, you have got buildings well within the 150-foot setback. 268 Approved 4/2/14 6 269 Buddy Hartley: If those are covered areas, they could be moved to the areas in black. 270 271 Michael Brough: The fence is an issue and then we have the issue of why are we taking away 125 feet out of the 272 ability to use their property when the adjoining property owners do not object. 273 274 Johnny Randall: The area of the existing fence that is on the property line, will that have to be moved anyway? 275 276 Michael Harvey: The Easterlins’ will have to move the fence 25 feet or purchase additional property so the fence 277 complies with the setback. 278 279 Buddy Hartley: Either way it will be expensive. 280 281 Tony Blake: Have the Economic Development folks weighed in on this. 282 283 Michael Harvey: No. 284 285 Tony Blake: There should be a way to tweak things that are special cases without affecting every EDD (2) parcel in 286 the County. It seems this is not unreasonable in this instance. I don’t see the benefit in enforcing this or putting this 287 type of burden on a small business. 288 289 Craig Benedict: In my comments, this is not about looking at one property. I am not specifically talking about this 290 use that is here but the long-term guidelines. We are not looking at someone’s site plan when we are addressing 291 changing a zoning district that we should not even looking at. I am representing EDD (2) zoning everywhere. 292 293 Paul Guthrie: If the owners were to abandon the use and leave it there and not use it for anything, would you have to 294 tear the fence down? 295 296 Michael Harvey: If the area wasn’t used as an exercise yard, then there would be no 150-foot setback. 297 298 Paul Guthrie: There would be no need to tear down that fence and move it? 299 300 Michael Harvey: That assumes that it is no longer utilized for the purpose that the Easterlins’ want to use it. 301 302 Paul Guthrie: If they only had to erect a fenced area inside the black box that was sufficient to give the exercise they 303 want to give, would that change the financial impact? 304 305 Michael Brough: Even if you left the fence there you would have to re-fence another area. You are saying acres of 306 property and leaving it unusable. It would be cheaper to leave the fence there and not use that part of the property at 307 all and erect a new fence somewhere else on the property. 308 309 Mrs. Easterlin: The blue line around the outside, there are also several fenced in yards inside the area so we have 310 about nine yards. 311 312 Tony Blake: The way the amendments read there would need to be someone out there with them. 313 314 Michael Harvey: I have never seen a situation where the dogs were out there overnight. 315 316 Lisa Stuckey: We can’t make them put them in. 317 318 Michael Harvey: Technically the UDO doesn’t require it but animal services will mandate the animals have to be kept 319 inside in the evening. This ordinance does require an applicant get the appropriate Class 2 permit from Animal 320 Services in order to operate the kennel. 321 322 Approved 4/2/14 7 Lisa Stuckey: There is not another zoning that would be more appropriate that would have smaller setback. 323 324 Michael Harvey: The setback is related to the kennel. We looked at conditional use but we have language in the 325 UDO that states once we have adopted a development standard (i.e. a setback), it has to be observed. 326 327 Johnny Randall: Is the six-foot high chain link fence required? 328 329 Michael Harvey: Yes. If they want to suggest alternative fencing, we could discuss it. This is a dual review process. 330 Orange County Planning and the Board of Adjustment are reviewing it. 331 332 Tony Blake: What other General Use Zoning District designations could this possibly effect. 333 334 Michael Harvey: None. There could be an extensive reinvestigation of the viability of 150-foot setback in other non-335 residential zoning districts. This only impacts all the property-zoned EDE-2. 336 337 James Lea: Wouldn’t it also impact all Class 2 kennels? 338 339 Michael Harvey: They would have to come back to the Board of Adjustment and amend their existing approved site 340 plan to take advantage of the reduction if it were approved. 341 342 Michael Brough: Regarding that last questions, kennels are permissible in a number of different district but this was 343 limited to the EDE-2 district and further limited to properties that are zoned EDE-2 district. Let me address the 344 general as opposed to the specific. I concur with what Craig has said but in this situation it does that, is there any 345 why you have property that is zoned to a district that allows a 25 foot setback for some of these intensive uses, how 346 does it make sense this use requires a 150 foot setback. What is the point of a 150-foot setback? The main part of 347 our argument is that it doesn’t make sense to have a 150-foot setback for a kennel use when it is in an EDE-2 district 348 adjoining property that is zoned for intensive use. This is a policy that is of general applicability to the circumstances 349 we have made it apply to. Does this ordinance make sense in the context in which it applies? We would submit it 350 does not. The ordinance is designed to serve public interest and there is not a public interest in this. 351 352 Lisa Stuckey: The 150-foot setback would apply to all Class 2 kennels in the County? 353 354 Michael Harvey: Yes. 355 356 Craig Benedict: What are some of the adverse impacts that come forward for special use permits. The four general 357 categories are noise, dust, vibration and odor. When things are enclosed in a building, most of the impacts go away. 358 These are what you need a wider type of buffer for. It has been determined that 25 feet because of the noise factor 359 was not a distance that would protect those adverse impacts from imparting upon adjacent property. 360 361 Perdita Holtz: May I add one thing to provide clarification. Even if you are a manufacturing facility and theoretically 362 can locate 25 feet away, there are other standards in the UDO that you have to comply with if you do make dust or 363 noise or vibration so you may be able to go to the minimum setback if you are a pretty benign manufacturing 364 operation but you may be required to locate further away so those impacts of noise, vibration, dust, or odor do not 365 cross the property line. There are standards in the UDO that other uses have to comply with that may require that 366 they move further away from the property lines than the minimum setback requires. 367 368 Michael Brough: That gets down to the final question. There have not been any complaints since 2005. You are 369 dealing with a theoretical concern. These folks have a real problem that you can solve. 370 371 Andrea Rohrbacher: Even though Mr. Brough has stated there have been no complaints on this property, I know of 372 another property in Orange County, in the Town of Carrboro, where there is a compliant because there is less than 373 150 foot distance. 374 375 Johnny Randall: Just because there are no complaints, we don’t know why. 376 Approved 4/2/14 8 377 Lisa Stuckey: We have two options in terms of proposed changes. Doesn’t anyone want to move on Attachment 2 378 or if we are going to consider this would it be Attachment 3? I would like to get Attachment 2 off the table if this is not 379 a viable option. We are taking Attachment 2 off the table. Attachment 2 was what Mr. Brough had written. 380 Attachment 3 language is what Michael Harvey wrote. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion? 381 382 Craig Benedict: Attachment 3 is to approve the change. 383 384 James Lea: This would apply to all Class 2 kennels? 385 386 Michael Harvey: This only impacts kennels potentially in the EDE-2. When you have an EDE-2 and you want to put 387 a kennel on it, it if surrounded by EDE-2 zoning, the setback is 25 feet. 388 389 Paul Guthrie: Is the recommendation of the staff that we vote no on that? 390 391 Michael Harvey: Our recommendation is to deny the request. If you are going to approve it, use the language in 392 Attachment 3. 393 394 MOTION by Andrea Rohrbacher not to adopt the change. Seconded by Johnny Randall. 395 VOTE: 6 Yes 2 No (Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake). 396 397 Mr. Easterlin: We serviced 100,000 dogs in the last seven years. Someone has to take care of those dogs and we 398 have to have room to do it. We are not going to have dogs we cannot let out. I want you to understand we have 399 really done a job. My wife goes to work at 7:00 a.m. I just can’t understand why when we take care of these 400 animals. 401 402 Lisa Stuckey: It is clear we were all struggling with this. We make a recommendation and the final decision is made 403 by the BOCC. 404 405 Craig Benedict: If you are voting on something, it shouldn’t be about one person’s property. That is why we have 406 such odd feelings. I tried to separate what is on the ground to what the general rules of decision-making are by 407 legislative bodies so it doesn’t reduce itself. 408 409 Paul Guthrie: I appreciate your comments but the legislative procedure is both. It is matters of policy and impact and 410 the decision made in committees and every place I have been involved, both apply. When we come to a decision to 411 vote for or against a recommendation, it is a balancing act. 412 413 Tony Blake: We lack the tools to make the right decision. It was all or nothing. In this case, I think their argument is 414 on but the problem is we can’t make specific exceptions. We need the ability to do that. 415 416 Michael Harvey: With all due respect, that is not this Board’s role and function. That is the function of the Board of 417 Adjustment. 418 419 Tony Blake: They were denied that avenue. 420 421 Michael Harvey: They were not denied anything; even their own attorney admitted it was not viable. 422 423 Lisa Stuckey: Maybe it should be. Maybe under these circumstances these people should have the opportunity to 424 continue their business but no one after them. If the business is sold, etc. I can see a situation where that area was 425 filling in and developing and someone wanting to put in a restaurant there and then those dogs would be a problem. 426 What do you do? 427 428 Tony Blake: We do allow a use to exist that has existed prior to the zoning change and it seems that it existed prior. 429 430 Approved 4/2/14 9 Michael Harvey: The previous users had a special use permit. 431 432 433 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 434 a. Board of Adjustment 435 Michael Harvey: There was no meeting this month. 436 437 b. Orange Unififed Transportation 438 Paul Guthrie: We will meet in a couple of weeks with a main focus of continuing to focus on rural transporation 439 projects. The BOCC representative on Triangle Transit will take a message saying what Orange County needs to 440 being its rural transportation. The first project will be dancing with Triangle Transit over the Mebane express route 441 whether it runs strictly on the interstate or it might get down on a road to pick up people at a resonable distance. 442 443 Craig Benedict: Even thought the population is 55% Chapel Hill/Carrboro and 45% Hillsborough and Orange County 444 there are more senior citizens in that 45% of the County than in Chapel Hill/ Carrboro. We are trying to provide 445 access to quality public transportation. 446 447 Tony Blake: Since Perdita presented the Eno EDD Small Area plan, that is screaming for transit. 448 449 Perdita Holtz: That was the Efland Small Area plan. 450 451 Tony Blake: Is there any movement to bring these people together and help the landowners to see the vision? 452 453 Craig Benedict: We are trying to create a hub in Efland. We are working on an East/West transporation route from 454 Mebane, Efland, Hillsborough and Durham. We think Efland is the key. We will still have remote small van service in 455 rural areas. 456 457 Tony Blake: It is also bringing people into the area too. 458 459 Paul Guthrie: I would suggest the budget the president sent to congress will rekindle the discussion on the 460 expenditure of transportation of all kinds. If we could get the Hillborough rail station established, I am pretty sure 461 Amtrak would sign on soon and it would give us a place to make a regional transit hub to connect various 462 transporation services to change. 463 464 Michael Harvey: We would like to express our thanks to Buddy Hartley for chairing the Quarterly Public Hearing. 465 466 467 AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT 468 469 MOTION: made by Paul Guthrie to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 470 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 471 472 __________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair