Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 040214Approved 5/7/14 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 APRIL 2, 2014 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 7 Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; 8 Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative 9 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 12 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant- 13 Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant- At-Large; 14 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 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Brent Niemann, Louis Iannone, Beth Trohes, Rich Kirkland 21 22 23 HANDOUTS: Email from Louis Iannone to Mrs. Wise 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 27 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 30 a) Planning Calendar for April and May 31 32 Perdita Holtz: We are having a public information meeting in Efland next Monday at 5:30 at Efland Cheek 33 Elementary School on the Efland Overlay District. 34 35 36 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 37 MARCH 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 38 39 Tina Love: I have one correction, the adjournment was left off and I have added it. Paul Guthrie moved to adjourn 40 and Tony Blake seconded. 41 42 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the March 5, 2014 Planning Board minutes with correction. Seconded by Paul 43 Guthrie. 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 45 46 47 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 48 49 50 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 51 52 Introduction to the Public Charge 53 Approved 5/7/14 2 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 54 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 55 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 56 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 57 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 58 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 59 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 60 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 61 62 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 63 64 Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to thank Buddy Hartley for chairing the quarterly public hearing and thank Lisa for 65 chairing the Planning Board meeting. 66 67 AGENDA ITEM 7: CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Class A Special 68 Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on two parcels of 69 property, totaling approximately 52 acres in are, off of Redman Road between the railway and 70 Interstate 85/40 in Cheeks Township. This item was heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly 71 public hearing and was discussed at the March 5, 2014 Planning Board Meeting . 72 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 73 74 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 75 76 Pete Hallenbeck: I have a comment. We have a letter regarding the fields that might be emitting from this and I 77 would like to state I am an electrical engineer, I’ve done a great deal of work in radio and radio fields and other field 78 work to pass FCC specs, and I am comfortable with the statement being submitted. 79 80 Michael Harvey: It is appropriate for a member of the Board to make a motion to approve staff findings beginning on 81 page 22 through page 34 finding in the affirmative as recommeded by staff and then begin deliberation on the 82 information provided on the pages 35 through 37. On page 38, staff has recommended seven conditions on this 83 project. 84 85 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve the staff findings on pages 22 through 34 to find in the affirmative and non-86 applicable where indicated. Seconded by Herman Staats. 87 VOTE: Unanimous 88 89 MOTION made by Herman Staats to approve Section 5.3.2 on page 35 keeping in mind the conditions on page 38. 90 Seconded by Tony Blake. 91 VOTE: Unanimous 92 93 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the proposal will abide by Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) with the inclusion of the seven 94 recommendations from staff on page 38. Seconded by James Lea. 95 VOTE: Unanimous 96 97 MOTION made by Tony Blake that the proposal will abide by Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) with the inclusion of the seven 98 recommendations from staff on page 38. Seconded by Herman Staats. 99 VOTE: Unanimous 100 101 MOTION made by James Lea to recommend approval of the project with the seven conditions with further indication 102 that we have found there is no competent material or substantial evidence in the record proving the applicant does 103 not meet the UDO. Seconded by Tony Blake. 104 VOTE: Unanimous 105 106 107 Approved 5/7/14 3 AGENDA ITEM 8: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 108 AMENDMENTS: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 109 to the text of the UDO to establish a zoning program commonly referred to as Agricultural 110 Support Enterprises (ASE) outside of the Rural Buffer land use classification. This item was 111 heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 112 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 113 114 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 115 116 Tony Blake: You are talking about ground water, you are not talking about a farm pond used for watering animals or 117 irrigation? 118 119 Pedita Holtz: Correct. We are talking about a well being drilled. If it would be more clarifying to put in ‘ground water 120 accessed via a well’, we can put that in the language. 121 122 Tony Blake: I am out of my area of knowledge. 123 124 Paul Guthrie: Are we comfortable with the 240 figure that is used through most of this dialogue as the baseline. 125 126 Perdita Holtz: A recharge study done in the 1990’s found the recharge rate was over 300 gallons per day per acre of 127 land. We are comfortable that the average single family home uses 240 gallons per day. It is an average. 128 129 Paul Guthrie: I speak from experience and getting three gallons a minute at 270 feet and in those days the well up 130 the street was 80 feet so it varies so much. 131 132 Perdita Holtz: It is true that in Orange County, the structure of the underground geology is you can have your well 133 and your neighbor’s well literally 50 feet away could have to be at a different depth. That is one of the purposes of 134 ground water studies. 135 136 Pete Hallenbeck: I think someone trying to set up an enterprise, thinking they could get more than that, they are 137 smart enough to not depend on the water. I think this is a reasonable number. 138 139 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to accept the planning director’s recommendation. Seconded by James Lea. 140 VOTE: Unanimous 141 142 143 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – HOME OCCUPATION: To review 144 certain aspects of the Planning Board- and Planning Director-initiated amendments to the 145 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding Home Occupations. At the February 18, 146 2014 BOCC meeting, the BOCC referred this item back to the Planning Board and staff for 147 further consideration. 148 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 149 150 Ashley Moncado: Reviewed abstract. 151 152 Paul Guthrie: If everybody read the minutes of the last meeting, I won’t repeat those. I am concerned, while I 153 understand from a practical standpoint how this proposal is organized, it is visualized as protection of residential 154 neighborhood but in many cases, it will be governing places that under no definition would be a residential 155 neighborhood. I understand this is a practical problem of how you define things; it tends to make it easier for people 156 with larger properties and more money to own those properties in order to get into some of the businesses this tends 157 to regulate. I have some concern about that as you get into rural areas because I think that is an unfair balance we 158 don’t need to get in to. In many cases, this will be a case of selective enforcement because I don’t think the planning 159 department, even in its best day, can totally enforce this because the number of instances that may be used without 160 going through the permitting process so I am always concerned about government regulations where it will be 161 Approved 5/7/14 4 impractical to totally enforce. After reading this I read the intergovernmental sections which suggests to me that parts 162 if not all of this may be actually enforced and moderated by jurisdictions other than the County of Orange because of 163 the enforcing standards where there is contract in areas near cities, town, etc. I would like a better explanation that if 164 this is adopted who will enforce it. I think that is a fair question for the Commissioners. Finally, for a minor permit to 165 require a $90 upfront one-shot cost is pushing the creditability of the staff because the minor permit involves the 166 description of two pieces of paper that will clearly show it is or is not eligible for a minor permit. 167 168 Herman Staats: I like the comment made that the goal is try to balance use of a home as a residence versus use of 169 a home as a business. I think that is something we need to keep in mind with all the discussions we have here. We 170 need to find the balance that allows for some small business while also allowing people who have their homes 171 nearby to enjoy them. I would like to hear more discussion about the proposed changes and concerns about 172 setbacks and things and see the recommendations. 173 174 James Lea: No comment. 175 176 Andrea Rohrbacher: I don’t know how this will be enforced if someone were new to the area and decided they want 177 to start a home business, I think they would go ahead and set up an office and start doing what they do through the 178 home with a small office space and I don’t think that would have an impact as we try to address this ordinance but it 179 seems we have put a lot of work into this and there are a lot of regulations that have been thought but will it 180 accomplish what we want it to do with respect to being able to avoid the folks that were not aware and found out they 181 were in violation. 182 183 Pete Hallenbeck: So, some of your concern is for someone who had a smaller operation, one office with just 184 themselves, would they get into a situation where they were in violation and were not aware of it and how would that 185 enforcement occur and what would happen to them. Ashley, if you have one person with no employees it wouldn’t 186 be... 187 188 Ashley Moncado: It would most likely be waived, and you would not have to go through the permitting process. 189 190 Pete Hallenbeck: It would not be until you had employees showing up for work that things would kick in. 191 192 Ashley Moncado: Visitors, signage, and then these standards would be in effect. 193 194 Andrea Rohrbacher: What if you had no employees and offered craft classes and had twelve cars in front. 195 196 Ashley Moncado: Then you would have to go through this process. 197 198 Andrea Rohrbacher: How would that person know that? 199 200 Ashley Moncado: Unfortunately, we would have a difficult time reaching them. We are going to provide outreach 201 and have education to let residences know of these changes. But in the situation you described we wouldn’t know 202 unless a complaint was received or they contacted our office. 203 204 Pete Hallenbeck: Someone involved in a home business and unaware they were in violation, it will be complaint 205 driven before someone finds out. At that point, the planning staff doesn’t show up to put that person in jail but inform 206 them of the process. The goal in the planning office is that if someone complained, the person applied for the permit 207 and things would be great. The only problem would be if someone found out they were in violation and would not 208 apply for the permit then it goes to another level. 209 210 Ashley Moncado: There is no fine. 211 212 Michael Harvey: The typical proceeding is educational first; we work together to correct it. If you choose not to 213 comply, then we would do an enforcement action which states you comply or else, as with any violation with the 214 Approved 5/7/14 5 code. It is incumbent upon the property owner to do their due diligence and determine what regulations, if any, are 215 applicable for anything they are proposing to do. 216 217 Tony Blake: It seems the ‘structure built with suitable residential construction materials to resemble’ is subjective and 218 could use a statement that says ‘compliments’ or ‘the same as adjacent or neighborhood construction’. I think one of 219 the reasons for this is to get people who have home base businesses to come into compliance and possibly pay 220 taxes and be part of the structure than flying under the wire. I am curious as to if there is a non-conforming existing 221 use where someone has been there for a while and now with this ordinance, can you make them? 222 223 Michael Harvey: As we have stipulated during the public hearing, we do have non-conforming regulations in the 224 UDO that specify that a use that was legal at the time it was created made illegal by amendment to the code is 225 allowed to continue, there are limits. This regulation liberalizes several existing situations that make establishing a 226 home occupation easier. There are structures that already exist as part of the home occupation that may not comply 227 with setback. We will not require people to bring those structures into compliance with code if adopted. 228 229 Pete Hallenbeck: In general, you can’t shut down a currently legal operation with a zoning change. 230 231 Paul Guthrie: Has there been any consideration by the county attorney as to whether or not the way you have 232 separated this proposed ordinance that it violates the Equal Protection of Laws under the United States Constitution? 233 234 Michael Harvey: You would have to ask the county attorney but I will tell you and Ashley will confirm it, the county 235 attorney reviewed and signed off on this proposal. 236 237 Paul Guthrie: Even though two activities in two different locations and the sole difference in permitting and non-238 permitting is the size of the property they exist on. 239 240 Michael Harvey: We currently have that same distinction in zoning districts throughout the county and it doesn’t 241 violate the equal protection clause. Different zoning districts, different scenarios of the property breed different 242 standards and evaluation. That is already a constant within zoning ordinances throughout the county. 243 244 Paul Guthrie: Once the ordinance is passed, how will the organization communicate to the general public these new 245 standards? 246 247 Ashley Moncado: We will provide a source on the county website through our division with the new information to 248 contact me directly regarding questions. We will also have a press release to the local newspaper and a possible 249 outreach meeting. Based on how home occupations operate on a case-by-case basis it may be more difficult to do 250 one mass meeting because a lot will be a case-by-case basis on how it will affect an individual. If adopted we are 251 proposing a delay in implementation until July 1 to give staff time to get the information out. If it goes to May 8, we 252 are looking at a delay until July 1 for implementation. 253 254 Paul Guthrie: This is a permit fee, has there been consideration whether it could be considered tax? 255 256 Craig Benedict: It is not based on the value of the property. It is based on what the cost is to provide a review of the 257 proposal. It is based on personnel and time it is not based on property values. 258 259 Paul Guthrie: So you can document the average cost to review? 260 261 Craig Benedict: Yes. That is how we based it. 262 263 Michael Harvey: I would like to add the elected officials of the county set the fees not the planning staff. 264 265 Paul Guthrie: That is irrelevant to the question. 266 267 Michael Harvey: I disagree and I would refute that answer. 268 Approved 5/7/14 6 269 Paul Guthrie: As a fee it has to have some basis in fact to stand as a fee. So, if they make the judgment, unless 270 you can refute their judgment, then that brings it into jeopardy. On the other hand if you are comfortable that you 271 have data to support that fee, that makes it a different thing. I guarantee sooner or later, this will end up in court. It 272 may be later and usually when they end up in court, they are the nastiest kind of case that really isn’t what anybody 273 ever thought about before. I am saying you are going to have to manage this and the ducks need to be all in a row. 274 Many of us have been through that and I can tell you that you don’t want to get into that situation. Then you become 275 the bad guys on the block and that makes it more difficult to do all kinds of everything else here. 276 277 James Lea: On page 149, why is automotive repair services and detailing not considered a home occupation? 278 279 Ashley Moncado: That was a discussion we had at the December Planning Board meeting and those are uses that 280 are not permitted because of the nature and intensity of their uses. 281 282 James Lea: I disagree because of the fact that a lot of people in the rural area do automotive repair at their home 283 and this is saying they are not allowed to do this service at their home and it is an occupation. 284 285 Ashley Moncado: Personal use or doing work for the general public, exchanging money? 286 287 James Lea: For a living, exchanging money, and that’s how they make their living. So what this is saying is they can 288 no longer do that? 289 290 Ashley Moncado: Currently it is not permitted through this standard. This was discussed at the November Planning 291 Board meeting but a formal amendment was not presented to staff. It was also discussed at the quarterly public 292 hearing and again at the December Planning Board meeting. At that time the only items identified as the Planning 293 Board wished to see as now being permitted was building, electrical, plumbing mechanical, grading or other 294 construction contracting. The Planning Board did not cite the need to allow the remaining automotive uses to be 295 permitted as home occupation. 296 297 Pete Hallenbeck: Do you see a difference between automotive detailing and the other items in that list? 298 299 James Lea: I do see a difference because you are basically cleaning cars. If you are repairing your car or someone 300 else’s car, you should have the right to do that too. 301 302 Ashley Moncado: We are not restricting people from doing work on their personal car. When it becomes an actual 303 operation having people dropping their car and working on multiple cars that is not permitted. 304 305 James Lea: Even if they have the space? 306 307 Ashley Moncado: You are obviously operating business out of your home. 308 309 Perdita Holtz: They are not permitted as a home occupation; there are other avenues to get approval. 310 311 James Lea: If they have the land to do it. 312 313 Pete Hallenbeck: Your basic comment is when you detail a car, it is not noisy or messy, why is that on the list? 314 315 James Lea: All three of those fall in that category. 316 317 Herman Staats: I think this is an example where the size of your lot does make a difference. If you have a one acre 318 lot in the middle of town, I don’t want a body shop next door to me but if I own 50 acres out in the country and there 319 are other avenues where I could utilize to run that business there then I would like to have the opportunity to do it. I 320 think that is a good example of where the size of the lot does have an impact. 321 322 Approved 5/7/14 7 Pete Hallenbeck: If you went for a conditional use permit, they clearly define what you can and cannot do. The 323 process involves your neighbor’s input. 324 325 James Lea: Some of my neighbors do work at home on vehicles. I feel they have the right to take their garage and 326 service people’s cars if that is what they choose. 327 328 Paul Guthrie: We rent property in another county in this state and many times deal only by telephone and receive 329 mail back and forth about those rentals. Does that put us in a category to need a permit from Orange County to do 330 that business that takes place totally in another county? 331 332 Ashley Moncado: I would not think so. You don’t have people visit you on site and there is no advertisement on that 333 property. 334 335 Pete Hallenbeck: It has come up that large properties are favored and I think that is a natural outcome of the goal of 336 trying to have a balance because when you have a large property, you have to make a lot more noise when you are 337 on a large property. We have talked about enforcement and it is complaint driven. We have some idea of the 338 general approach or attitude of the county. Paul, I want to address your $90 fee is too much, my understanding is 339 that every time you apply for a permit in the county there is a fee and the goal is the person doing things in 340 generating pays for that as opposed to all the taxpayers subsidizing. On the $90 too much, this may be the nature of 341 the stuff I get into. There may be some businesses that are a substantial percentage you are spending to get into the 342 business but I think for a lot of people, you have a lot of other costs. I think the fee is reasonable. Herman, it is all 343 about the balance. I have read every page of these changes and I think this whole process has an incredible amount 344 of input from the Planning Board and the BOCC. I really like the major and minor home use. James, with your 345 comment, we can make a note of this and if you wish to vote against this and make a note of it, it will stand out. I like 346 the fact this protects the rural buffer by not allowing the major home occupations. I am happy to go with this 347 recommendation because it is a good step forward. There is always the opportunity to modify the UDO. 348 349 Tony Blake: Is there a regulation for home-based businesses involving hazardous material or above and beyond 350 what is stored at a residence. 351 352 Ashley Moncado: There is language in “Uses Not Permitted” that does not include all uses that would be unsuitable. 353 354 Michael Harvey: That is addressed in the UDO and other regulations. 355 356 James Lea: Comparing minor and major home occupations, I have a tax service and I am not on five acres of land 357 however, at certain times of the year, there may be 20 or more people to come to my house to get tax service, where 358 does my service fall under? 359 360 Ashley Moncado: Most likely, it would be minor. 361 362 James Lea: Then it limits the number of people who come to my house? 363 364 Ashley Moncado: Correct. You could operate the business but you could only have up to six-customer visit per day. 365 366 James Lea: Isn’t it that restrictive. This part to me is too restrictive. 367 368 Pete Hallenbeck: It gets back to the balance concept. You are concerned there may be some home occupations 369 that may have a peak load for relative short periods of time and this could keep those businesses from happening. 370 371 Andrea Rohrbacher: Where do corn mazes fit in? 372 373 Ashley Moncado: They would most likely be exempt because they are agritourism. 374 375 Approved 5/7/14 8 Pete Hallenbeck: At this point let’s see if anyone cares to move for a recommendation to accept the planning 376 director’s recommendation and we can take a vote on it. James, this is where you can make a decision to say no 377 and I want to emphasize that commissioners do pay attention to these. You are worried about seasonal variances 378 and you believe things related to automobiles should be allowed. 379 380 James Lea: I would like to make it part of the record that I am concerned about that. I think it should be allowed. I 381 understand if you are in the city there may be concerns. Also, with the major and minor home occupation, I have 382 problems with some of them. 383 384 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie that the proposal lie on the table. Seconded by James Lea. 385 386 Pete Hallenbeck: You are proposing that we not accept the planning director’s recommendation? Is that correct? 387 388 Paul Guthrie: That would be the ultimate outcome but that was not my motion. My motion was we leave it on the 389 table. 390 391 Pete Hallenbeck: So you are saying we should not vote on it? So we are going to take a vote to not vote on it, is 392 that correct? 393 394 Paul Guthrie: If you pass the motion then it has to be brought up new. 395 396 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to leave the recommendation on the table. Seconded by James Lea. 397 VOTE: 2 – 4 (Pete Hallenbeck, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, Andrea Rohrbacher) Failed 398 399 MOTION made by Tony Blake with some reservation to accept the recommendation by staff on the major and minor 400 home occupation as presented and hopefully amended later. Seconded by Andrea Rohrbacher. 401 VOTE: 4 – 2 ( James Lea and Paul Guthrie) Passed 402 403 Herman Staats: The discussion was helpful. Whenever this goes to the public, if they understand staff is willing and 404 able to accomondate them as best they can, I think that is important. 405 406 Craig Benedict: Part of our outreach will include scenarios, FAQs and we will try to use this input from the Board. 407 On the face, it may seem we are restricing something but we are actually liberalizing it. 408 409 Paul Guthrie: I voted no because I think it too broad, I think it is unenforceable. I think it discourages innovation and 410 business development in small businesses. I think it runs counter to the change and nature of work in America that I 411 think is going to continue on a faster pace where work becomes more and more individualized. Finally, for the 412 planners in the room, I think Jane Jacobs would turn over in her grave. 413 414 James Lea: I just voted no because I believe it is too restrictive instead of promoting small business it is restricting 415 small business and I think it would be restrictive to a lot of people who are already in business. I don’t think it is fair. 416 417 Pete Hallenbeck: I understand Paul and James’ concerns but also I think we are going from incredibly restrictive to 418 less restrictive because it lets you do a lot more and that is a good step to take. It is important to get your concerns 419 noted but I hope that the whole thing doesn’t get thrown out. James, with regard to the seasonal variance, we have 420 this concept about the art tour and the ability to come through and the farms having tours, it seems interesting to me 421 that we have this concept of this seasonal event that occurs where you have above normal traffic but that we are not 422 able to accommodate a tax business so perhaps the same spirit that allow for the annual art tours that is being 423 allowed could be applied to this. 424 425 426 AGENDA ITEM 10: JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND AGREEMENT: To receive educational information on the 427 Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement, a joint planning effort between Orange County 428 and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro that was adopted in the mid-1980s. The purpose 429 Approved 5/7/14 9 of this item is to familiarize the Planning Board with the plan and agreement in anticipation of 430 recommendation the Planning Board will be asked to make in regards to Agenda Items 11 and 431 12. 432 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 433 434 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed background. 435 436 Paul Guthrie: Given the nature of the Annexation laws in this state, does the annexation plan really have any 437 relevance to the process? 438 439 Craig Benedict: Yes, a joint planning agreement is more effective now under new annexation laws because the 440 ability for a city to annex an area not contiguous is more difficult. This gives them the opportunity to have some 441 control of what may eventually be urban environment when the annexation does allow so there is more consistency. 442 In many cases, where people want to have a future annexation area or control land use and zoning, they ask the 443 state to expand their ETJ. 444 445 Perdita Holtz: Not by people, municipalities. 446 447 Craig Benedict: That still happens across North Carolina. This was a hybrid solution as opposed to an ETJ 448 expansion. 449 450 Perdita Holtz: Water quality issues were also part of it with the University Lake being the sole source of water then. 451 The town has a vested interest in the water quality and wanted to have a say is what is happening. 452 453 Tony Blake: Is Obey Creek still in the county in the southern triangle area? 454 455 Craig Benedict: No, that is part of the town. 456 457 Tony Blake: The state seems to be amenable to developers requesting annexation more than the towns so I 458 wondered what happens when a developer goes in there. 459 460 Paul Guthrie: Actually that property is more difficult to articulate because the Town of Chapel Hill is at the end of the 461 park at Southern Village but I am not sure how far Chapel Hill jurisdiction goes into the woods on the other side 462 where Obey Creek is. Chapel Hill annexed the right of way on Mount Carmel further but a lot of that land between 463 Obie and Mount Carmel is not in Chapel Hill. 464 465 Andrea Rohrbacher: Chapel Hill is going through a restructuring of their boards and commissioners and the current 466 Planning Board allows two ETJ members and there is a proposal to make that one ETJ member because the amount 467 of ETJ is not significant. 468 469 470 AGENDA ITEM 11: JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: To receive information on a 471 proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement in regards to 472 density in the Rural Buffer land use classification and clarifications on other topics. The item is 473 scheduled for public hearing at the March 27, 2014 Joint Planning Public Hearing and it is 474 expected that the Planning Board will be asked to make a recommendation on the proposed 475 amendment at its May 7, 2014 meeting. 476 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 477 478 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 479 480 Tony Blake: If I had a two-acre lot that was not currently subdivided, I could not build a house on it? 481 482 Approved 5/7/14 10 Michael Harvey: You have a two acre lot that is the minimum lot size currently required by our zoning ordinance that 483 would be considered a conforming lot. If you had a one-acre lot in this portion that existed prior to 1990, it would still 484 be recognized as a legal conforming lot but you can’t take a two-acre lot in this area and subdivide it because the 485 minimum lot size and the density wouldn’t allow for it. 486 487 488 AGENDA ITEM 12: JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: To receive information on a 489 proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement in regards to 490 allowing appropriate agricultural support enterprises in the Rural Buffer land use classification. 491 The item is scheduled for public hearing at the March 27, 2014 Joint Planning Public Hearing 492 and it is expected that the Planning Board will be asked to make a recommendation on the 493 proposed amendment at its May 7, 2014 meeting. 494 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 495 496 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed information. 497 498 Pete Hallenbeck: There is a constraint that these JPA documents have to be cleaned up before the UDO 499 amendments can be adopted 500 501 Perdita Holtz: Yes. If the JPA amendment is not done to allow agricultural support uses in the rural buffer, the 502 BOCC cannot adopt the UDO amendment. 503 504 Tony Blake: On page 215, that sentence that was merged, “which will remain rural, contain low density, residential 505 uses, agricultural uses and agricultural support uses and not require the urban services”, seems that it should read, 506 “low density residential, agricultural and agricultural support uses and not require urban services”. 507 508 Perdita Holtz: We are trying to make minimal changes. 509 510 511 AGENDA ITEM 13: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 512 a. Board of Adjustment 513 Board of Adjustment will meet on April 22. 514 b. Orange Unified Transportation 515 Did not meet. 516 517 518 AGENDA ITEM 14: ADJOURNMENT: 519 520 MOTION by Tony Blake to adjourn. Seconded by Herman Staats. 521 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 522 523 524 ___________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair