The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCPB minutes 100814Approved 11/5/14 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 8, 2014 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 6 Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 7 Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 8 Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, 9 Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough 10 Township Representative; 11 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Tom Altieri, 17 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative 18 Assistant II 19 20 21 OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager; James Bryan, Staff Attorney; Andrew Vanard 22 23 24 HANDOUTS GIVEN: (email from Lydia Wegman concerning Item 10 which is attached at the end of the minutes) 25 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 28 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 31 a) Planning Calendar for October and November 32 b) Dinner meeting with BOCC & quarterly public hearing on November 24, 2014 33 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 37 38 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the September, 2014 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 40 41 42 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 43 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 46 47 Introduction to the Public Charge 48 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 49 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 50 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 51 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 52 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 53 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 54 Approved 11/5/14 2 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 55 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 56 57 58 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 59 60 61 AGENDA ITEM 7: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation 62 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the 63 Comprehensive Plan to assign County land use classifications to approximately 500 acres of 64 property that are to be removed for the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) 65 located generally near the Eno River between US 70W and I-85/I-40 in Cheeks and 66 Hillsborough Townships. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public 67 hearing. 68 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 69 70 Tom Altieri reviewed abstract and presented a PowerPoint Presentation. 71 72 Pete Hallenbeck: Does anyone have any questions for Tom? 73 74 Tony Blake: I recall a conversation from the BOCC that the underlying concern seemed to be that we were 75 repurposing land use for agricultural that might be better zoned rural residential or vice a versa and that there might 76 be some permitted uses on a farm or something that would be disallowed if it was rural residential or again vice a 77 versa and I think that it’s key that the land use match the zoning and so that is my question, does the land use match 78 the zoning in this? 79 80 Tom Altieri: You’re correct, it does need to and in this case, in the Comprehensive Plan I think you’ve probably seen 81 it, a few before in some previous amendments. There’s what I call a matrix, it’s located in the appendices at the back 82 of the land use plan and it shows the relationship between the Future Land Use Map categories down one column 83 and then the rows across are all of the applicable zoning districts. You’re right for the Agricultural Residential Land 84 Use category the only applicable zoning is Agricultural Residential. So that’s exactly right. 85 86 Tony Blake: I believe and again I’m reading between the lines from the County Commissioners’ comments, I believe 87 that going around in some of their heads and I think Commissioner Dorosin in particular was this discussion about 88 the solar farm in the north and what was permitted and what wasn’t permitted and there might be something that was 89 permitted like a solar farm on a farm as opposed to in a rural residential. 90 91 Michael Harvey: I want to clarify a solar facility is permitted with a issuance of a Special Use Permit in the Rural 92 Buffer and Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential land use categories currently. 93 94 Tony Blake: There’s not one that doesn’t need a SUP? 95 96 Michael Harvey: There are three categories of solar array development. There’s under 20,000 which accessory as a 97 Class B and Class A. Class B and Class A would be allowed in the three zoning districts so there is no distinction 98 from that standpoint. 99 100 Tony Blake: I was thinking of some of the farms that have put up solar facilities for use on their farms for their own 101 purposes. 102 103 Lisa Stuckey: My impression is that AR is less restrictive and you can do more things in there by right, is that 104 correct? In general. 105 106 Tom Altieri: Some of the questions are more related to the zoning side. However, Tony does make a good point 107 which is once the Board has recommended Agricultural Residential on the Future Land Use Map side the only 108 Approved 11/5/14 3 applicable district that can be applied when we get to the zoning side is Agricultural Residential. There are some 109 additional materials outlining the differences in the permitted uses that are part of the other item. 110 111 Tony Blake: I more wanted to get that on the record so that when the Commissioners read it they can either 112 comment on whether I was reading between the lines correctly or not and maybe settle that question. 113 114 Craig Benedict: I think also one of the questions was is this new area more like a rural area or is it like an urban area 115 and somebody mentioned that word suburban. Well, Orange County Land Use and city programs have quite a few 116 demarcations so that’s what I think was being inferred that there might be some sort of intermediate category that 117 could be urban in the future. As Tom said in the interlocal agreements, saying that the urban service area boundary 118 stops at this new ETJ boundary really does say this is urban and this is definitely a rural lifestyle. AR fits that well. 119 120 Pete Hallenbeck: My only comment on the topic is I think the Agricultural Residential fits what is currently going on 121 there and that’s borne out by that table that says only 15% of that is private and not farm use the other is either farm 122 use or the quasi-public so I don’t have a problem with that right now, in 30 years from now, who knows but today it 123 seems like a pretty good call. Also putting sewer and water on Eno Mountain would be a little rough. 124 125 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval to the BOCC on the proposed 2030 Comprehensive Plan FLUM 126 amendment. Seconded by Tony Blake 127 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 128 129 130 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a government-131 initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to assign County zoning districts to approximately 500 132 acres of property that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial 133 Jurisdiction (ETJ) located generally near the Eno River between US 70W and I-85/I-40 in 134 Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly 135 public hearing. 136 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 137 138 Tom Altieri reviewed abstract and presented a PowerPoint Presentation. 139 140 Herman Staats: So, the triangle that you said was inconsistently zoned versus land use designation, is there a 141 reason it was zoned that way and if there is not a reason that it’s zoned that way should the zoning be changed so 142 that it is consistent? 143 144 Tom Altieri: The reason, I don’t know the reason but I think that’s how it was zoned when that township was 145 originally zoned. I have a theory which is that it might have something to do with the Hillsborough Township line. I 146 found it interesting that the western side of that R-1 boundary (illustrated on map) that’s not a parcel line. That’s a 147 line that seems to be a hangover from a township line that for some reason doesn’t extend further to the north or 148 south as we know the Hillsborough Township does. Our mapping has gotten significantly better, our GIS and 149 overlays and could be the result of previous less precise mapping. 150 151 Pete Hallenbeck: That area you’re talking about, the Hillsborough triangle, is it in a critical watershed area? 152 153 Tom Altieri: It is. 154 155 Pete Hallenbeck: That tempers how much you can do there. 156 157 Tony Blake: How many acres is it. 158 159 Tom Altieri: Maybe 120 acres all those parcels combined. 160 161 Paul Guthrie: What is the ownership pattern? Are there a lot of owners, one owner? 162 Approved 11/5/14 4 163 Tom Altieri: I don’t have that specific information tonight. 164 165 Paul Guthrie: Is there any development on it at all. 166 167 Michael Harvey: Single family residents on those lots and one of the parcels is part of a larger farm. The Hare 168 Krishna part of their temple is on the other side of Dimmocks Mill Road there is a mish mash of existing land uses in 169 that general area. 170 171 Pete Hallenbeck: In my opinion at this point, fairly well developed. Most lots have something on them. 172 173 Tony Blake: One more question, that phantom line seems to bisect a bunch of lots, does that mean that the lots 174 have two land use and zoning classifications? 175 176 Tom Altieri: One base land use classification and correct, two different zoning classifications. 177 178 Tony Blake: This would serve to bring them in line and make them consistent across the lot. 179 180 Tom Altieri: That’s not part of this amendment. If it is something that this Board wanted to recommend to the County 181 Commissioners it would require another public hearing and notification and then we could consider that. 182 183 Tony Blake: I don’t think it’s worth it. 184 185 Craig Benedict: One other thing, this upgraded consistency statement, just something that we can use for future 186 reference. With this consistency statement, you see us referring to previous planning studies. One case was the 187 Hillsborough Interlocal Agreement another planning construct was the water and sewer boundary agreement was 188 another layer of the planning. As we proceed with these rezonings in the future, you’ll see us continue to use the 189 value of our small area planning processes to show consistency. The law has come back around to support what we 190 have been doing in the past by having multiple reasons for changing zoning. Some places around the state would 191 say, just because, so this is a way of incorporating our prior planning and give a good consistency statement. 192 193 Pete Hallenbeck: So to put this concept of the consistency statement into perspective, if we’re talking about taking 194 some parcel there and zoning it for some gigantic store or office complex that would be a consistency problem 195 instead we’re wrestling with AR versus R-1. 196 197 Paul Guthrie: Has there been any commentary from any of these parties that have an ownership interest on this 198 particular activity? 199 200 Tom Altieri: Very little. They all have received first class mail notification and the information. We had one citizen 201 that attended the public hearing that spoke to me after the meeting that just wanted more information. I provide him 202 the information, more detail on his zoning and the permitted uses and Margaret Hauth’s contact information with the 203 Town if he had any interest in how the zoning may have played out had his property stayed within the Town’s 204 jurisdiction. We did have a lot of interest back in January of this year when the Town was looking at both 205 relinquishing and expanding its ETJ, that involved another 200 or so properties and we did have about 50+ people 206 show up at that meeting. All but two were there because they owned property within the areas where the Town was 207 considering expansion. I think a lot of the people dropped off and there have only been a few phone calls, 3 or 4. 208 209 MOTION by Bryant Warren to recommend to the BOCC approval of the rezoning amendment. Seconded by Buddy 210 Hartley. 211 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 212 213 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the consistency statement. Seconded by Tony Blake 214 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 215 216 Approved 11/5/14 5 217 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to 218 the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to require that a 219 neighborhood information meeting be held at least 45 days prior to the public hearing 220 regarding applications for a Class A or Class B Special Use Permit. This item was heard at 221 the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 222 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 223 224 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 225 226 Tony Blake: I have a couple of questions, it seems to me 45 days is obsessive but what we really need is a window 227 of time because you don’t want somebody introducing a plan and two years and then 45 days before they execute 228 have a neighborhood information meeting. 229 230 Michael Harvey: That doesn’t typically happen. 231 232 Tony Blake: It seems me that there should be a minimum and a maximum. The second is in the rural areas, 500 233 feet is not sufficient. What you will get are people who are really against whatever it is as opposed to a broader 234 audience of people who may benefit from it in a larger sense. I am pointing specifically to the fire station substation 235 we built. If we had strictly stayed with the 500 feet we would have gotten the people who didn’t want to live within 236 500 feet of a fire station instead of the larger population who would benefit from a reduction in insurance rates. You 237 are going to miss in this neighborhood information meeting, the point of view of the greater good. 238 239 Michael Harvey: You’re allowed to your opinion and I don’t want to argue with you on it. It is your opinion, I see pro 240 and con to it. The only comment I will make is that the notice that we send out is not the only means of advertising 241 we also post the property. I think when you take a look for example the Binks solar facility, which we did notify 242 people within 500 feet of the property, if you extend that to 1000 feet you would quite frankly only have captured 20 243 or 30 additional properties owners. Some of which were there because of the advertising signs we had put out at the 244 property. 245 246 Tony Blake: I invite people to do the research and look and see roughly how many notices you actually sent out on 247 these in the rural areas. I think you’ll see it 2, 3, 4 people. 248 249 Michael Harvey: I don’t dispute that there are situations where you have areas with large properties where even a 250 1000 feet wouldn’t make much difference. 251 252 Tony Blake: I understand that registered mail is a cost. It seems to me like there could be other ways to 253 communicate. Those are my comments. 254 255 Michael Harvey: Ok 256 257 Paul Guthrie: I want to go the other way, I think the bigger problem may be in urbanizing areas in terms of the costs. 258 I thought about our house and it is on a less than one acre lot and under the 500 foot rule, everywhere except one 259 location you’d pick up maybe 6 or 8 maybe 10 houses. Right across from us is a condominium with about 25 units. 260 So to do anything that requires a Special Use Permit, the homeowner would maybe need 35 registered letters. I can 261 conceive of this in a larger or fringe of an urban area having a high density property of one property among many 262 others that could raise the costs for the applicant significantly. I am a little concerned about what that does to the 263 small, not to the large corporate well-financed organization, but the small organization that for one reason or another 264 needs a Special Use Permit. Assuming it is compatible with the general character of the neighborhood, having to 265 spend that money. 266 267 Michael Harvey: Again, Mr. Blake is not incorrect and you’re not incorrect either. There are pros and cons to both 268 sides of the equation. 269 270 Approved 11/5/14 6 Bryant Warren: I noticed in the past when you get ready to do something there are signs put up all around the 271 neighborhood and area, even if we stick with the 500 feet that should be sufficient enough especially if you continue 272 putting the signs up. 273 274 Laura Nicholson: Not to belabor the point, but isn’t there a way to just conditionally make it 500 feet for an urban 275 area but as a rural area make it larger? That way it’s not changing the whole fabric, could you change it depending 276 on.. 277 278 Michael Harvey: I don’t know how comfortable I would be with that because that gives greater utility to a Class 2 279 Kennel for example locating in one area in the County versus another area in the County. I think that I’m going to err 280 on the side of caution and treat all applicants the same. 281 282 Pete Hallenbeck: Actually, I’ll comment on that, we seem to run into this problem a lot that we almost need a settled 283 density function. Something that tells you how dense is this and that is used as criteria for notification area. The 284 problem with that is you can argue over a number, you can argue over a function and whatever you come up with 285 people putting up kennels will gain the system to do what they want. It’s one of those difficult problems that never 286 have a right answer. 287 288 Craig Benedict: As part of our discussion more recently about the use of technology and how to get information out 289 to people different than the mailings, definitely the signs on the property so we are going to start putting our 290 application out there. Evidently there’ll be some mapping and that could be with that and people will see the signs 291 and be able to look on line to see what’s happening. I think we’ll use technology, even the statutes are saying that 292 how we advertise is being liberalized to include media. 293 294 Pete Hallenbeck: Tony you talked about a sample window. 295 296 Tony Blake: I was thinking more within a certain minimum distance from the project start and a maximum as well. 297 298 Lisa Stuckey: Are you worried they’ll do it like 60 days out? 299 300 Tony Blake: Yea, or six months and by then everybody has forgotten or then all of a sudden everybody says, I 301 remember but it was too long ago. 302 303 Michael Harvey: Let me try to address that point. Applications are typically submitted currently 60 days to 70 days 304 before a public hearing, depending on what public hearing. Class A is County Commissioners, four quarterly public 305 hearing and Class B is Board of Adjustment. So you have a window usually of 50 to 60 days before public hearing 306 when application becomes submitted, it is then scheduled for a public hearing. We basically have a five day window 307 according to our ordinance to ascertain whether or not the application is complete and either reject it or accept it and 308 then submit it for review. Essentially how this process is going to work now is basically once we determine the 309 application is viable, meaning all components have been submitted and its complete, we are submitting it for peer 310 review, not only to internal county departments but external planning partners. The Department of Transportation is 311 a key example. We then have to send out notices advertising the meeting because of the timeline and the window 312 before the public hearing so basically you’re getting a letter from the planning department 14 day minimum before the 313 neighborhood meeting. That’s when we have to send it out as the ordinance is currently proposed. The 314 neighborhood meeting has to be held 45 days prior to the public hearing is scheduled. So it is conceivable if an 315 applicant asks to withdraw from one hearing or postpone to a hearing they would have to then also potentially have a 316 second neighborhood meeting if the first one isn’t held. I don’t think you’re going to go 6, 8 months or a year with 317 people having a gap between the neighborhood meeting to a public hearing. With the amount of money involved. I 318 understand what you are saying but I think we’re better served by an ordinance amendment that says this has to 319 happen a minimum of days before the hearing which then gives everybody sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. 320 321 MOTION by Laura Nicholson to recommend approval of the UDO text amendments. Seconded by James Lea. 322 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 323 324 Approved 11/5/14 7 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the statement of consistency. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 325 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 326 327 328 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To either provide input or make 329 a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 330 to change the existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related 331 items/ amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing. 332 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 333 334 Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract 335 336 Craig Benedict: What I put on the Board here is what we presently have. We usually give the Planning Board a 337 briefing on what is coming up at the public hearings, this is kind of informal. We did have the joint public hearing here 338 and then this was referred back to the Planning Board and then back to the Commissioners for action. As you 339 answer these questions, we’ll find out, does the Planning Board make recommendations here or do they make 340 recommendation somewhere else? We will draft it up, as you come to some sort of consensus, we’ll try to sketch 341 something up for clarity. 342 343 Pete Hallenbeck: I am not going to read what is in attachment one, I’ll just make a couple of quick comments. First 344 we are going through something different here, it’s not a text amendment or something laid out for us. It’s an 345 opportunity to say what we’re thinking. With that comes the obligation to try to get our thoughts organized. I think the 346 main thing is the joint meetings were a problem just because of the quorum and I think you could move that so they 347 are not joint meetings. However, I think you can, somewhere between require and strongly urge, have the Planning 348 Board members attend. I think it is really important, since we are giving recommendations, to have as many people 349 as we can present to hear what is going on because there is such a difference between reading something and 350 hearing someone present it. There is talk in the meeting about holding the Planning Board either before or after. I 351 think Planning Board before I like a lot, Planning Board after the decision is like closing the barn door after the horse 352 is gone. I’m not quite sure what we’d do, that was discussed. I think citizen notification which is in here is a good 353 deal and it would be nice if that notification includes a description of the process so people know what to do. Part of 354 what happened in the solar project is people were scrambling with the time they had and they weren’t sure what the 355 next steps were and also the dates. I think when you combine what we just voted on with the 45 day and you add in 356 the changes we are looking at now and if that notification spells out what is going to happen, it should be a different 357 picture than what we had before. I like treating legislative quasi-judicial mixes as quasi-judicial and that led to those 358 recommendations. So you can sort of see what I am thinking from that attachment one. What we’ll do here is just go 359 around the room and take input that anyone would like to pass on to the Commissioners. 360 361 Perdita Holtz: I forgot to mention that Lydia Wegman sent an email earlier today about her views. I wanted to make 362 sure it got into the minutes that I did distribute her email. 363 364 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes and we should put her comments into the minutes since she is not here. She also talked 365 about it the Planning Board should be at the public hearing and she talked about how they should be required to 366 attend the public hearing. We’re seeing everybody wrestle with the same details. 367 368 Paul Guthrie: You took the first part of what I was going to acknowledge and suggest everybody read it carefully. 369 Lydia is a very smart person and has been in this business a long time. I must admit that I’ve thought a lot about this 370 issue and I really wasn’t a 100% percent sure where I was going with it so I decided to make it simple. We are in 371 business for one reason and that is to work for the County Board of Commissioners, present them with our 372 understanding of issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations as we gather as citizens in the County. I 373 would caution us as we shape this don’t violate that particular rule and if you decide that it’s necessary to change 374 that rule in a significant manner, then you need to decide whether the Planning Board is relevant. I would just say 375 that this is a very fundamental issue that needs to be carefully considered and I understand where the concern 376 comes and it is legitimate concern in terms of the quorum/non-quorum issue. It seems to me we ought to be able to 377 Approved 11/5/14 8 deal with that issue without tearing up the relationship of what a citizen advisory board is to the elected leaders of this 378 County. I think we should think in that line as we work on the process. 379 380 Pete Hallenbeck: I agree we need to find a way to get people there but we need to find a way to do it that doesn’t 381 penalize people who come to a meeting if we don’t have enough people there. That might be the best way to put it. 382 383 Laura Nicholson: I have a lot of comments, in light of the timeline that we were given to consider this I wonder if we 384 can’t divide it. It seems like there are a few things that are easy and specific and there are a few things that are really 385 squishy so if could just get through some of the specifics. In regard to the quorum, I obviously haven’t been here 386 long enough to understand why the quorum was ever an issue but it just seems like a communication thing. If we’ve 387 made it clear that you are supposed to be at as many monthly meetings and you can and be at the quarterly public 388 hearing, and are given insufficient notice, and we double check to make sure there’s enough people there, I don’t 389 see it as an issue. I think it is a little insane to do this whole roundabout to change this whole process that seems 390 important because we can’t get our act together internally and I think it could be fixed internally so it doesn’t have to 391 be this whole big process. And the frequency of public hearings, I don’t know if that is something that is really 392 specific and easy to figure out or not but I’m just curious if we couldn’t just divide it. So talk about a few things we 393 can iron out tonight and a few things we go back and ask for more time to figure out. 394 395 Pete Hallenbeck: Again, it strikes me how to get people there because I think there’s agreement that’s really 396 important but if we make mistakes and people can’t show up for whatever reason, how do you keep that from 397 throwing everything off track? We do serve at the pleasure of the Commissioners so they could certainly come up 398 with some club and stick approach to make everybody come to the meetings but I would leave that decision to them. 399 400 Bryant Warren: Reading this I’m a little concerned with, I feel like it is on the step of dissolving the Planning Board 401 and just going straight to the County Commissioners. I’ll apologize I did miss the public hearing last month, I got my 402 days mixed up and thought it was the next night. But it is very seldom that I’ll miss a public hearing or a meeting. I 403 will make sure I’m here and I don’t understand how the Planning Board can make a recommendation to the BOCC 404 before the public hearing is being held because I really think they need to be involved in the public hearing in order to 405 make an adequate recommendation to the BOCC. I think we can do something, I only been on the Board for a 406 couple of months now so I don’t know what went on in the past regarding the quorums. I do feel like if you’re a 407 member of the Planning Board then it is your obligation to make sure you attend the meetings. I think what we need 408 to do is stress that we need to keep things the way they are, continue the public hearing, continue with the Planning 409 Board playing a very big role in it so they can make the recommendations they need to, because evidentially, if they 410 don’t, then you might as well dissolve the Planning Board and not even have it. That’s my recommendation. 411 412 Pete Hallenbeck: One challenge that came out of this whole discussion that hit me was during the quarterly public 413 hearing, I referred to citizens that want to go to the top they want to go to the decision makers and sometimes it’s 414 hard to get citizens to come to an advisory board, they want to talk to the Commissioners. Part of the reason for 415 making sure that this notification process tells people about the Planning Board is to give them more opportunities for 416 input. The before and after comes down to what Craig has up on the board. We have a public hearing then Planning 417 Board then BOCC action. I think that’s good I think that’s critical and I think the Planning Board has to get input so 418 they can make the recommendation to the Commissioners. When I talk about having a Planning Board meeting after 419 what I am talking about is once the Board of County Commissioners has made decision, I don’t think there is any role 420 for further input from the Planning Board. I do think it’s critical and would even say they shouldn’t make a decision 421 before the Planning Board has had an opportunity to make a recommendation. Any time the Commissioners have 422 the option of doing it and just saying wow, this is just too much to handle all this input, they can kick it back to the 423 Planning Board and we can talk it over and it will come up at the next meeting, they have that option. So, yes if the 424 impression that the Planning Board is somehow being diminished in its role, no I don’t want that. I do want to make 425 sure we don’t hold up the citizens that show up and I’d like to find a way to encourage citizens to come to the 426 Planning Board to get their concerns known earlier. Part of that is what I’m talking about in here about the Planning 427 Board meeting with the public if the public could come to these meetings, it is a bit of a dry run. The other thing that 428 came up in that meeting is another problem we’ve always had which is would that we had a crystal ball to predict the 429 no-brainers from the ones that are going to be controversial. If we can get citizens to come to the Planning Board 430 Approved 11/5/14 9 with input earlier, we can get a better feel of what is going on. The Commissioners can see that when they read the 431 minutes and I think those are ways the Planning Board can be more engaged than it is now. 432 433 Bryant Warren: The problem with that is they want to meet with the top people and by having a joint public hearing 434 appearing with both then they are both getting the information and people are showing up for it. 435 436 Pete Hallenbeck: I wouldn’t be surprised if it continues in the same way but I also don’t want to penalize people who 437 want to learn how the systems works and try to get the most out of it. So if they have a 45 day notice and they come 438 to the Planning Board and they’re organized and they come to us and say here’s the concern and talk about it then 439 the Commissioners can read it. That’s the closest we’re going to come to that no-brainer crystal ball. They will be 440 much more informed, the Commissioners will, than if all this just hits them for the first time. 441 442 Bryant Warren: Right now we have one every 4 months, if it goes to every 2 months, is there not some way if we 443 need another public hearing we can call one or do we have a time frame that would keep us from doing that. 444 445 Craig Benedict: The Unified Development Ordinance does set out a public hearing specific dates of 4 a year. We 446 can amend the UDO to say there are other times we can consider amendments. As Perdita put up there, there are 447 three types of hearing, the legislative ones are typically a little bit easier. There is a good possibility we could move 448 some of those legislative items to a regular meeting and have some more opportunities for them. We know that the 449 quasi-judicial are usually the ones that are a little bit more labored because of the testimony and that would probably 450 clog up a regular meeting so having the quarterly public hearings isolated for them will probably remain a good idea. 451 We can consider regular Commission meetings to have a public hearing. 452 453 Bryant Warren: I know a lot of developers want to get it out, get it to the public, and get it back as quickly as they can 454 so they can start generating money from it. That’s probably what we’re trying to do is to accommodate some of them 455 so I don’t see anything wrong with it. 456 457 Pete Hallenbeck: We have the full spectrum of the developers would love a two month process and a lot of citizens 458 would like a nine month process. What you’re talking about with additional meetings, I know Commissioner Jacobs 459 was concerned that if you put additional public hearings on the normal Commissioner calendar, that’s where the 460 crystal ball for the no-brainers comes in. You would hate to put, for example, that solar project on the end of a 461 budget meeting cause it would take too long, you really won’t be doing the citizens any service, everybody would be 462 tired by the time it was midnight and probably wouldn’t accomplish what you wanted. If you know, that crystal ball, 463 that this was going to be a 30 minute with no problem. 464 465 Herman Staats: Pete, so I understand correctly, the process that is on the white board now, is what we currently 466 use? 467 468 Pete Hallenbeck: Correct. 469 470 Herman Staats: Am I understanding you to say that we should have an additional Planning Board meeting with the 471 public and if so where in that process do you propose to put it? 472 473 Pete Hallenbeck: The question is the first item, these quarterly public hearing are on a certain schedule but we meet 474 every month. There’s an opportunity to have that 45 day notice and have people come to a Planning Board meeting 475 and get citizen feedback quicker and then that feedback can be presented at the next available quarterly public 476 hearing it is unlikely that the Commissioners would decide at that time but that’s where the no-brainer, crystal ball 477 comes in. It is far more likely that they will take that citizen input and kick it back to the Planning Board. We would 478 also be at that meeting, however the carrot and stick approach the Commissioners work out for getting us there. 479 480 Lisa Stuckey: So if I’m a citizen and I am bringing something forward, you’re suggesting that there be a public 481 hearing in front of the Planning Board and then a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners and 482 then it comes back to the Planning Board. 483 484 Approved 11/5/14 10 Craig Benedict: Maybe it doesn’t have to go here afterwards. There are differences between the legislative and 485 486 Lisa Stuckey: But wait, because they were saying they wanted to give people a third or fourth opportunity to speak 487 without question when it came back, as a former member of the school board, every time you hold a public hearing, 488 you will get people to come and the more anxious they are about the outcome, the more they will come and they the 489 longer they will talk. It is just a lot of time. I am not passing judgment on whether or not they should be allowed to, 490 it’s just a tremendous amount of time for the boards. 491 492 Craig Benedict: There could be different processes for legislative versus quasi-judicial. The reason we have a 493 process now to just have written testimony after this public hearing is because you’re trying to set a point in time 494 where the record is closed, let’s make a decision, and if we keep on opening things up very late in the process then it 495 doesn’t end. That was part of the reason, especially for quasi-judicial matters, for legislative matters, the 496 Commissioners can choose to let them hold it in three minutes, don’t repeat what we’ve heard here. They can 497 diplomatically say that. 498 499 Lisa Stuckey: It won’t work. 500 501 Craig Benedict: Also it shows in the agenda package that the Commissioners, when they have this public hearing 502 over here, they can do three things; they could close the public hearing, this is what we are suggesting as potential 503 options. They could close the public hearing this night and they can set a date to make a formal vote on it, or if it is 504 contentious they could send it back to the Planning Board to return then for a date certain, or one that has never 505 worked well in the past is they can actually decide that night, close the public hearing and say we have enough 506 testimony to decide. That has always been a lot for them but over the many years there’s been a few where they 507 thought that were very simple, one was actually a school site for the Orange County school that was an SUP and 508 they needed to get it built and they wanted to approve it there but the process didn’t allow them to do that at that 509 time, to vote the same night. It had to go back. 510 511 Bryant Warren: So you’re talking about on the public hearing that is joint now it will not be a joint public hearing, it 512 would be just the Commissioners? 513 514 Craig Benedict: That would be just the Commissioners and as the Chair said, we would suggest the Planning Board 515 attend here or they could watch it on Granicus or they could watch a video of it or they could look at the minutes. 516 (referring to board) This would not be a formal, this isn’t the formal public hearing here, it’s just a point where we can 517 let people know in a neighborhood information meeting that the Planning Board is going to be hearing this item. It is 518 what’s called a Planning Board hearing, formal hearing will always stay with the Commissioners that’s what state 519 laws says. 520 521 Bryant Warren: I don’t think you’re going to get as many people showing up for just a public hearing with the 522 Planning Board as you’re going to get to show up for the Commissioners and Planning Board combined. 523 524 Craig Benedict: It’s true, the Planning Board and staff may be able to answer some questions here at this pre-525 meeting. At this crystal ball meeting. Even at this point here, we’re going to be educating the public because that’s 526 what the Commissioners suggested. Let them know about what process we’re going through, is it legislative, is it 527 quasi-judicial let them know what levels of input there are, is it going to be formal expert or can it be anecdotal i.e., 528 we don’t think that fits the neighborhood. We can do a lot of education here, having something early where the public 529 can be invited. It probably would be a lot more attendance at Planning Board meetings than you’ve had in the past. 530 It still goes to the formal public hearing, let’s call that the legal public hearing. Then the Commissioners have the 531 opportunity to decide at that point to bounce it back or to themselves two weeks hence. 532 533 Perdita Holtz: This Planning Board meeting where he crossed off formal review, the Planning Board recommendation 534 meeting, where there would be notices that actually went out and the property would get posted with a sign to let 535 people know that the Planning Board meeting was happening, it would not be a formal public hearing, it would just be 536 a Planning Board meeting with changing the way we notify the public about Planning Board meetings so that people 537 would know the Planning Board meeting was happening, they would be able to come and speak, it wouldn’t have to 538 Approved 11/5/14 11 be written comments only and at the conclusion of that meeting the Planning Board would make a recommendation 539 on whether they thought the application should be approved or not, on legislative items. Craig is a little bit mixing 540 legislative and quasi-judicial together. Then the item would go to public hearing with the Planning Board 541 recommendation. At the public hearing the BOCC could decide, man there’s so many people here that maybe didn’t 542 talk at the Planning Board meeting; we really should kick it back to the Planning Board for them to consider this other 543 information that came out at the public hearing. Or, the BOCC could decide this is one of those no-brainers, the 544 people who have been on the Planning Board before will remember the discussion about no-brainers, this is a no-545 brainer, we can close the public hearing tonight and we can just vote on it, or they can say, well, you know the 546 Planning Board gave us a recommendation, nothing major has come out but I want to mull this over more and the 547 BOCC can say let’s schedule it for a later meeting. 548 549 Loss of recording device/full memory- approximate 7 to 9 minutes lost. 550 [There was some discussion about how notices about the Planning Board meeting would be sent via first class mail 551 to adjacent property owners and a sign would be posted on the affected property, in the case of map amendments]. 552 553 Pete Hallenbeck: It is important that the notifications be a blend of the dry legal requirements of notification and a 554 nice human readable, ok guys here’s how it’s going to work- we’re going to have to this meeting here’s what you can 555 do, this is an opportunity for you, so it explains the process and people know what is going on. 556 557 Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments; I don’t know how much power we really have. I think we’re maybe 558 assuming that we have more power than we do here. We are really looking at the UDO and deciding whether or not 559 a project meets the criteria of the UDO, we can’t just all of a sudden say, no we don’t like that, and the second part of 560 it is, I think we’re all here to represent some part of the County. I represent Bingham because I live there and 561 because I have other contacts in the community and it seems to me that we should be part of the notification list for 562 any public information session in our area of representation. We should be at least as strongly encouraged to attend 563 that public information meeting on behalf of the Planning Board and all the Planning Board members be encouraged 564 to attend any public information meeting as that somewhat cloudy crystal because I think you can tell from a public 565 information meeting how many people show up as to what kind of a response you’re going to get and what the real 566 concerns and questions are that need to be addressed up front. I don’t really understand the quasi-judicial role we 567 have, I understand that we stand up there and give testimony but if our power is limited to interpreting the UDO and 568 trying make whatever changes proposed fits within the UDO and it either does or it doesn’t and staff is far more 569 versed in the UDO than I am. I find their recommendations are pretty bang on. All of what I have to say in a quasi-570 judicial way is hearsay, right? 571 572 Pete Hallenbeck: The role of the Planning Board is this oversight, are we meeting the requirements of the UDO. 573 Yes, you’re right, but that’s a level of detail you have to have. I would point out, though, that there’s also a document 574 called the Comprehensive Plan. If the UDO is the rules, the left brain, the Comprehensive Plan is the heart and soul, 575 it’s the right brain part of it. There are times when we’ve reviewed things and it’s met all of the requirements but then 576 you’ll find something in the Comprehensive Plan that’s not right and I think it’s not power per say but it’s a very valid 577 role of the Board is to point this out. An example of that is the Comprehensive Plan encourages that all subdivisions 578 have sidewalks and yet every time we run into it there is no money for sidewalks and DOT doesn’t want it. There is a 579 conflict there and we don’t have power over that but we can certainly point it out and I think that’s also true with 580 representing the areas you’re from. 581 582 Tony Blake: Yeah, but I don’t find that to be quasi-judicial in essence. You can point it out in a quasi-judicial hearing 583 but it’s not some... 584 585 Pete Hallenbeck: Quasi-judicial is such a different beast because people get sworn in and there’s testimony. It really 586 changes the game a lot and our role in quasi-judicial is very strict. 587 588 Lisa Stuckey: We’re supposed to be the judge in a quasi-judicial, aren’t we? 589 590 James Bryan: In quasi-judicial, it’s the governing board- the deciding body that is the judge. From a legal 591 perspective, for planning boards’ involvement, it’s dangerous. Especially, how we have it where you close the public 592 Approved 11/5/14 12 hearing and then you have the statements. I think that’s right before appeal, for a number of reasons, I don’t know if 593 the Board really wants to get into all of that but my recommendation would be that because of all of the legal 594 concerns with all that let one board handle it, the Board of Adjustment, that’s all they do and then you also have a 595 corollary to that because when the public goes to these meetings and they want to know, look I’m a neighbor and I’m 596 against this, quasi-judicial they can’t say anything. That’s objectionable, you’re not supposed to allow them to go and 597 speak to that. So if you have one board where they know, oh Board of Adjustment that’s when I have to have my 598 expert there to testify and any time you go before the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Board, that’s 599 when I’m allowed to give my opinion because they do policy and legislative matters. It’s clear for the public. 600 601 Lisa Stuckey: So, the quasi-judicial, and I guess the mix will move out of the Planning Board? 602 603 James Bryan: That would be my recommendation. 604 605 Perdita Holtz: Well, the legislative part of the mix would not but we need to figure out what we want to do for 606 legislative versus quasi-judicial before we tackle that funny beast of the mix. 607 608 Lisa Stuckey: But quasi-judicial is leaving us. 609 610 Bonnie Hammersley: No, as the County Manager I have to speak. The issue tonight is some kind of 611 recommendation from this Board to the County Board of Commissioners, they make the final determination. One 612 thing I would want to add thought as you all talked about your power or your worth, this Board is a highly valued 613 board in county government and is in all the counties I’ve been in. The County Board of Commissioners depend on 614 you greatly for your recommendations and what you do and so I want you for that but no determination has been 615 made on what is going to happen. That’s what this discussion is about. It would be a recommendation to the County 616 Commissioners and whether the Commissioners would agree with that, they would make the final determination and 617 I don’t know what that is. 618 619 Maxecine Mitchell: I’m sitting here thinking I want to share in my own way, when I decided to be on this Planning 620 Board, I came to represent my community. I don’t feel comfortable in any decision we make, I have to be there to 621 hear what the people have to say. I sit here every month and hear the staff from their perspective and I get a good 622 understanding on their challenges, what they are trying to do as a whole, I then like to come to the public hearing 623 meeting and I cautiously listen to the people. Within the decisions we make to the UDO and the Comprehensive 624 Plan when we have a chance that helps me to figure out if it a good thing for the community. Then my 625 recommendation that I give to the County Board of Commissioners, I’m looking at it from the community perspective 626 because I have to live here. You may not live in my neighborhood, in my area, and I don’t want rules making it hard 627 for me to enjoy the life here in Orange County. I take this very seriously so I don’t want whatever we do, I want to 628 hear from the public, as well as coming here every month and hearing from the Planning Board and hearing the 629 County Commissioners and what they want and make it all work the best we possibly can. I understand the legal 630 process but for me that’s top concern because we have to live here in Orange County so we have to keep it where 631 people can enjoy the County and not feel like they want to move to Durham or Alamance County, that’s the way I see 632 it and I want to find the best way to say that in the decisions we make. I try my best to show up to the public hearings 633 and I go to work at 12 at night and the night of that long meeting, I left that meeting and went right to work because 634 that’s my commitment to the citizens of Orange County to be there. I think that staff and the Board of Commissioners 635 get benefit from it. 636 637 Pete Hallenbeck: One good thing coming from this discussion is that it’s an interesting opportunity for everyone to 638 think about the role of the Planning Board and I think we are all basically on the same page. If anyone has another 639 rule they think is critical. 640 641 Paul Guthrie: I mentioned one and that is the fact that we provide the Board of Commissioners with a screen with 642 which they can filter through information as they deal with some very tough issues. 643 644 Approved 11/5/14 13 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, with a blend of the feedback and the community and public input. Also I think there is 645 representation of the areas and there is also that everybody here has a diverse skill set and drawing on both of those 646 really helps with these opinions that we can give the Commissioners. 647 648 Tony Blake: Is it safe to say that any quasi-judicial process is preceded by a legislative? 649 650 Perdita Holtz: In quasi-judicial matters it depends on how you’re zoned on whether you have to get a Special Use 651 Permit and so at some point zoning was applied to the property but you can’t say that it precedes it by a month or a 652 year of something like that. 653 654 Tony Blake: No, what I’m saying is the maybe when we run up against this situation where we think, maybe the 655 County is being too heavy handed but we don’t really have the power to do anything but interpret the facts against 656 the UDO and it either is or it isn’t, right? Michael is the oracle on that, we have a handoff or a way to pass along to a 657 more powerful body, the Board of Adjustment or the Board of Commissioners whoever it is and say here’s our 658 legislative view to take into your quasi-judicial. I don’t know. 659 660 Perdita Holtz: No, it’s not for most of the types of Special Use Permits that we see. The only time that there’s a 661 legislative component is if there is a rezoning associated with also needing a Special Use Permit and that happens in 662 the case of some subdivisions when you get larger subdivisions in the rural area. 663 664 Tony Blake: Yeah, I was thinking of that dog kennel up on 70 where they weren’t really in compliance. They wanted 665 to do something, they couldn’t do something without being in compliance first and then being in compliance was too 666 expensive. It really got dicey and at the end of the day, basically, we were told we couldn’t do anything outside of the 667 UDO but at the same time it didn’t qualify for the Board of Adjustment and so there was this limbo thing and then it 668 was thrown over to the County Commissioners who changed the decision. 669 670 Perdita Holtz: Yes, that really was a messy one. 671 672 Tony Blake: That’s the kind of situation I’m thinking of that it just really seems like we could be more graceful. 673 Changing gears here if we got in early at the community information meetings and tried to make that at least as 674 important as attending the quarterly public hearings for the representatives of that group to bring back to the Planning 675 Board I think that would go a long way towards your crystal ball. 676 677 Pete Hallenbeck: Two things here, on page 72 there’s that summary and that Perdita came up with and 88% of the 678 time things are legislative and 3% of the time it is a mix. You never want to ignore a minority of cases but you also 679 don’t want to optimize the system on one low probability parameter. Also, Tony, I wanted to comment and this will 680 sort of speak to what Maxecine was talking about, I like the idea that you notify Planning Board members if there is 681 neighborhood information meeting in their district. I think that’s a great thing to do. 682 683 Michael Harvey: With all due respect, I think that the policy should be that every Planning Board member gets 684 notified and they can choose to attend if they can or cannot. That way everybody benefits. As neighborhood 685 meetings are scheduled the Planning Board gets notified and every member has an opportunity to attend. 686 687 Tony Blake: I would agree. 688 689 Michael Harvey: The reason I saying it that way is if Tony Blake can’t show up, maybe other members can and the 690 fact that Tony was not able to show up on a given evening. I think if you’re asking staff to make sure you’re notified 691 of every NIM then we can just do that as a policy. 692 693 Pete Hallenbeck: You’re right on the money, that’s more functional and easier to implement. 694 695 Paul Guthrie: I have a question for those of us who live in the County but are under Chapel Hill planning 696 management, how do we get notified? Because most of the planning of what that has done is under Chapel Hill’s 697 Planning Board. There was a point in time in the past the County Commissioners made a recommendation for 698 Approved 11/5/14 14 appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Board, from the area in which I live in, and the first thing that happened, it 699 happened to be me as the nominee, and the first thing that happened was Chapel Hill Planning Board and the 700 Council decided to eliminate that position so I think that we need to talk about those fringe areas that are in the 701 extraterritorial jurisdiction and see if we can get the process working there too. I’m in the southeast corner of the 702 County and it is going to be one of the big growth areas in a very small area over the next few years, I’m afraid, and 703 there is a lot going on but you usually have to read about it in the newspaper to find out about it. 704 705 Perdita Holtz: So you’re suggesting that we work with Chapel Hill Planning’s Department for them to overhaul their 706 practices on how they notify? 707 708 Paul Guthrie: No, I’m just saying it would be nice to know when those things are going on or how many newspapers I 709 need to subscribe to. 710 711 Perdita Holtz: It’s Chapel Hill’s planning jurisdiction and we don’t necessarily always know what is going on. 712 713 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the key thing is, you being in Chapel Hill, if there’s any neighborhood information meetings, 714 you’ll find out about it in the County because Michael’s suggestion was right on the money. It’s easy to implement 715 and everybody’s informed. 716 717 Buddy Hartley: I feel like the process we have now is working. The question is can we get a quorum at the public 718 hearing. That’s the question. The process is working, staff is doing their job. Staff is giving us the information for 719 whatever is taking place and we are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners, whether they like our 720 recommendation or not, they do what they want to do. So, I do like the fact of possibly having the public being able 721 to come to us before the public hearing but then the question is are we going to have a quorum at the public hearing. 722 I don’t see a big problem with that we just need to let staff know in advance if we cannot make that meeting so they 723 know. We should be able to get a quorum at the public hearing. 724 725 Perdita Holtz: Well it’s really far in advance because the legal ad gets published and notices get sent out, the legal 726 ad is due to the paper like three weeks before the public hearing. 727 728 Buddy Hartley: So we want to be able to have a quorum at the public hearing, we either do or we don’t. 729 730 Lisa Stuckey: Aside from the time somebody was late, and I was one of them one time, it’s been very close. There 731 were other meetings, I can think of two others, maybe three, where we were waiting for people to come. 732 733 Maxecine Mitchell: But I usually get an email and if not an email somebody calls. Does not everybody get that same 734 thing as a reminder? 735 736 Perdita Holtz: Yes, Tina sends out emails asking about quorum. 737 738 Maxecine Mitchell: I have it on my calendar but when I get the email I remember, that’s right I do have a public 739 hearing. 740 741 Buddy Hartley: And she does call. 742 743 Maxecine Mitchell: Yes, if she doesn’t hear from me, she’ll call. I just wondering, is that not working for everybody to 744 remember that there’s a public hearing? 745 746 Perdita Holtz: Often we call because enough people have said no, and so it’s getting very close on whether we’re 747 going to have quorum and so now we’re scrambling to get on the phone with people who haven’t responded to see if 748 they can show up or not. 749 750 Pete Hallenbeck: You can put a lot of procedures in place but the bottom line is we had a lot of trouble and if it 751 happens again something has got to change. I would ask, it’s not clear to me, what the value of having a true joint 752 Approved 11/5/14 15 meeting where the Planning Board has a quorum versus requiring Planning Board members to attend and if you 753 have bad attendance then the Commissioners can do something about it, like say thank you for your service but 754 you’re not cutting it. We’re going to be there and we’re going to hear the public hearing input. The commissioners 755 certainly have the ability while we’re there, even if it’s not a joint meeting, to ask if there are any comments from the 756 Planning Board. It’s well within their purview so I just don’t see that dropping the official joint with a quorum 757 requirement, I don’t think that will change the process a whole lot. What it will do is not hold up a meeting where you 758 have 100 citizens there. 759 760 Craig Benedict: From what I’m hearing from the discussion, there seems to be somewhat of a role of the Board in a 761 differentiation between how they act on a legislative matter, where they can hear opinions left and right, they can 762 hear the community and they can see the site versus the quasi-judicial nature where your role is more structured. 763 Not that we are making any determinations tonight, but maybe when we do this interim report, maybe there are two 764 different processes that we follow for legislative matters versus a quasi-judicial and right now they’re clustered 765 together and maybe we should take a look at the role of the Board on a legislative matter and how we get input 766 versus a quasi-judicial matter follow a different tract. Does that sound reasonable? 767 768 Pete Hallenbeck: In general, what I’m hearing, and I realize there is variation everywhere, is everybody agrees there 769 is great value in having the Planning Board at the quarterly public hearing. The challenge is if you don’t have a 770 quorum, we don’t want that to derail anything. I am also hearing people are happy with this concept that the Planning 771 Board can take citizen input so we can get that sooner and hopefully that combined with the 45 days will just make 772 everything go better. Most of what we’ve been talking about is for the legislative processes which are 88% of the 773 time. The quasi-judicial is a different process and we need to work on knowing what our role is in that. That may be 774 something staff and the attorney can work on to educate us on that a little bit better but again 88% of the time it is 775 legislative and it would be great to also notify all Planning Board member of any neighborhood information meeting 776 that is going on so we have a chance to get out there and see what is going on. Those are the main points I’m 777 pulling out. Is there anything major anyone can think of? 778 779 Laura Nicholson: So, is the idea that we will have quorum and we’ll all just internally say we are going to be better 780 about getting quorum or was there some barrier that maybe some of us that are new don’t understand why we 781 couldn’t get a quorum before? 782 783 Pete Hallenbeck: My personal opinion is to drop the quorum requirement because we’ve blown it two or three times 784 and if we blow it one more time, it is just, it’s getting to the point it’s not excusable and that’s also based on the fact 785 that if we can just impress upon people how important it is to be there, it’s not clear what the quorum is doing and the 786 Commissioners can still ask Planning Board members who are present for comments and input. 787 788 Laura Nicholson: It’s just funny that you’re saying we need to make sure that we all know that it’s really important to 789 be there but it’s not a requirement. If it’s really important to be there it should be a requirement. 790 791 Pete Hallenbeck: It should but then when you don’t have it, we were lucky that we had only a 30 minute delay. What 792 would happen if you had a meeting and you didn’t have quorum and you tell all these people I’m sorry we just don’t 793 have the people, we’ll try this again in three months. 794 795 Laura Nicholson: I agree I just don’t see how we can’t have a quorum. 796 797 Lisa Stuckey: Why don’t we ask staff, what’s the problem? Do we know why people haven’t shown up? What’s 798 been the issue? 799 800 Perdita Holtz: I think it just depends on the personalities that you have on the Board. How seriously people take their 801 position. 802 803 Tina Love: There has never been a time when staff went to the meeting without a quorum. I have never left work at 804 the end of the day that staff didn’t have a quorum. If I haven’t heard from you, I get on the phone and I call you and I 805 keep on calling until I reach you, and I’m sorry about that, but we have to ensure there is a quorum. Then staff gets 806 Approved 11/5/14 16 to the meeting and for whatever reason, and things do come up last minute but there just isn’t a quorum. I don’t 807 know what other process we can do to fix that. 808 809 Tony Blake: Send the Orange bus. 810 811 Maxecine Mitchell: For me, I know we get a copy of the calendar every month, I put it on my personal calendar and 812 an alarm goes off and I say hey you’ve got a meeting. I don’t care if it’s an hour before, I’ll throw on my clothes and 813 get up here because I’ve made up in my mind I’m committed and I know it’s part of my responsibility on the Board. If 814 something comes up, an emergency, the first thing I try to do, I’m calling from South Carolina when my sister passed 815 away to say she passed I can’t make it. Things like that, you can’t help but if you’re here you should be making it to 816 the meeting. I think it doesn’t have to be a rule we just have to be committed and show up unless it is out of our 817 control. 818 819 Laura Nicholson: I just think if the quorum isn’t a rule then we’re making ourselves seem less important. Like we 820 can’t make it to a quorum, we’ve already embarrassed ourselves by not being there so let’s just not hold ourselves 821 accountable and I think we should hold ourselves accountable by saying there has to be a quorum. 822 823 Pete Hallenbeck: If the quorum requirement were effective, we would never have not had a quorum and I see this as 824 the price of failure of value of success and the price of failure having the quorum is we hold up the public. The value 825 of success is we have a quorum, the meeting starts but after that I don’t see a lot of difference because the 826 Commissioners can still ask our opinion and we are still there to get input. I think that’s why I come down on the side 827 of dropping the quorum requirement. It’s just that simple weighing of the price of failure and the value of success. I 828 don’t see any difference in the outcome. 829 830 Tony Blake: What’s the reason for the joint meeting? 831 832 Pete Hallenbeck: I think Laura’s right on the money, it does bring the Planning Board out, it makes it part of the 833 process, it give value to it, adds importance to it. By the same reason if we don’t show up it makes it look like the 834 Planning Board isn’t important it doesn’t care and the people are not there and you’re holding up the citizens. 835 836 Laura Nicholson: Is it possible that it was a communication issue, so for example, I knew I was going to be ten 837 minutes late so I emailed Tina but I don’t know if she got my email so maybe it’s that we need cell phone numbers of 838 staff so that we can call people and say hey, I’m going to be late or this came up or maybe it’s just because I’m new. 839 840 Tina Love: One other thing we need is alternative numbers, cell phone numbers for Planning Board. 841 842 Laura Nicholson: So I see it as a communication issue that is holding up the quorum process and if we just over 843 communicate rather than under communicate it will solve itself. 844 845 Perdita Holtz: It really wasn’t the issue of someone being ten minutes late and calling. It was people having full 846 calendars and just not making it to the meeting. 847 848 Laura Nicholson: And they don’t know that in advance? 849 850 Perdita Holtz: I don’t want to speculate on when people know in advance. 851 852 Laura Nicholson: I’m new so I can’t comment but to me it seems simple you’re supposed to be there, you’re there 853 and if you’re not you tell somebody. 854 855 Perdita Holtz: That’s a wonderful outlook. 856 857 Pete Hallenbeck: Sometimes just the ebb and flow of life just doesn’t work out. 858 859 Approved 11/5/14 17 Buddy Hartley: Things come up and when things come up, you contact staff and you let them know, I can’t make this 860 meeting for whatever reason. Everyone won’t be able to always make meetings and if that happened with 3 or 4 861 people for the same meeting, you might not have a quorum. 862 863 Lisa Stuckey: It’s not a regularly scheduled meeting for us, it’s an odd meeting and I think that’s part of the problem 864 and it’s on a Monday instead of Wednesday when we normally meet. Honestly when you’re talking about going to 865 more meeting I wonder how many Planning Board members can really go to those neighborhood meetings. 866 867 Perdita Holtz: I’m a little fuzzy on a certain aspect of what you’ve discussed tonight; I hear that you want to attend 868 the public hearing whether those are quorumed or not quorumed that you want to attend to hear the public. 869 870 Lisa Stuckey: But if they change it and they’re doing it six or eight times a year, are we really committed to that? 871 I would be extremely skeptical. 872 873 Perdita Holtz: That is a question at this time, I don’t really think they are going to be changing the frequency but 874 that’s just my feeling from what we’ve heard. 875 876 Bonnie Hammersley: I will support Perdita on that. One of the things we have is for the November 24th quarterly 877 public hearing we don’t have any agenda items and so it’s difficult to try to justify adding more meetings so right now I 878 don’t see that being the will of the Board to change it. 879 880 Perdita Holtz: I hear that you want to attend the public hearing what I’m fuzzy on is I’ve also heard that you want to 881 do public meeting where the public can come to the Planning Board meeting and comment beforehand. There would 882 be an official agenda item, we would send out notices to any affected property owners and they could come and talk 883 with you. At that point, would you all make a recommendation at that Planning Board meeting and then attend the 884 public hearing or do you still want to wait to make the recommendation after the public hearing? We’re just talking 885 about legislative not quasi-judicial for this. What I am trying to clear on, because I have to write something up for the 886 BOCC, is you want to attend the public hearing and you also want to have a pre-meeting where the public can come 887 and attend. If it involved a piece of property the public is going to get mailed notices and we are going to put notices/ 888 a sign saying come to the Planning Board meeting and let them know what you think. At that meeting will you all 889 make a recommendation prior to the public hearing or do you want to wait until after the public hearing to make a 890 recommendation? 891 892 Pete Hallenbeck: I think we can no more guarantee we can make a recommendation than the Commissioners can 893 guarantee they can make a decision at the quarterly public hearing much as happened with the solar project. I think 894 the best the Planning Board can do is to provide feedback based on our knowledge on the communities we come 895 from and maybe comment on what people say and yes there is a bit of a challenge there because there may be time 896 when all we can do is except that input and frankly there won’t be a whole lot we can say that is terribly intelligent 897 other than thank you for the input. 898 899 Perdita Holtz: So after the public hearing you want to make a recommendation still so my concern is that on 900 legislative items, that do not have a neighborhood information meeting, you are now adding an additional meeting 901 before the public hearing that is going to make the process longer. I want to make sure that. 902 903 Pete Hallenbeck: I don’t think I was saying it that way. 904 905 Perdita Holtz: You’re having a Planning Board meeting that we are going to send out notices. 906 907 Craig Benedict: We’ll send out the letter out and decide. 908 909 Perdita Holtz: No, they’re saying they don’t want to decide, I know that is what we talked about two weeks ago but 910 this is not what’s being talked about tonight. They want to wait to decide until after the public hearing. 911 912 Approved 11/5/14 18 Herman Staats: My own personal feeling about making a recommendation is what I said earlier, if you have 913 opportunity for public input but no one comes then yes we can make recommendations based on the written 914 guidelines but you still don’t have public input. So the whole goal of us discussing this tonight was to increase and 915 have a better access to public input but if they don’t come then we’re not increasing public input. I thought this whole 916 process came up of how do we get more feedback from the public and how do we get them involved. 917 918 Perdita Holtz: That’s one part of it. 919 920 Maxecine Mitchell: Right now, I’m going to go with leaving things the way they are right now. 921 922 Perdita Holtz: Increasing the public involvement, that’s certainly one part of it Herman, about increasing the public 923 involvement however, the increasing of public involvement is really pertinent to quasi-judicial matters and so I am 924 trying to nail down more of what you are all thinking about the legislative matters and we’re going to have to tackle 925 quasi-judicial at some other time. 926 927 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, I agree, just talking legislative and I think I agree with Herman that if we can make a 928 recommendation or decision, we will but there may be circumstances where we just can’t. 929 930 Michael Harvey: Is the concern that not enough citizens are interested in showing up and you’re going to make a 931 recommendation in a vacuum. 932 933 Pete Hallenbeck: No, if nobody shows up and they have met all the requirements for what they are trying to do and it 934 meets the UDO, I say we make a decision and say yes, we’re all for this. I think the times where we wouldn’t make a 935 decision would be like the solar array. 936 937 Paul Guthrie: It’s not judicial, we’re not encumbered on that solution that we have something, nobody shows up, we 938 have a question about it, we could send that to the Commissioners and it could be incorporated in the call for the 939 public hearing. 940 941 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, all that is possible and again it’s part of being an advisory board there 942 943 Tony Blake: Let me just suggest just opposing the whole thing for just a second here. Why not add, and I think other 944 boards have this thing that they have sort of a County Commissioner liaison. Why not require that liaison to be here 945 for quasi-judicial, no quasi-judicial right? Then they can carry that feedback back to the other County 946 Commissioners. 947 948 Pete Hallenbeck: We’re going to stick with the legislative, quasi-judicial is a very strict process. 949 950 Perdita Holtz: There are reasons there’s not a BOCC liaison for the Planning Board and I don’t think there is going to 951 be. 952 953 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the changes we’re talking about is we have the 45 days, we’re just saying let the public 954 come and present input either in writing or verbally at the Planning Board meeting that’s part of the notification they 955 get. We will discuss it there will be times when we can make a recommendation and there will be times when we’ll 956 just throw our hands up and there will probably be times when we go, we don’t really want to get near this thing and 957 we kick it back to the Commissioners. 958 959 Paul Guthrie: Would that be mandatory or just advisory? Could we simply say you may wish to come to a Planning 960 Board meeting prior to the public hearing? 961 962 Pete Hallenbeck: Yes, but part of this is to explain the process, is that exact language. You’re not required but if you 963 care to this is great as it gives us better input sooner, the Commissioners read your feedback before the quarterly 964 public hearing. That explanation should enough to let a citizen realize how the process works. 965 966 Approved 11/5/14 19 Paul Guthrie: Probably a good idea. 967 968 Laura Nicholson: To me there is just some things that seem really cut and dried and there are some things that are 969 really squishy. Is there a way we can delineate that and say these things we agree on and bring a recommendation 970 on these things and these things we still want to talk about more, is that a possibility? 971 972 Pete Hallenbeck: Part of why I tried to say it’s important to be at the QPH not wild about the quorum and you’re 973 comments you really think the quorum will help. The Planning Board taking citizen input, it sounds like everybody is 974 good with that and more input is good. We realize this is legislative that is 88% of what we see, all Planning Board 975 members get notification of any neighborhood information meetings and we realize that the quasi-judicial is a 976 problem for another day we need more education as there are very strict rules. That’s ok because we’ve just dealt 977 with 88% of what we deal with and I would say that’s the summation of what we are putting before the 978 Commissioners along with this process. 979 980 Craig Benedict: Chair, based on the direction the Commissioners gave the manager and the attorney and staff is this 981 interim report is not going to make decision so, that interim report will say probably some things are easier to achieve 982 and some things are a little bit harder so I think in essence we are going to get some ideas on which way we can 983 move with it. Where’s there’s some clarity and which areas might need a little more time. That’s why they said the 984 November 6th meeting wouldn’t have everything done by then. We’ll let them know where we are in the process that 985 we were getting consensus on some areas and we are also determining that there are differences, clear differences, 986 on how the Board’s role is for quasi-judicial versus legislative and how we get community input that might take a little 987 longer. 988 989 Pete Hallenbeck: That’s also why we’re not going to vote tonight on this and what we recommend. We’ve talked 990 they get to sludge through it and see what we’re thinking and it goes on from there. Ok, the last item on the agenda, 991 I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn 992 993 994 AGENDA ITEM 11: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 995 a. Board of Adjustment 996 997 998 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT: 999 1000 MOTION by Bryant Warren to adjourn. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 1001 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1002 1003 1004 Email from Lydia Wegman: 1005 1006 From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:lnwegman@gmail.com] 1007 Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:12 PM 1008 To: Perdita Holtz 1009 Subject: Re: October Planning Board Materials 1010 1011 Hi Perdita, 1012 1013 Thanks for that helpful explanation of the status of the recommendations on the public hearing process. I am very 1014 sorry to be missing the discussion tonight. As a new member of the Board, I feel I would benefit from hearing the 1015 views of the folks who have served on the Board longer than I. I do, however, have two thoughts to offer, which are 1016 laid out in the next paragraph. In addition to that, I plan to read the minutes of tonight’s discussion and then offer my 1017 thoughts on the conclusions reached, if any. I know this is not the best way to engage in discussion, but given that I 1018 am out of town, I think it’s the best I can do. 1019 1020 Approved 11/5/14 20 Here are my views on two issues for tonight’s meeting: First, I do not think the Board of Adjustment should handle 1021 Class A SUPs. I think those should continue to come to the BOCC and to the Planning Board for a recommendation 1022 to the BOCC. I feel that decisions on these SUPs concern the way in which the county is using the precious land 1023 within its boundaries and those decisions should be left to the elected, not appointed, officials. I think it’s important 1024 for the Planning Board to offer its views to the BOCC. My second thought is that the the Planning Board should 1025 make its recommendations to the BOCC after the conclusion of the public hearing, as is done now. I think the 1026 Planning Board should be required to attend the public hearing and am not sure why there has been such a problem 1027 with attendance at the quarterly hearings. Is there really such a problem? If so, I suggest that the Planning Board be 1028 asked to solve it. I don’t think the solution is to cut the Board out of that process. But even if the Board is not 1029 required to attend the public hearing, it should be required to listen to the hearing before offering its views to the 1030 BOCC. The information at a public hearing is in my view essential to helping the Board thoughtfully consider what 1031 recommendation to make. 1032 1033 I hope these views can be considered at tonight’s meeting. Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing about the 1034 discussion at the meeting. 1035 1036 Lydia 1037 1038 _________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair