Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 120314Approved 2/4/15 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 DECEMBER 3, 2014 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 6 Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 7 Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 8 Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant 9 Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey (Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large 13 Bingham Township; 14 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, 17 Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director; 18 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Bonnie Hauser 21 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 27 a) Planning Calendar for December and January 28 • Elect Chair and Vice-Chair for the year in January. 29 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 NOVEMBER 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 33 34 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the October 8, 2014 Planning Board minutes with additional information. 35 Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 40 41 42 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 43 44 Introduction to the Public Charge 45 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 46 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 47 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 48 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 49 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 50 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 51 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 52 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 53 54 Approved 2/4/15 2 55 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 56 57 Pete Hallenbeck: Just to clarify, when we have a guest speaker come to speak to us it is for our information and not 58 to create a public forum, that is not the purpose here. We will strike a compromise tonight and allow Bonnie to ask a 59 few questions. 60 61 Pete Hallenbeck: Keep in mind that due to open meeting laws, when members email each other back and forth 62 those emails are public record and as such will be part of the record or minutes. 63 64 Pete Hallenbeck: In the meeting the BOCC had with advisory board chairs, I asked about the preference for 65 information in the minutes and the consensus was that going around the table is helpful and concise and the open 66 back and forth discussion can become confusing and hard to follow. We will try to get away from that some and 67 especially if something has been discussed at length. 68 69 70 AGENDA ITEM 7: OVERVIEW OF COUNTY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: To receive an overview on the 71 County’s economic development activities, as requested at the November 5th Planning Board 72 meeting. 73 Presenter: Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director 74 75 Steve Brantley gave an in-depth review of the economic development department and its efforts to attract business 76 and the challenges faced in Orange County. 77 78 Tony Blake: They broke ground on Chatham Park yesterday, in one sense I’m a little afraid of over building, there 79 seems to be a lot of competing dollars and projects going on, is there a concern that we might try to over build? And 80 not be competitive? 81 82 Steve Brantley: How could we over build? We can run 4 million dollars’ worth of water and sewer to serve industry 83 that takes these sites whether they are marginal sites with poor topography and eye sores, whatever but the water 84 sewer boundary agreement says you cannot have that industry that would rather be on the other side of the road and 85 connect to utilities, it cannot happen. From there south all the way to the rural buffer to Chapel Hill/Carrboro it is 86 rural. When you factor in watershed protection issues, and the water and sewer boundary agreement, the rural buffer 87 you have multiple overlapping restrictions that won’t allow industry or a Tanger mall type of development to be 88 anywhere other than just along the highway. 89 90 Paul Guthrie: We’ve been looking for years at a unified water system, Durham, Cary, Raleigh, Chapel Hill and 91 Hillsborough. There are some connections but there is not a straight way in. One of the long range development 92 plans that needs to be undertaken is a serious look at the long range needs for water and wastewater disposal. 93 Aren’t those some common projects for multiple municipalities? That is a real key to give you tools but will also 94 protect this whole area from long term droughts. 95 96 Steve Brantley: I wish that certain sites that border the existing EDDs, even though outside the water and sewer 97 boundary agreement, could be incorporated. If that’s what it takes to get that big project which would otherwise walk 98 and go to Alamance County, I’d like to be able to have that as an option. Secondly, what I personally consider the 99 best land in Orange County to attract business is where 85 and 40 come together in Efland. There is watershed and 100 water and sewer boundary issues that keep all that land off limits to what actually would be the most successful to 101 develop with big projects. It has rail, it has visibility, it is not encumbered with topography, housing, etc. 102 103 Tony Blake: I am really more of a representative of Bingham, and what they want is small community/organic 104 business. What is stopping that is the land doesn’t perk and there is no way to support sewer, however, I’ve seen 105 two instances in my immediate area where there is a technology call AdvanTex. We put it in in the fire department. 106 UNC is using it at their animal research facility. What I’m wondering is there a way to bring in a private organization 107 Approved 2/4/15 3 or the County or the State into those areas to enable that kind of small development. Is there a way to enable this 108 type of small business through economic development? 109 110 Steve Brantley: I’m not the person to comment on that technology but I will say that I know of a retail prospect that is 111 probably going to Efland, it’s about a dozen jobs, it’s sales tax and employment opportunity and the ability to shop 112 without driving to Alamance County and I’m in support of that so I think if someone who lives in an area is able to 113 promote a local business situation, I think that’s great. There are a lot of people in the County that need choices that 114 fit their scale, we have 6,000 people in Orange County on welfare. 1 in 3 children in Orange County are on Medicaid 115 for their healthcare and 1 in 4 are on free or reduced lunches. We have a poverty index which is under the radar and 116 I want to see opportunities for those people to work and shop. 117 118 Tony Blake: Look at the situation for Fiesta Grill, he has been reduced by the health department to 4 or 5 tables 119 because of the septic situation and he could employ more people and serve a lot more food if that situation were 120 resolved but there is no resolution for that. 121 122 Pete Hallenbeck: Whenever anyone talks about water, sewer, and power, I always chime in with ‘data’. What is 123 being done, particularly in the Efland area, to get data? 124 125 Steve Brantley: Craig and I met recently with the county’s IT director and he is currently now working with the data 126 providers to help us understand what is in the County, particularly along the highway, what would it cost, and the 127 delivery times to upgrade to the level that projects require. 128 129 Pete Hallenbeck: One thing that is interesting is that we have dug up a lot of ground in that area and this came up 130 and I was asking why we were not putting the plastic pipe in for data while we were installing sewer lines. The 131 answer was that the County will not spend anything for infrastructure that would be for the phone company. They are 132 on their own. 133 134 Steve Brantley: I think the utility, Time Warner, Duke Energy, PSNC etc. would install the lines to the property for 135 any big projects at no cost to the industry. It is business for them that they can and want to serve. I would think that 136 fiber can work like that. 137 138 Bonnie Hauser: Could you give us a number on Morinaga after the incentive is paid, what is the property tax revenue 139 going to be on that property? 140 141 Steve Brantley: For the first 5 years, assuming the company actually hires the people they say and makes the 142 investment, then we will pay a five year benefit or bonus to the company. They will pay 100% of their property taxes 143 and we will give them a check equal to 75% of it. So for 5 years we get 25% of the property tax and we have done 144 surveys with all counties like ours across North Carolina and that is exactly what other counties do. We are doing 145 nothing out of the ordinary. 146 147 Bonnie Hauser: I want to know what the number is, is it 5 million dollars, or is it, what is the actual tax revenue once 148 we are through the deal, roughly. 149 150 Steve Brantley: Well, you’re the accountant, you can multiply 87 cents per 100 times 48 million dollars. 151 152 Bonnie Hauser: So it’s 48 million. 153 154 Steve Brantley: I think that is only half if not a third of what we are going to get. We have incentivized phase one of 155 a project that may turn into phase two and maybe even phase three over the next six to 10 years and if that happens 156 then we are going to have 300 jobs not 100; we’re going to have 150 million dollar investment not 48 or 58. A 100 157 million dollar investment, like Carrboro is sitting on with the Lloyd Farm Project, if they were to recruit that tonight and 158 it got built it would generate to Orange County, just to the County, almost 900,000 dollars annually in new property 159 taxes plus whatever Carrboro gets. Then you have the retail sales tax. That retail sales tax goes to transit, 160 economic development and the general fund and schools get 50% of the general fund. 161 Approved 2/4/15 4 Bonnie Hauser: If I go to Mebane or another community versus Orange County what is the time table to get 162 something approved in another place versus Orange County? 163 164 Steve Brantley: I think Mebane approved Morinaga within 60 to 90 days and had Mebane not annexed Morinaga, it 165 still could have gone on here but it would have taken them longer to go through the process which in Orange County 166 would have been…. 167 168 Craig Benedict: What Steve mentioned was pre-zoning where zoning has certain uses permitted by right which 169 means review can be a staff function and if it was a staff function we would match the same time frame that Mebane 170 would have. If they have to go through a rezoning process where they have to change or up zone it from the base 171 zoning that is probably 4 to 5 months of process and a developer may not want to go through the site plan process 172 concurrent with this legislative rezoning process. 173 174 175 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT: To continue discussion and 176 provide input on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the 177 existing public hearing for Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas related items/ 178 amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2014 quarterly public hearing and was 179 discussed at the October 8 and November 5 Planning Board meetings. 180 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 181 182 Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract 183 184 Paul Guthrie: I think the flowchart pretty much portrays the conversation, I am still concerned about how some of this 185 will work. We may not find that out until we do it. 186 187 Pete Hallenbeck: I read the minutes and this certainly seems to align with it. The problem is that at the quarterly 188 public hearing the commissioners went in all different directions of opinions and at some point we have to just let 189 them decide. The other problem is the concept that some people only want to deal with the decision makers so no 190 matter what process you put in place some people will want to just wait and talk with the commissioners. We will at 191 least have a system where people can come to the Planning Board and express their concerns early; we can only do 192 as good as the feedback we get from people. 193 194 Lydia Wegman: How do you reconcile that with you hearing that the County Commissioners want the Planning 195 Board to attend the quarterly meetings? 196 197 Pete Hallenbeck: That’s a decision they have to make. My interpretation of that is because it is currently a joint 198 meeting and if the rules change on that then they’ll have to give us guidance. 199 200 Lydia Wegman: Then what is the point of the Planning Board? How significant has this quorum problem been? 201 202 Pete Hallenbeck: We’ve had two events in the last year of so where the meeting was held up and one 3 or so years 203 ago there was over a 30 minute hold up. 204 205 Lydia Wegman: Isn’t it a simpler solution to make sure the Planning Board members know they are expected to 206 attend rather than change the whole process. 207 208 Perdita Holtz: It depends a lot on who is on the Planning Board and what commitment they have. Some people had 209 jobs where they had to travel a lot and that Monday night meeting was difficult for them. It varies depending on who 210 is on the Planning Board. 211 212 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the fact that we’ve had two problems in the last year or so and we made it clear and it 213 happened again so I don’t know what more could be done. 214 215 Approved 2/4/15 5 Laura Nicholson: I brought it up in a previous meeting and the consensus was it is easier to fix it this way. Judging 216 by the push back I think there are things going on the new members don’t always get. 217 218 Lydia Wegman: I am stating for the record my main problem is having the Planning Board offer its view before the 219 public hearing is problematic. The Planning Board will never be sufficiently informed to offer a well-considered view 220 without having heard the presentations at the BOCC meetings. 221 222 Pete Hallenbeck: I understand, we are all wrestling with this problem. At least this mechanism has a way where the 223 Commissioners can identify that this one is going to take a while, etc. 224 225 Perdita Holtz: In this process it would also allow the lay person to actually speak to the Planning Board, in a lot of 226 communities if you are not an expert at the quasi-judicial hearing, you don’t get to speak. If Orange County were 227 ever to perhaps be sued over that, we might adopt that type of attitude about it too. This process would allow the lay 228 person to come to the Planning Board and speak their concerns and why. 229 230 Lydia Wegman: You’re right Perdita but I’ll just note that because of the public hearing, the layperson’s testimony is 231 irrelevant. It would have to be made very clear to the lay person that while they might speak at the Planning Board 232 that because it is quasi-judicial, by the time it’s before the Board of County Commissioners, only expert witnesses 233 can give testimony. 234 235 Pete Hallenbeck: Again, with the solar project as a reference, if there were interaction with the Planning Board while 236 the developers were here there are a lot of questions, answers, interchanges that just can’t happen at a quasi-judicial 237 setting and the resident have an opportunity to get better organized so that when you went quasi-judicial and you 238 have to swear in you have experts and it’s much more focused. 239 240 Lydia Wegman: The three most critical elements in that was the staff could not make a recommendation. 241 242 Craig Benedict: Nor the Planning Board. 243 244 Lydia Wegman: Nor the Planning Board, they are the most critical ones and they are the only ones in fact which the 245 case if it ever went to court would be considered. The key one was ‘the use will maintain or enhance the value of 246 contiguous property’. In the case of the solar application, there was an appraisal offered by the solar company and I 247 bet that appraiser, even if he showed up, would have come and said whatever he was going to say to the Planning 248 Board and at the public hearing they have a new appraisal and a new appraiser which no one had seen before. And 249 there would be nothing that could have been done. 250 251 Pete Hallenbeck: There’s another example, they showed this picture of these panels that were further away than 252 what was planned with trees there and claimed that was equivalent and so to have that opportunity to do that in 253 advance… 254 255 Lydia Wegman: The advance doesn’t necessarily stop the applicant from showing up with new information that is 256 crucial to the decision. 257 258 Pete Hallenbeck: I think it is a great way to think through the ramifications of the process because we have an 259 example to look at. Those are the discussion you can have when you’re not constrained by the quasi-judicial 260 process and the benefit there if we had this discussion is the residents would have an opportunity to see and get 261 feedback from the Planning Board and staff and all of that would help them to make a better presentation. 262 263 Lydia Wegman: It is disingenuous to the community to pretend that what the Planning Board and staff can offer an 264 opinion on the 3 most crucial elements. I think that is a flaw in the process. 265 266 Perdita Holtz: That’s under state law, it’s not something we can change. In some communities the Planning Board 267 doesn’t hear the quasi-judicial matters at all. 268 269 Approved 2/4/15 6 Paul Guthrie: It seems to me that if this process will work at all, this Board may have a bigger responsibility because 270 we have one shot to raise the critical questions that need to be considered in the decisions and that doesn’t happen 271 in the joint session now where we sit there and listen to something until 11 o’clock at night and then by the time it’s 272 over we can’t even remember what the questions are that you really think need to be considered. I think we have an 273 obligation if this becomes practice to think through how we communicate through staff to the Board of County 274 Commissioners on issues that need to be dealt with by the Commissioners at the time of testimony. The Boards that 275 I have seen operate in this County only occasionally rise to that level. The staff rises to it but I’m not sure the boards 276 do and we need to think about that as a Board. 277 278 Perdita Holtz: Probably what will happen is that the Planning Board minutes will become part of that public hearing 279 packet. 280 281 Craig Benedict: We would accent anything different that occurred in the application from the original material. We do 282 accent any new information, any change in information that has occurred from the original application and evidentiary 283 material that comes forward. 284 285 Pete Hallenbeck: Ok, so the action for tonight is? 286 287 Perdita Holtz: Is there consensus that this flowchart captured the quasi-judicial discussion. 288 289 MOTION by Paul Guthrie that the flowchart captured the Planning Board discussion of the quasi-judicial process. 290 Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 291 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 292 293 Lydia Wegman: Let me clarify. I am voting to say the flowchart captures what we’ve talked about, I am not saying I 294 agree with it just to be clear. 295 296 297 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 298 a. Board of Adjustment 299 300 301 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT: 302 303 MOTION by Bryant Warren to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 304 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 305 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair