Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 020415Approved 3/4/15 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 4, 2015 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Vice-Chair),-At-7 Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large 8 Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 9 Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 10 Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, 11 Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: None. 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Tom Altieri, 16 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative 17 Assistant II; 18 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2015 24 25 There was discussion about when members’ terms expire and Tina Love read term information from a list. 26 27 MOTION by Buddy Hartley to reappoint Pete Hallenbeck as Planning Board Chair. Seconded by Tony Blake. 28 29 Buddy Hartley: I would also make a motion to keep the Vice-Chair. 30 31 Lisa Stuckey: I would like to not be the vice chair. I am Chair of the ABC Board and I think it would be good to get 32 somebody else in here doing it as long as I’m chair of the ABC Board because it is extremely time consuming. I 33 would suggest somebody else might be interested in doing this, so I’m going to bow out. 34 35 MOTION by Paul Guthrie move election by acclimation to reappoint Pete Hallenbeck as Planning Board Chair. 36 37 Lydia Wegman: I would be willing to serve as deputy chair but I’m happy to defer to someone else if they actively 38 want it and are willing to do it. 39 40 Laura Nicholson: I think Tony would be good, he’s always got something to say. 41 42 Tony Blake: Like Lisa, I’m on another board that consumes a lot of time so…. 43 44 MOTION by Paul Guthrie move election by acclimation to appoint Lydia Wegman as Planning Board Vice-Chair. 45 46 47 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 48 a) Planning Calendar for February and March 49 b) Quarterly Public Hearing on Thursday, February 19 (Planning Board attendance 50 expected) – Draft Legal Ad attached 51 c) Work session scheduled after the public hearing on February 19 52 • Public Hearing Process changes 53 • Unified Development Ordinance Private Road and Access Standards 54 Approved 3/4/15 2 • The Edge Subdivision in Chapel Hill 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 58 DECEMBER 3, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 59 60 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the December 3, 2014 Planning Board ORC Notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 61 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 62 63 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the December 3, 2014 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 64 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 65 66 67 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 68 69 70 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 71 72 Introduction to the Public Charge 73 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 74 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 75 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 76 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 77 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 78 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 79 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 80 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 81 82 PUBLIC CHARGE 83 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 84 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 85 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 86 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 87 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 88 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 89 90 91 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 92 93 94 AGENDA ITEM 8: EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (ETJ) EXPANSION POLICY: To review a draft ETJ policy and 95 provide comments on the proposed policy 96 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 97 98 Craig Benedict reviewed the abstract and background. 99 100 Pete Hallenbeck: With regard to Hillsborough, ‘easy to supply utilities’ was easy cost or engineering? 101 102 Bryant Warren: Cost and some areas that weren’t feasible to get water and sewer. 103 104 Pete Hallenbeck: I took these six considerations and encapsulated them. The first one says you must have a plan, 105 you can’t just do an ETJ because you think it would be fun. The second one is no satellite annex, no gerrymanders. 106 The third one is that it has to be real and it has to align with infrastructure, there’s a feasibility test there. The fourth 107 one is a no tug of wars clause. The fifth one is you can’t use an ETJ to get around the county or someone’s rules that 108 Approved 3/4/15 3 you don’t like. The last one is the rules for farms are different because there are state laws that kick in. That was my 109 take on that. So now if people have questions for Craig. 110 111 Paul Guthrie: Couple of things, on page 19 when you go through the submittal and the Planning Board review 112 process you indiscriminately put ‘will’ in a few places and ‘shall’ in other places when you get down to the language 113 between the City of Chapel Hill and the County, you may want to put ‘shall’ in more places than ‘will’. That’s old 114 statute writing issues. The second general question in the planning process and the host jurisdiction and so forth, 115 and this is a personal comment since it happened to me. The County Board of Commissioners appointed me to the 116 Chapel Hill Planning Board. Chapel Hill Planning Board redesigned its membership and declined to make the 117 appointment. Essentially they picked who they wanted, not who the County Commissioners wanted, so make sure of 118 your language when you write the agreement, as to how you want that representation so it can’t be gamed. 119 120 Craig Benedict: I think what we’ll also look at in the case of ETJ representation, are there distinct areas. I think one 121 of the issues in Chapel Hill there’s Rogers Road that should be represented. That’s a new area and yet there’s an 122 area in southeast Chapel Hill which seems to be in your area that also wants representation because there is a 123 different growth potential there. 124 125 Paul Guthrie: In my case they appointed someone from Durham, on the east side. 126 127 Craig Benedict: Let’s take a look at the fine writing in this and make sure that doesn’t happen. 128 129 Tony Blake: When I read this it didn’t seem to cover the eventuality where we have an ETJ from another city, like 130 Durham or Mebane, into Orange County. Would we have a person sitting on a Durham Planning Board or something 131 like that? Second comment, when you say ‘shall’ or ‘will’, I would also like to have a timeline in there. These people 132 can’t vote for the town council or what have you and they are disenfranchised. I think it should have a timeline of 133 some sort to say that it will annex and these people will be given the right to vote or right to exercise their choices for 134 a town government and the other thing was I always thought we should outline the services. In some cases in the 135 ETJ, they extend the school system out there but they don’t extend the water and sewer, they don’t extend this, that 136 and the other thing, and if you look at this SAPFO funding everybody in Orange County wants to talk about this being 137 a school thing and it is primarily a school thing but it is also other infrastructure if you read the statute, it is also things 138 like water and sewer, transportation it’s those other adequate funding items that Orange County tends to put their 139 blinders on and Chapel Hill tends to put their blinders on and say it’s just schools. It would be good to have an 140 outline of what services should be extended. 141 142 Pete Hallenbeck: I’m fuzzy on the timeline concept. 143 144 Tony Blake: For example, there are areas in the County that have been in the ETJ for 30 years or more and it seems 145 to me as if those folks have been disenfranchised. People’s property rights are being restricted by people they 146 cannot vote for. 147 148 Pete Hallenbeck: So you want a use it or lose it timeframe. 149 150 Tony Blake: I want a use it or lose it timeframe, yes. 151 152 Lisa Stuckey: I thought the legislature made it really hard to annex? 153 154 Paul Guthrie: They have. 155 156 Lisa Stuckey: I don’t think a timeline would work. 157 158 Tony Blake: They’ve made it more difficult for the towns to annex but they’ve made it easier for the developers to 159 demand to be annexed. 160 161 Approved 3/4/15 4 Lisa Stuckey: Yeah, but maybe they don’t want to pay the taxes. If bringing the services in means higher taxes, I’m 162 not sure that’s what they would want. 163 164 Tony Blake: For example in the Mount Carmel area, would the town extend the water and sewer if they didn’t plan to 165 annex it and people who bought there must have known this, that annexation intent, and that’s where it’s gotten 166 fuzzy. 167 168 Craig Benedict: I think it leaves some problems for later, the whole fire district tax and who is going to service. It 169 does leave some lingering problems. 170 171 Paul Guthrie: As a resident in that neighborhood, I can tell you that’s a much more complicated topic. There were 172 false cost figures and the town manager of Chapel Hill’s estimated cost to the town for annexing the area, was way 173 below what the tax rate was supposed to be and the insurance companies had failed to recognize the fact there were 174 fire plugs in the neighborhood and took almost half the tax so there were a lot of other issues going on. 175 176 Tony Blake: All I’m saying is that without a timeline, some sort of use it or lose it piece, it leaves that sort of question 177 festering and you end up with this sort of situation. 178 179 Lisa Stuckey: On page 19, under Planning Board review, number 2, it says there will be a notification in a 180 newspaper. I worry a little that people might not see a notice in the paper. Most of the time I think the County 181 advertises in the News of Orange which no one in Chapel Hill ever reads, I mean no one, and the other one is the 182 Durham Herald which almost no one reads as well. I guess my other question is do people pay attention to the those 183 sufficiently. To have it really be effective notice. 184 185 Craig Benedict: I guess acknowledging that there might be a more elaborate way, besides the newspapers, the 186 Commissioners might say to mail it. I’ve noted it and I’ll let the Commissioners know that if they want this stuff to be 187 vetted at this level that a mail notice is probably more thorough. There’s later public hearings too. 188 189 Maxecine Mitchell: If you put signs up that’s better than the newspaper. 190 191 Pete Hallenbeck: The County needs to explore new ways to get the word out to everybody realizing how people get 192 their information today. 193 194 Lydia Wegman: Craig the point is to raise the issue. What level of involvement they want the Planning Board to 195 have. 196 197 Michael Harvey: One thing to remember, this is just a process to get to the state-required process, this is sort of an 198 initial scoping session. You can start the formal process to extend the ETJ and it still may be denied regardless of 199 what happens in this process. You are going to have multiple points of notification that has to occur. 200 201 202 AGENDA ITEM 9 UPDATE ON PROPOSED EFLAND ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICTS: To receive an update on the 203 proposed Efland zoning overlay districts (heard at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public 204 hearing). This item will likely be on the March 4th Planning Board agenda for a 205 recommendation to the BOCC. 206 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 207 208 Perdita Holtz updated the Planning Board on the progress of the Efland zoning overlay district and the meeting held. 209 210 Lydia Wegman: These suggestions of the residents, are these changes that you are going to make in what you bring 211 to us next month? 212 213 Perdita Holtz: Yes, staff doesn’t have concerns. 214 215 Approved 3/4/15 5 Lydia Wegman: These changes that go in the UDO, these would be applicable only to two overlay districts? 216 217 Perdita Holtz: Correct. 218 219 Lydia Wegman: So they wouldn’t serve as some sort of precedence if there were some subsequent…. 220 221 Perdita Holtz: No. When you get it back there will be in a different color to show what has changed from what was 222 show at the February quarterly public hearing and the changes that have been made along the way. We try to make 223 it clear what the changes are when we give you information. You may have also noted when you look through this, 224 like suggestions about community character, that we plan on asking the community at the next public information 225 meeting to share their thoughts about community character. If they have strong feelings about what they think are 226 examples of community character that should be replicated or nearly replicated, to please send it to us because we 227 would like to have some sort of photograph document to give to people who are maybe interested in developing in 228 the area. Community character is a little bit nebulous to what one person thinks that might not be someone else’s so 229 if we could get input from the actual residents on what they think the character is to show the developers or others 230 interested in doing something, we think that would go a long way. 231 232 Pete Hallenbeck: My take on community character is that we don’t point to some of the painted cinderblock buildings 233 that we have that made a great deal of sense 30 years ago and say that’s how we do it in Efland and we would just 234 get more of them. Road access was a big issue, the idea that you’d have to put in an access road, particularly the 235 parcels north of the railroad tracks, you lose a 30-40 foot chunk from what is already a small piece of property. 236 Another thing discussed was chain link fences and it was decided to allow a five foot chain link height limit so it’s a 237 practical fence to keep the dogs and children from the street but business can’t come in and put up eight foot chain 238 link fences with barbed wire which would drive a community in the wrong direction. One thing to remember is Efland 239 is a very unique area; it’s the County’s town. It has water and sewer but is not in an incorporated area. 240 241 Andrea Rohrbacher: I thought I saw something about the entrance to a building does not have to have street 242 frontage. That has been very controversial in Chapel Hill in several spots. What was the thought process behind 243 that? 244 245 Pete Hallenbeck: When you look at the area between the railroad tracks and US 70, it not very wide and there really 246 isn’t a predominant street. Everyone coming from the interstate is going to be on Forrest Avenue which runs parallel 247 to the tracks and then there is US 70 and there maybe 400 feet between the two and businesses need parking so we 248 want to make sure if you have a building that faces 70 that if you had parking in the rear, you could have a rear 249 entrance to the building. This is an example of trying to fit into the existing building and the lay of the land of the 250 parcels in the northern part. 251 252 Tony Blake: Has Steve Brantley given any guidance to this from an economic development perspective? I’ve 253 heard, Bonnie [Hauser] has told me, that there isn’t a vision for the area. I wonder if he came up with suggestions on 254 the businesses to be attracted to the area. 255 256 Pete Hallenbeck: I know he is aware of what is going on particularly in the economic development zone and west on 257 Buckhorn and I think right now this is laying the groundwork for Steve to come in because we have all this different 258 areas of density and mixed use. 259 260 Lisa Stuckey: That BOCC appointed committee met for 10 years and then the citizens met for a year and brought it 261 back to planning staff and everyone is in agreement so why would we mess with it. 262 263 Tony Blake: Exactly. 264 265 Lisa Stuckey: I’m serious, I’ve been on this Board a long time and we keep going back to Efland, let’s finish. It’s 266 probably not a good idea to upset the apple cart. 267 268 Approved 3/4/15 6 Pete Hallenbeck: So, our recommendation was to receive an update, ask question, offer comments. Any other 269 comments? 270 271 272 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 273 a. Board of Adjustment 274 b. Orange Unified Transportation 275 c. Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group 276 277 Michael Harvey: The Board of Adjustment held a hearing on an appeal on a decision by me concerning the recipient 278 of a notice of violation on a gun range and the Board upheld our decision because there was insufficient evidence to 279 prove that we erred. There will probably be some form of appeal. 280 281 Tony Blake: There is a lot of concern about signage down there and emergency response. 282 283 Lydia Wegman: Will there be a change in the regulations as a result of all this? 284 285 Michael Harvey: Staff will update the Commissioners and ask for direction. If there are going to be changes, there 286 will not be changes to the noise ordinance because the sheriff is not interested and the attorney’s office doesn’t think 287 they will be enforceable if there are changes. 288 289 290 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT: 291 292 MOTION by Bryant Warren to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 293 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 294 295 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair