Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 030415Approved 4/1/15 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 MARCH 4, 2015 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey (Vice-Chair), Chapel 7 Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar 8 Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 9 Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; Lydia 11 Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, 16 Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Tim and Ruth Sukow, Joe Forrest, Doug Efland, Marsha Efland, Lindsay and Knox Efland 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 23 a) Planning Calendar for March and April 24 b) JPA Public Hearing item for March 26, 2015 (initiated by Town of Chapel Hill) scheduled 25 for May Planning Board meeting for a recommendation. 26 27 Perdita Holtz: The Town of Chapel Hill pulled their application because they need to iron out details and it wouldn’t 28 have been ready in time so we are going to wait until October’s Joint Planning Hearing. 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 FEBRUARY 4, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 32 33 Tina Love: There were two minor corrections submitted by via email by Tony that are highlighted in yellow. 34 35 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the February 4, 2014 Planning Board minutes with corrections. Seconded by 36 Tony Blake. 37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 42 43 Introduction to the Public Charge 44 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 45 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 46 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 47 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 48 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 49 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 50 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 51 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 52 53 54 Approved 4/1/15 2 PUBLIC CHARGE 55 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 56 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 57 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 58 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 59 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meet ing 60 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 61 62 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 7: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS: 65 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments that would 66 establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. This item was heard at the 67 February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing and the Planning Board received an update on the 68 topic at its February 4, 2015 meeting. 69 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 70 71 Perdita Holtz reviewed the item and background. 72 73 Paul Guthrie: On page 22 in the middle, second paragraph, what is your definition of “high quality development”? 74 75 Perdita Holtz: It was something talked about as part of the small area plan process and wanting to ensure that we 76 didn’t end up with a preponderance of metal or cinderblock buildings and the regulations that pertain to internal 77 pedestrian systems, etc. that all add up to what we would term “high quality development”. 78 79 Pete Hallenbeck: If you look at the proposed amendments, you talk about community character and the Planning 80 Department will take pictures of buildings to have something to look back on when you are making that somewhat 81 subjective call. Your point is well taken but there will be enough recorded for someone to look at that and say, “how 82 did that happen?” 83 84 Craig Benedict: Some of the differences are that we had a lot more mandates about how development should occur 85 very prescriptive but it did mention high quality development. That is subjective but we are creating a mandate and 86 that didn’t go together so now we are creating something that is feasible. 87 88 Pete Hallenbeck: I am happy with the development and the community involvement. 89 90 MOTION by Laura Nicholson to approve amendments as presented by staff. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 91 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 92 93 Craig Benedict reviewed the history of this project for the new members. 94 95 Paul Guthrie: This is a good case study about how we deal with changes in this county. This whole county over the 96 next 50 years will urbanize tremendously so this kind of issue will come up over time and some time when the 97 planning staff catches their breath, they may want to strategize the process so we won’t have to reinvent the wheel 98 each time. 99 100 Pete Hallenbeck: A lot of those steps are underway. The UDO is not perfect or light reading but a lot better. There 101 is progress here. What happened in Efland will set a lot of precedence. 102 103 AGENDA ITEM 8 DISCUSSION ITEMS: Planning Staff will present information on the following items and receive 104 feedback from the Planning Board: 105 a. Impervious Surface Issues currently being discussed with the state 106 b. Zoning Code Enforcement in and around the Economic Development Districts 107 c. Sexually Oriented Businesses 108 Approved 4/1/15 3 109 Michael Harvey updated on issues the County staff is dealing with on impervious surface issues. 110 111 Tony Blake: We just went through this with the fire department at White Cross. The water garden required an 112 easement. We didn’t know that until after we had completed everything so we had to pay for a second full survey of 113 the property. My suggestion would be that if you are going to reference BMPs and the DENR in the UDO, you need 114 to make that clear. The second issue was you said something that peaked my interest, what watershed is this 115 property that is complaining? 116 117 Michael Harvey: University Lake Protected. It is the most protected watershed in the County. 118 119 Craig Benedict: Our rules are more restrictive than the state requires. Discussed the example of Cain Creek. 120 121 Tony Blake: When you do this transfer between two lots that has to be deeded? 122 123 Michael Harvey: If you are talking about the conservation easement, you have to record the easement deed 124 language in the Register of Deeds formalizing the transfer yes. 125 126 Tony Blake: Why isn’t the quarry in here? 127 128 Craig Benedict: It may when the operation is complete. 129 130 Paul Guthrie: How do you interlock your analysis with waste disposal, septic systems, etc.? 131 132 Craig Benedict: We have been looking at that with Environmental Health because part of the water quality that runs 133 off lots is due to the nutrients that come off based on the impervious surface. 134 135 Lydia Wegman: Can you help me understand why the County would want to change to the state provisions? 136 137 Craig Benedict: You could put more impervious. It would create more tax base. And there are water quality issues. 138 The less the better, impervious surface. 139 140 Tony Blake: Isn’t most of the effect downstream? 141 142 Craig Benedict: The question you ask may be asked by the BOCC and some of the members of the community. 143 Someone will need to show the benefits. 144 145 Tony Blake: The state is not suggesting that you get rid of the more restrictive requirements? 146 147 Michael Harvey: The state isn’t mandating we do anything with respect to this item but there has been legislation 148 that has been reviewed at the state level basically indicating local governments cannot be more restrictive than the 149 state allows. The state is also considering modifying its definition of built upon area which translates to impervious 150 surface. State officials are looking to add gravel areas, that are compacted to serve as vehicular access roads, to the 151 definition of built upon area thereby making them count as impervious. 152 153 Tony Blake: How does an easement affect this? Does that count against my impervious surface? 154 155 Michael Harvey: Yes. 156 157 Lisa Stuckey: Is there a social cost in terms of affordable housing, it makes it more expensive. 158 159 Michael Harvey: I don’t know if it is the impervious limit in any watershed that creates a higher cost for the 160 development of housing. It is the totality of the regulations. One example would be University Lake. There is a 161 density limit indicating you can only have a specific number of units per acre, specifically 1 unit for every 5 acres of 162 Approved 4/1/15 4 property. I think that has more of a dramatic impact on the price of land versus a limit on the amount of impervious 163 surface area. 164 165 Laura Nicholson: What is the frequency of these requests? 166 167 Michael Harvey: I get one or two a year. 168 169 Lydia Wegman: Has DENR or DEAPR said anything about the effect of this change on water quality? 170 171 Michael Harvey: DEAPR has not been involved because we haven’t gotten any direction from elected officials? 172 173 Craig Benedict reviewed information on zoning code enforcement in and around the Economic Development 174 Districts. 175 176 Lydia Wegman: Would that be a change to the UDO or state legislation? 177 178 Craig Benedict: It may be both. If we can do it within the UDO we will. 179 180 Tony Blake: Could you try a carrot approach and offer a tax break and allow the fire department to burn down these 181 houses? 182 183 Craig Benedict: We have spoken to a few people and are surprised they have not taken the offer. It is likely they 184 want to sell the property. 185 186 Michael Harvey reviewed sexually oriented businesses 187 188 Michael Harvey: We have printed a 1988 document prepared by the Institute of Government. It is still timely and 189 more offers more definitive comments on the regulation of sexually oriented businesses. We technically don’t allow 190 sexually oriented businesses, which is illegal. We cannot simply ban these uses but we can regulate them. From a 191 zoning standpoint, you will one of the main tools utilizing is a separation requirement of sexually oriented businesses 192 from identified sensitive uses. One area of concern from the county attorney’s office is that we must ensure our 193 regulations deal with the notion that if you have a legally established sexual oriented business and a sensitive land 194 use moves next door, it does not make that business non—conforming. We have gone as long as we can without 195 tackling this issue. This amendment will involve licensing and a zoning component. 196 197 Paul Guthrie: There are some legal actions going on with regards to the constitutionality of limiting where sexual 198 offenders can live. You may want to make sure they are keeping an eye on what is going on in the federal court. 199 200 Michael Harvey: Sexual offender registry issues are not germane to this. 201 202 Paul Guthrie: There is a case making its way through the federal system now that may make it to the Supreme 203 Court. 204 205 Michael Harvey: We will take you through a process that will require the elected officials and Planning Board to 206 make reference to studies and findings. 207 208 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 209 a. Board of Adjustment 210 b. Orange Unified Transportation 211 212 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT: 213 214 MOTION by Bryant Warren to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 215 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 216 Approved 4/1/15 5 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair