Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 040115Approved 7/1/2015 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 APRIL 1, 2015 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey (Vice-Chair), Chapel 7 Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 8 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township 9 Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove 12 Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Ashley 15 Moncado, Special Projects Planner 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22 a) Planning Calendar for April and May – to be discussed. Is this helpful? There is a staffing 23 change happening in the department and unless the Planning Board wants to see these 24 calendars each month, this information may stop being produced. The genesis of the 25 calendar was so special because Planning Board meeting dates could be chosen b ack 26 when the Comprehensive Plan and the Buckhorn Village projects were being worked on 27 because many special meetings were necessary. 28 29 Perdita Holtz: As you may be aware, Tina has moved to another department. We are evaluating all the things Tina 30 did and if they should continue. The planning calendar was something Tina put together in the package. We wanted 31 to check with you to see if you find it helpful, want to see it continue, etc. Pete has already told me that it’s something 32 he uses. 33 34 Paul Guthrie: I usually set up my calendar and have this handy. 35 36 Tony Blake: I take this and put it on my Outlook calendar. 37 38 Perdita Holtz: We will continue the planning calendar. 39 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 42 MARCH 4, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 43 44 Lydia Wegman: On page 3, line 136 should read, “Can you help me understand why the county would want to 45 change to the state provisions?” On page 4, line 170 and 172, DEAPR is misspelled. 46 47 Paul Guthrie: I don’t have a change, but I did want to make a comment on line 198 through 201. When I referred to, I 48 wasn’t as clear as I should have been, that the constitutionality limit on sex offenders I mentioned had to do with the 49 issue with the power of the state not that there were sex offenders under sentence and that could have constitutional 50 implications for some of the things we were talking about in the placement of sexually related business because it 51 has to do with basic rights of individuals that exercise certain freedom of rights. 52 53 MOTION by Bryant Warren to approve the Planning Board minutes with corrections. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 54 Approved 7/1/2015 2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 58 59 60 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 61 62 Introduction to the Public Charge 63 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 64 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 65 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 66 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 67 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 68 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 69 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 70 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 71 72 PUBLIC CHARGE 73 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 74 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 75 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 76 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 77 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 78 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 79 80 81 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 82 83 Pete Hallenbeck: The process we go through is to remind everyone, when we vote, if someone votes against 84 something, there is an opportunity to provide a minority report where you can say, here is why I didn’t like it or vote 85 for it. 86 87 88 AGENDA ITEM 7: 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 89 AMENDMENTS: To review changes that have been made to the proposed UDO text 90 amendment to establish a zoning program commonly referred to as Agricultural Support 91 Enterprises (ASE) within the Rural Buffer land use classification and to make a 92 recommendation to the BOCC on the revised text amendment. This item was heard at the 93 February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public hearing and the proposal was recommended for approval 94 by the Planning Board at the May 7, 2014 Planning Board Meeting. 95 96 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 97 98 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed the item and background. 99 100 Lydia Wegman: What is an agricultural processing facility community? 101 102 Perdita Holtz: I don’t have all the definitions so I can’t read it directly. It is the one that has five or fewer farm 103 partners that are doing an agricultural processing facility on one of their farms. 104 105 Pete Hallenbeck: Does that imply that the people involved must be farmers from that area? 106 107 Perdita Holtz: Yes. Orange County or the surrounding counties. 108 Approved 7/1/2015 3 109 Paul Guthrie: How is processing defined? What if five farmers are growing wheat and they put a threshing machine 110 for all them on one farm for an extended period of time. Would that be a processing system? 111 112 Perdita Holtz: If the machine was outside and not in a building for a limited amount of time. Technically it may be 113 considered, but may fall under bona fide farm regulations. 114 115 Tony Blake: It is not beef processing? 116 117 Perdita Holtz: That would be under meat processing. 118 119 Lydia Wegman: But that is permitted? 120 121 Perdita Holtz: Community meat processing would be permitted, but that is not agricultural processing under the 122 definition. There is non-meat and meat. 123 124 Lydia Wegman: It says, permitted by right. 125 126 Perdita Holtz: On the table of permitted uses, a community meat processing facility would be permitted by right. 127 128 Lydia Wegman: If it is permitted by right, that means only the staff gets to address those issues, correct? So the 129 public has no input at all regarding size, noise, and smell? 130 131 Perdita Holtz: Yes. But there are standards about the size and what is permitted. In the use specific standards for a 132 community meat processing facility, the building cannot be more than 10,000 square feet, located at least 100 feet 133 from the property lines, and outdoor storage only in the rear yard, screened from view. As far as the odors, under the 134 performance standards in Section 6.4….. 135 136 Michael Harvey: In Section 6.4 there is air pollution, but not odor per say. There are statutory limitations and 137 protections granted to farmers with respect to odors, limiting them from being classified as a nuisance and limiting 138 adjoining property owners to sue under a nuisance provision under the general statute. 139 140 Lydia Wegman: Are there any restrictions on ag odors? 141 142 Michael Harvey: There are certain restrictions. Certain farm operations are provided, as defined by state statutes, 143 an exemption from being sued as a nuisance case. 144 145 Lydia Wegman: About the 100 foot setback, one of the slides talked about reducing the setback if there is an existing 146 farm building so that 100 foot could potentially be reduced so there is no guarantee of 100 feet between the 147 processing facility and the adjoining property. 148 149 Tony Blake: Would the definition of processing be extended to slaughter? 150 151 Perdita Holtz: If it’s a meat processing facility, yes. If it’s agriculture processing not including animals it is just an 152 agricultural processing facility. 153 154 Lydia Wegman: When does the Agricultural Preservation Board get involved? 155 156 Perdita Holtz: Their involvement is outlined on pages 22, 23, and 24. 157 158 Lydia Wegman: The reference in Section 2.5.4(C)(1)(b) is just definitional, it is not limited? 159 160 Perdita Holtz: Correct. 161 162 Approved 7/1/2015 4 Lydia Wegman: There is no provision for neighborhood information meetings, is that correct? 163 164 Perdita Holtz: There is if you are doing a special use permit application or rezoning application which is a 165 requirement. It is in Section 2.7. 166 167 Lydia Wegman: On page 25, Base Zoning Districts, on the ASE-CZ, is there a definition of compatibility, and then it 168 says thus ensuring and I think that should be en and not in, is there a definition of compatibility, continued 169 conservation, building values or appropriate use of land. 170 171 Perdita Holtz: There is not but the applicability section was taken from existing language in others. It is a legislative 172 decision as to what is compatible. 173 174 Lydia Wegman: Is there any history to what the BOCC would consider? 175 176 Perdita Holtz: Not that I can speak to off the top of my head. It is a case by case. 177 178 Pete Hallenbeck: It is so hard to get everything down in English. A lot of these compatibility issues means if it is a 179 close call it is at the discretion of the BOCC. When we look at all these changes I like to look at th e rules and format. 180 What are the rules and then there is the content. Is the general setup and format acceptable in terms of rules and 181 are there specific things in the table of permitted uses I don’t like and use that as a way to clarify. 182 183 Lisa Stuckey: On page 14, the towns recommended the four uses that we deleted from the rural buffer. What was 184 their thinking? 185 186 Perdita Holtz: I went to seven meetings with the Town of Carrboro for this discussion. It came down to some of them 187 wanted to vote for something and they wanted this to go forward and so they asked their colleagues what their 188 reservations were and that is what they came up with. 189 190 Pete Hallenbeck: It would be interesting to get a current inventory of any agricultural facilities within the rur al buffer 191 that have buildings over 5,000 square feet which would address your setbacks. Another one would be a scatter plot 192 of lots to see how many 100 and 200 acre lots that someone could turn into a farm. 193 194 Paul Guthrie: Is there any language in what you have been working on relative to a piece of property that is 195 legitimately classed as agricultural and wants to begin processing that is now currently under tax leniency? Is there a 196 requirement that the tax be paid before the permit is issued? 197 198 Perdita Holtz: To qualify for the tax value program, if they don’t meet the requirements of the tax value program, they 199 will probably drop the tax value for that portion of the property. 200 201 Lydia Wegman: Do you know of any farmers interested in these activities? 202 203 Perdita Holtz: We have had a few inquiries. 204 205 Pete Hallenbeck: I like the fact that the APB is involved. I like the rules on the format. There will always be 206 differences of opinion. 207 208 MOTION: Made by Buddy Hartley, seconded by Tony Blake 209 VOTE: (7-1) Lydia Wegman opposed. 210 211 Lydia Wegmen: I support some of the uses, but have concerns with a community meat processing facility and why it 212 should be included in the Rural Buffer. To me the Rural Buffer should remain rural and a place to come and relax, 213 enjoy the country. A meat processing facility does not fit into my view of the Rural Buffer. 214 215 Approved 7/1/2015 5 Pete Hallenbeck: Just to clarify, you are saying a rural buffer, not an agricultural buffer, and it is a mistake to assume 216 the two are synonymous. 217 218 Lydia Wegman: I know the Rural Buffer definition includes agriculture and I am in support of that, but with concerns 219 over inability to raise nuisance questions over odors under state law, I am not comfortable having that in the Rural 220 Buffer. I will also note that on the community meat processing, part of my concern is that it is permitted by right. If 221 there were an SUP required with input from the neighborhood, I would be willing to support it. 222 223 Paul Guthrie: Any meat processing of any scale will require significant water and water disposal which comes under 224 a whole different thing. Getting a permit could be difficult. 225 226 227 AGENDA ITEM 8: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS: 228 a. Board of Adjustment 229 230 Michael Harvey: Board of Adjustment did not have a meeting. 231 232 b. Orange Unified Transportation 233 234 Paul Guthrie: Bicycle safety issues will be on the agenda for the next two meetings with a recommendation to the 235 BOCC in June. 236 237 238 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT: 239 240 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 241 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 242 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair