Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 060315Approved 7/1/2015 1 MINUTES 1 PLANNING BOARD 2 JUNE 3, 2015 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 6 Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 7 Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township 8 Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 9 Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, 10 Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: None 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, 15 Special Projects Planner; Rachel McCook, Planning Technician; Erica Gray Administrative Assistant II; 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 19 Craig Benedict: I would to introduce Erica Gray, Administrative Assistant II within the Planning Inspections 20 Department. She will be the new secretary to the Planning Board. She will replace Tina Love. 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 23 a) Planning Calendar for June and July 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26 a) APRIL 1, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 27 28 Pete Hallenbeck: Motion to approve the minutes. The minutes weren’t sent out electronically? Let’s 29 shelve that. 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 32 33 No changes to the agenda. 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 36 37 Introduction to the Public Charge 38 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the 39 Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The 40 general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB 41 shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and business through 42 efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and wel fare of the 43 overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality 44 public services during our deliberations, decision, and recommendations. 45 46 Public Charge 47 The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its residents to 48 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow residents. At 49 any time, should any member of the Board or any resident fail to observe this public charge, th e Chair will 50 Approved 7/1/2015 2 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 51 decorum rail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to 52 this public charge is observed. 53 54 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 55 56 Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to thank everyone for attending the Quarterly Public Hearing. 57 58 AGENDA ITEM 7: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN: To review and make a decision on a Major 59 Subdivision Concept Plan (using the Flexible Design Option) application 60 (Henderson Woods) seeking to subdivide a 48 acre parcel of property into 19 61 single family residential lots with 21.2 acres (44% of the site) held in common open 62 space. The proposed subdivision is located at the intersection on Erwin Road and 63 Whitefield Road in Chapel Hill Township. 64 65 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 66 67 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 68 69 Craig Benedict: To conceptionalize the difference between a conventional subdivision and this flexible 70 conservation cluster. The conventional would give you 19 2.5 acre lots. The flexible with give you 19 1.2 71 acre lots and 21 acres of open space. Everyone living within the project would have a share of this 72 common open space. This is the tendency over the last 10 years for people to have a smaller lot to have 73 the extra space for common open space. 74 75 Tom Heffner: My name is Tom Heffner and I am the developer of Henderson Woods. I have done a 76 number of subdivisions in the area, Creekwood, Northfield, etc. I felt it was more desirable to have open 77 space rather than larger lots. We came in with a plan, got comments from staff and made modifications, 78 had the neighborhood information meeting, listened to their comments and input, made revisions to the 79 proposal based on those comments. Talked to NCDOT and made their modifications. We believe this 80 proposal captures most concerns and represents a reasonable project for the area. 81 82 Pete Hallenbeck: The existing road that comes through and Michael said you can’t get rid of the right of 83 way but it would be limited to the occupants of technically the people in this subdivision couldn’t use that 84 road to get out onto Erwin. 85 86 Tom Heffner: NCDOT has been explicit in saying they didn’t want that to become a secondary e ntrance 87 because that road is so close to a signalized intersection. We would pave that road and put a gate on it so 88 the folks who have a right to use it could open the gate to use it. 89 90 Laura Rohrbacher: What about delivery trucks? 91 92 Tom Heffner: FedEx will be encouraged to use the subdivision streets rather than the private road. 93 94 Pete Hallenbeck: Is that road going to be taken off the GIS system as a road that segment there? If you 95 don’t it would show up for emergency responders as a valid route they could take. 96 97 Craig Benedict: Probably addressing off that road and emergency services has a point on Erwin Road 98 where they expect to see that road. They will have an asterisk on it because of what has happened around 99 Approved 7/1/2015 3 it but my thought process is that if the address is off that road indicate the point of entry for those lots, it will 100 remain on the GIS system. 101 102 Pete Hallenbeck: They are currently switching to a system of closely dispatch that looks for all possible 103 roads and routes and there is no mechanism to show if the road is full access or not. 104 105 Michael Harvey: You will probably see that occur if the project is approved and recorded. This will remain 106 as an easement (Mr. Harvey was pointing to a map of the identified easement area) but the road name will 107 be removed. 108 109 Paul Guthrie: On the open space buffering outside the lot, what is going to be the legal long -term 110 ownership and legal responsibility for that property? 111 112 Tom Heffner: It would be owned by a homeowner’s association as incorporated body. Their legal 113 documents would require their ownership and their maintenance of the property and then in turn there 114 would be homeowner’s dues paid by the people living in the subdivision that would fund that work on an 115 ongoing basis. 116 117 Michael Harvey: If this is approved with a flexible development layout, there will be provisions in the 118 resolution of approval as there are in all major subdivision based on the flexibility and design guidelines to 119 preclude the clearing of the trees within the dedicated open space except for any activity recognized by the 120 board such as the installation of a trial or recreation area. 121 122 Paul Guthrie: My question was about long term liability and things that take place on that and the ability or 123 not of that being removed from open space. 124 125 Michael Harvey: This area could not be removed from open space unless the applicant came back to the 126 county to request a modification of the major subdivision. I will state that we would probably object to it 127 being removed because that is how it was originally approved and we are not interested in seeing 128 dedicated open space turned into developed area. 129 130 James Lea: Does Lot 9 actually take up part of the pond? 131 132 Tom Heffner: Yes. The pond size will be modified. Since it is not a spring fed pond, in the summer when 133 we have less rain, it drops significantly so my goal is that we will reduce the physical area of the pond to try 134 to have a more stable water level. The line is showing the maximum size of the pond. 135 136 James Lea: What happens when you have flooding with the pond? 137 138 Tom Heffner: Earth Centric engineering is doing storm water plan we have had several meetings on how to 139 handle that. We can increase the storm water flow downstream to the properties over to the right. We are 140 trying to utilize the pond as a storm water retention device so in maximum flow areas, the pond will serve to 141 retain storm water so it will be release more gradually after the storm event is over. 142 143 Pete Hallenbeck: It looks like the drainage to the pond is out the center. Is that through a drain pipe? 144 145 Tom Heffner: I don’t know. 146 147 Pete Hallenbeck: If it is, you should still have a cut away for hurricane events. 148 Approved 7/1/2015 4 149 Tom Heffner: That will be part of the design. 150 151 Michael Harvey: I would like to remind the board that on pages 34 and 35, we have provide the board with 152 an email exchange from David Sykes and Jason Shepard of Orange County Emergency Services as well 153 as Mike Tapp who is the deputy chief of the local volunteer fire department indicating there are two existing 154 water sites that would support fire suppression activity. The question was asked, does this pond need to 155 be turned into a water source. Mr. Tapp has indicated it does need to be there as there are existing water 156 sources they will take advantage of. We did not require a stand pipe for this pond. 157 158 Lydia Wegman: How many properties currently use Shakori Trail as an access point? 159 160 Tom Heffner: There are two properties. One property has two houses and the other has one building. 161 162 Lydia Wegman: There is no expectation of expansion? 163 164 Tom Heffner: Those people probably do have subdivision rights there. 165 166 Lydia Wegman: They would have rights? 167 168 Tom Heffner: Exactly. 169 170 Maxecine Mitchell: I take it the threshold for not having some type of recreational, are we going to be faced 171 with someone saying I want to put a pool but I don’t have enough impervious surface to do anything? 172 173 Michael Harvey: This parcel of property is not located in a protected or critical watershed overlay district so 174 there is no impervious limit. There are open space requirements on the lots but nothing that would 175 preclude them from putting in a pool. The applicant is providing walkways but they are electing to do a 176 payment-in-lieu to the County allowing for regional park development. In other words the applicant will give 177 the county money that will go to developing parks in the area. 178 179 James Lea: You said there would be walkways, does that mean sidewalks and if so, who maintains those 180 sidewalks? 181 182 Tom Heffner: The homeowners association. I do a meandering concrete sidewalk behind the DOT street 183 right of way. I am going to do sidewalk on both sides and then another section of sidewalk will come down 184 toward the pond. The combination of sidewalks on both sides will give about a mile of walking t rail. 185 186 Unidentified Female: Are these houses essentially like the ones in Creekwood? 187 188 Tom Heffner: Based on the probable lot size will be. 189 190 Unidentified Male: And the size of those houses will be? 191 192 Tom Heffner: I would guess will be between 4,000 to 6,000 feet. On restricted covenants, I tend to put a 193 pretty low restrictive covenant number in. The minimum square footage will be 2,500 feet. 194 195 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve the flexible development concept plan. Tony Blake 196 seconded. 197 Approved 7/1/2015 5 VOTE: Unanimous 198 199 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS: To make a 200 recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments that would 201 modify allowable impervious surfaced area within the county’s zoning jurisdiction 202 through the installation of infiltration based storm water features. This item we 203 heard at the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 204 205 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 206 207 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 208 209 Herman Staats: You mentioned that if someone decides to use this plan that it is then the responsibility of 210 the property owner to maintain it? Is there some type of recommendation that when a person in the future 211 chooses to but the property, how will they be notified of that? 212 213 Michael Harvey: We require the recordation of an operations and maintenance agreement on the deed. 214 That requires disclosure and that is where a new property owner will be notified of their responsibilities. 215 216 Herman Staats: This issue has come up because the developer of a recent project assigned different 217 levels of impervious surface not equally across the whole project and not necessarily based on individual 218 property acreage so is there a regulation that has that developer disclose that information to the buyer? 219 220 Michael Harvey: Yes. It is memorialized on plats and declarations of restrictions we require to be recorded 221 with a subdivision project. The planning staff, as part of our continuing education efforts, produces site 222 assessments designed to identify environmental constraints and development limitations on property. This 223 includes a breakdown of the allowable impervious surfaces for a given parcel. Staff provides as much 224 detail as possible on recorded plats, declarations of restrictions, etc. 225 226 Herman Staats: Are real estate attorneys aware of this? 227 228 Michael Harvey: They ought to be. 229 230 Lisa Stuckey: By the time you get to the attorney…. 231 232 Herman Staats: If the realtor has not done their job….. 233 234 Tony Blake: I would suggest you put a color coding or make it more obvious than it is. 235 236 Craig Benedict: We find out how much impervious is allowed on the entire parcel, deduct the road and say 237 this is how much you have left. Then leave it to the developer to apportion out that impervious. 238 239 Tony Blake: I would suggest a ratio, lot size to impervious surface. 240 241 Lydia Wegman: I would support doing something like Craig. I was at the BOCC where this was 242 considered, Dr. Sexton spoke and it’s clear that she was hurt by the way the developer divided the 243 impervious surface. I wanted to flag that the Commission of the Environment has not yet offered its view. 244 I’m on the Commission for the Environment. We are very concerned about this change and will be putting 245 in a formal statement in before the BOCC hearing. The impudence seems to be the consequence of the 246 Approved 7/1/2015 6 developer’s not fairly dividing impervious surface and there doesn’t seem to be, from an environmental 247 statement, any benefit to making this change. We discussed if this were to go forward, trying to make sure 248 there are hooks to ensure that the BMP is properly maintained and potentially asking for a bond or some 249 kind of certification on a yearly or bi-yearly basis that in fact it is being properly maintained and having 250 provisions for inspection. 251 252 Michael Harvey: There will have to be an operations and maintenance agreement recorded with this 253 modification process that will spell out how the stormwater feature will have to be maintained, yearly 254 certification requirements, bi-annual inspections completed by the staff. If they fail to abide by these 255 standards, we either compel the property owner to remove not only the feature but also the additional 256 impervious surface area or install a whole new BMP and go through the process again. 257 258 Paul Guthrie: Are existing properties grandfathered in as they are or are they vulnerable when they come 259 in for any modification on that property to these standards? 260 261 Michael Harvey: If you have platted lot and you either have an impervious surface allotment that was 262 assigned as part of the subdivision process or, if it wasn’t, you have an impervious surface allotment based 263 on the provisions of Article 4 of the UDO. 264 265 Paul Guthrie: I was thinking about my own lot we bought in 2004 which was platted in the early 1980s and 266 I read those documents pretty closely and I don’t remember in any of the transfer documents any 267 discussion about impervious surface. 268 269 Michael Harvey: When a property owner has to get building permits or zoning permits that is when they 270 typically find out what their impervious surface allowances area. Orange County adopted its first 271 impervious surface limitation standards in 1989 in the University Lake area and we have moved on since 272 then with the most recent revision being done within the Upper Eno Critical area and that was 2010 so 273 there has been tweaking of impervious regulations since the original adoption in 1989. 274 275 Paul Guthrie: In subdivisions like this and the one I live in, the homeowners owns the roadways. It is not 276 state road but a private road with sidewalks, etc. Is that use of an impervious surface allocated to each of 277 the property owners or each of the owners of the street? 278 279 Michael Harvey: We require developers to identify what is the cumulative amount of allowable impervious 280 surface for the property and then to identify the amount of roadway infrastructure to be installed. This area, 281 specifically the impervious surface area intended for the proposed roadways, is subtracted from the 282 cumulative allotment of the parcel. Remaining impervious surface area is then div ided up between the rest 283 of the proposed individual lots so that no one lot is not encumbered by the impervious surface area in a 284 roadway. The flip side is instead of getting 6%, 12%, 24% on individual lots you are getting a reduction 285 because the developer has already backed out the roadway serving individual lots from the total allowable 286 impervious surface area for a given parcel. 287 288 Lisa Stuckey: If there are 20 lots, and the roads are part of the impervious surface, does each lot carry the 289 weight of 1/20th of the road? 290 291 Michael Harvey: Theoretically but that is technically up to the developer as there is no existing County 292 regulation mandating same. From my standpoint what happened at Triple Crown was an abomination and 293 did not represent the standard operating procedure we currently recognize within the Department in 294 addressing this issue. Because the developer wanted to allow and allot additional impervious area to 295 Approved 7/1/2015 7 support a huge roadway and an overdesigned traffic circle then also give additional impervious to some of 296 the smaller lots to make them more marketable for his specific development proposal we have the problem 297 we now have. From my standpoint most of the issues in Triple Crown were created to address 298 marketability and profit margin concerns of the developer. 299 300 Lisa Stuckey: Would that happen today? 301 302 Michael Harvey: No not from my standpoint. The staff is looking at the viability of requiring lots within a 303 given subdivision to have a set percentage of impervious but that will be difficult in all cases. 304 305 Lisa Stuckey: Going forward what is the rule? 306 307 Michael Harvey: There is no mandatory requirement in the UDO. 308 309 Craig Benedict: This is a negotiation staff is having with a developer. That occurs at the developer review. 310 311 Lisa Stuckey: I’m so skeptical that after I put down my pervious driveway and let it become impervious I 312 am very skeptical the county will dig up my swimming pool. 313 314 Craig Benedict: There is a balance. Some people have no restrictions of impervious in the county and 315 some people have 6% which is very low. Should people have the right to have normal accessory 316 structures on their property for personal enjoyment if there is no degradation to a standard that is accepted 317 by the state? In this case, we are allowing some leeway and allowing them to enjoy their land without 318 degradation to some very strict requirements we had. 319 320 Pete Hallenbeck: You are saying as a member of the planning board that you support the concept of the 321 performance bond. 322 323 Lisa Stuckey: Yes I am. Is the state developing other BMPs besides the impervious surface? 324 325 Michael Harvey: One of the reasons we changed the language to the proposed ordinance is to make it an 326 infiltration based storm water feature was an attempt to allow so something other than just permeable 327 concrete. Having said that the proposed feature required to take advantage of this allowance has to be a 328 infiltration based stormwater feature. The simple act of digging of a pond does not create a proper feature 329 in my mind as all the pond does is capture runoff. It is not necessarily treated before it is introduced into 330 either a second conveyance system or it absorbs into the ground. Requiring an engineered designed 331 stormwater feature that is based on an infiltration model, our hope is that the state would recognize the 332 system as being reasonable as it captures and allows the water to treated prior to its infiltration. The state 333 is revising the entire BMP manual but it is based on the notion that an engineer can design an innovate 334 infiltration based system that as long as it complies with state minimum standards it can still qualify for 335 additional allotment of impervious. I didn’t want to allow any storm water feature which I don’t think is 336 supported by the state’s BMP manual. 337 338 Lydia Wegman: It seems to me the county needs to protect its most resources and the problem is the 339 developer who mistreated the people who were buying the lot from the standpoint of impervious surface 340 allotment and that we are revising a rule that has been in place for some time. I don’t see that as a good 341 reason to revise this rule which has worked very effectively in the county. It seems if the problem is with 342 the developer then revising the UDO to put in place a rule that makes it clear what a developer establishing 343 Approved 7/1/2015 8 what a developer can and cannot do would be a better solution than potentially allowing more run off into 344 the most protected areas of the county. 345 346 Tony Blake: I completely agree. The developer did not disclose what the ramifications are and it would 347 have affected his lot prices. I tend to think to put the onus back on the developer to disclose this impervious 348 surface ratio or what have you to the homeowner… 349 350 Michael Harvey: Respectfully you don’t know that what you are suggesting didn’t occur. This is a p roject 351 platted almost 10 years ago and none of us, including staff, was involved in any discussion between the 352 developer and potential property owners. 353 354 Tony Blake: I am focusing on the loop hole that this project took advantage of. If it is a matter of record, in 355 the closing, that this is disclosed, problem solved in my mind. 356 357 Herman Staats: I agree. I would be in favor or proper and effective disclosure and communication but if, 358 for these impervious surface exceptions, if they are engineering correctly, why would they be a determent 359 to the environment. 360 361 Lisa Stuckey: I am concerned about what the state will call a BMP. I don’t have enormous confidence in 362 our state’s ability to protect the environment. I haven’t heard of other instances with the rule s as they are 363 currently and I don’t know why that should be a basis of changing the rules. 364 365 Paul Guthrie: Let me tell you why I stirred it up. If you read the teacher tenure reading ruling in the state’s 366 courts, they are taking notice of issues of contract. It seems to be that someone that didn’t receive notice 367 of limitation that they eventually wanted to change could not go into court against the whole rule as a taking 368 without due process so I think we need to be very careful how the administration and the language that is 369 used as setup this system on limits on property knowing that down the road, it may or may not be 370 transferred in a way the next buyer understands what the limits on the property are. We need to be as 371 clear as we can. Is our system providing due process? 372 373 Herman Staats: In this example of what we are not supposed to be focusing on but we are, the owner was 374 the developer and he did so he knew what he was doing so it wasn’t something taken away from him, he is 375 the one who did it, he was the owner. 376 377 Lisa Stuckey: What is being recommending is giving not a taking. 378 379 Paul Guthrie: In the specific case you are talking about is that offended buyer could go after both the 380 owner and the legal authority that is running it. I was concerned how we can document that people can, 381 with due diligence, what the property is limited too or not limited to. 382 383 Craig Benedict: The County has a recorded document that lists the development restrictions in that lot in 384 writing. The plat has it and the declaration of restrictions has it as well. 385 386 Pete Hallenbeck: We have all these exceptions, etc. and for a normal person buying a house, they will not 387 wrap their head around those details unless they have been bitten in the past. 388 389 Lisa Stuckey: How big a problem is it? 390 391 Pete Hallenbeck: It is unlikely this is the first person who has run into this. 392 Approved 7/1/2015 9 393 Craig Benedict: We don’t know how many people get to planning. We have a very strict limit in Orange 394 County. We are suggesting minor flexibility that 6% may be difficult. Our standards are very tight. We are 395 still 25% below what the state allows us to do. 396 397 Maxecine Mitchell: When you talk about purchasing a home and being a realtor myself, I guarantee you 398 that lady didn’t say, at some point I am going to add a swimming pool. If you do that a realtor may be able 399 to direct you. The staff did inform Commissioner Barry Jacobs was concerned about the critical watershed. 400 Is this place falling into that area? 401 402 Michael Harvey: Yes ma’am, we did not amend the proposal to exclude this option. 403 404 Buddy Hartley: I do like what staff has done with this giving flexibility and still has guidelines that will have 405 to be enforced with this. They are consistent with the UDO and I like the package they have put together. 406 407 Herman Staats: I agree with that and following Craig’s comment that Orange County does have strict 408 definitions on these things. 409 410 Pete Hallenbeck: It’s easy to look at that and say if you approve this, all you have to do is put down this 411 spongy concrete and you are good to go but to exceed the limits you have to have an engineered solution 412 that is a BMP. 413 414 Michael Harvey: Obviously, there is the hope for some people who have talked to staff about this, you 415 have to show us this will not result in a negligible increase in runoff or basically water quality issues. That 416 was a selling point to OWASA. 417 418 Pete Hallenbeck: It is an engineered solution. It is an option available. 419 420 Lisa Stuckey: People let stuff go. 421 422 Tony Blake: I agree with that. I wonder if this is a problem in search of a solution. When people see what 423 this is really going to cost them, do we really want to add an artificial complexation in reaction to this one 424 instance? I wouldn’t vote against this but I think there is an easier solution elsewhere. 425 426 Pete Hallenbeck: I think its clear people want to see a performance bond, inspections, I want everyone to 427 understand that it is an engineered solution you don’t just put things down. We have a statement of 428 consistency. There is a document called the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO and the two are often in 429 conflict that we shouldn’t be changing structure and detail unless in aligns with the general Comprehensive 430 Plan. The statement of consistency is that it is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed 431 amendment package. 432 433 MOTION made by Buddy Hartley that this is consistent with the Compressive Plan. Seconded by Bryant 434 Warren. 435 436 Lisa Stuckey: I would be much more comfortable with this if putting up a bond were required? 437 438 Michael Harvey: You will be adding that in a motion to approve, you will be including that. 439 440 VOTE: 11 to 1 no (Lydia Wegman) 441 Approved 7/1/2015 10 442 Lydia Wegman: I don’t think it is environmentally responsible to make this change. I think the staff has 443 done an excellent job. This is a broad solution to solve a very limited problem and there should be limited 444 solution to that limited problem. 445 446 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve with amendments on page 60. Seconded by Laura 447 Rohrbacher. 448 VOTE: 10 to 2 no (Lydia Wegman/Paul Gutherie) 449 450 Lydia Wegman: The same as before but I will note if this does move forward and the BOCC does want to 451 approve this I support the amendment that is offered on a performance bond and I think that would be a 452 significant improvement to the proposed change. 453 454 Paul Guthrie: I would echo that. I am not satisfied we have gone to the depth we should have gone to on 455 both of these issues because they go a lot further than this committee. How do you measure impervious 456 surface? 457 458 Michael Harvey: We are going out as staff with a measuring wheel and tape measure or a surveyor does it 459 and we are making the surveyors notes are accurate. 460 461 Paul Guthrie: How do you know the surface you are measuring is impervious? 462 463 Michael Harvey: If it is gravel, covered by building a roof, if it is structure it is impervious. Impervious 464 surface area is defined within the UDO as a surface composed of any material that impedes/prevents the 465 natural infiltration of water into the soil. Such surfaces include concrete, asphalt and gravel surfaces. 466 These include but are not limited to streets and parking areas, sidewalks, patios and structures that cover 467 the land. It does not by state definition include the deck or the water in the swimming pool. 468 469 Paul Guthrie: It doesn’t’ include natural features. 470 471 Michael Harvey: Right. 472 473 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT\ AMENDMENTS: To make a 474 recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments regarding the 475 review and permitting of temporary health care structures. This item was heard at 476 the May 26, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 477 478 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 479 480 Ashley Moncado: Reviewed abstract. 481 482 Herman Staats: The building and efficiency or some other addition to a structure. I could do that anyway 483 as long as my lot size allows me so nothing in what we discussed about this temporary health care 484 structure prevented someone from using those if they wanted to? 485 486 Ashley Moncado: Correct. There are other options provided in the UDO. 487 488 Herman Staats: I didn’t understand why it’s so restrictive. 489 490 Approved 7/1/2015 11 Craig Benedict: When you bring it back to the BOCC, we will explain that more. 491 492 Lisa Stuckey: If I go to page 73, 5-48 under 5.9 (a) 1, if I wanted to do one of these things and hire this 493 company that would put one up, at that point, does it have to be a first or second degree relative? 494 495 Ashley Moncado: Yes. All those options, a relationship by marriage or a legal guardian. 496 497 Lisa Stuckey: If I want to use one of these things, then I am restructured. 498 499 Pete Hallenbeck: This is a state issue. 500 501 Michael Harvey: We are doing this amendment because the state recognizes this specific unit. Previously, 502 our ordinance allowed for a mobile home to be on a property every year. We had to recognize it because 503 the state said we had to allow this and it was a compromise to what was really and unreasonable process 504 to allow for a temporary custodial mobile home that imposes an additional cost. 505 506 Ashley Moncado: We have had previous staff discussion about aging in place, havin g an accessory 507 dwelling unit to live together in a dwelling unit, etc. 508 509 Pete Hallenbeck: You are putting this in because there is a person with healthcare issues that you want to 510 take care of on your property. 511 512 Lisa Stuckey: Could we recommend losing that limitation? 513 514 Ashley Moncado: I would feel that if you are not more restrictive statute we could recommend it tonight and 515 present it to the BOCC. 516 517 Laura Rohrbacher: I have an issue regarding aging in place and if you have two aging parents, the 518 temporary health care structure does not address that. 519 520 Pete Hallenbeck: If we are going to get rid of the relationship thing. I would like to put something in there 521 that says you care for the people without charging them. 522 523 Tony Blake: How does this differ from a trailer? This sounds like a high end solution for people. This 524 sounds to be a specific company to corner the market on a high end solution and exclude everything else. 525 526 Pete Hallenbeck: The state’s going to do it. Did you want to take the funny thing being rammed down our 527 throat or take the rest of the UDO and try to solve the problem? If we are getting rid of the family thing, put 528 something in there that says don’t charge. 529 530 Ashley Moncado: Reconstructed NC State building codes, a manufactured or mobile home would not 531 qualify as a temporary health care structure. 532 533 Tony Blake: So there’s a different building code for a temporary health care structure? 534 535 Ashley Moncado: Temporary health care structures are to be built to NC State building code as the same 536 as a modular unit so there are standards that are similar to a modular unit. 537 538 Tony Blake: Trying to prevent people from putting mobile in? 539 Approved 7/1/2015 12 540 Ashley: Possibly, but we still have the option of that. You can go through the option of having a temporary 541 mobile home brought on a piece of property. 542 543 Tony Blake: this seems to be almost legislation for a specific company to try and corner the market on a 544 high end solution and exclude everything else. That’s what worries me and I think that’s what worries 545 commissioner Dorosin as well. 546 547 Pete Hallenbeck: All that’s true, the states going to do it, they’ve been quietly whacking away at everything. 548 The only think I would say on amending this is do you want to take this one funny thing being rammed 549 down our throats and try and solve a problem or do you want to take the rest of the UDO and really really 550 solve a problem. I don’t have a strong feeling about it, the only thing I would say is if you’re taking out the 551 family thing don’t charge them. 552 553 James Lea: Does this amendment require a special use permit? 554 555 Michael Harvey: No, because state law says you have to allow it. 556 557 James Lea: You have to allow this? 558 559 Michael Harvey: Yes. 560 561 Paul Guthrie: That’s why it’s really touchy if we take this and say oh here’s this problem and get rid of 562 something and now’s there’s this thing that we have to allow and what’s that going to bring to it. 563 564 Tony Blake: General standards aids submittal requirements 1 a & b are really there to do what you are 565 talking about which is say it’s harder to judge a family than someone else. 566 567 Pete Hallenbeck: That’s a good point it’s harder and charge is also nebulous right 568 569 Tony Blake: Right. 570 571 Pete Hallenbeck: Grandma you can live here I got this little thing you need to sign in regards to your estate 572 first. 573 574 Paul Guthrie: If the state requires this to why do we have to put it in the UDO? 575 576 Tony Blake: Because the state has to come in and inspect them and do all of that right 577 578 Paul: The 2nd thing is if it is possible to basically do this under existing UDO provisions why get us into this 579 business of degree of relationship? 580 581 Ashley: Currently this type of use has no way to permit it under the UDO because it is specific to new use. 582 There’s nothing that qualifies for it to be permitted to the UDO and we are going through this process to be 583 consistent with state regulations to identify new UDO. Now that you’re looking at doing all these types of 584 amendments if we weren’t going through this process then it would be permitted as state statue. Currently it 585 is allowed to be permitted and we are trumping the state statue if you’re removing this regulation regarding 586 the relationship. If someone came in without this in the UDO we would have to require that relationship. 587 588 Approved 7/1/2015 13 Paul Guthrie: The state doesn’t require a facility to be built but does the state specify who can use it? 589 590 Ashley Moncado: Yes 591 592 Paul Guthrie: Anybody? 593 594 Ashley Moncado: Well do they specify it has to be a physically or mentally impaired individual NC resident. 595 596 Lydia Wegman: And a relative 597 598 Ashley Moncado: Yes 599 600 Paul Guthrie: And a NC resident on top of that? 601 602 Pete Hallenbeck: That’s where your submittal requirements came from the state law? 603 604 Ashley Moncado: Yes, all of this is the state law. We cannot change it if it’s not identical it’s very similar. 605 606 Paul Guthrie: The owner of the property has to be a NC resident and the recipient of the housing has to be 607 a NC resident. 608 609 Ashley Moncado: Yes 610 611 Paul Guthrie: The lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. 612 613 Pete Hallenbeck: And it’s going to cost you about $100,000. 614 615 Craig Benedict: Whey you get a mandate from the state and you start trying to tweak it it’s a slippery slope. 616 So we can resolve some of the options about having people not related by blood living in these accessory 617 structures. I would suggest let’s get this statue, preemption of a lot of our other rules, put in and address 618 the other issues about being more flexible and not having the relationship stuff addressed by other portions 619 of the code. Right now how many people do we allow unrelated by blood in the house? 620 621 Ashley Moncado: 3 622 623 Craig Benedict: Some places allow more than that so I mean there could be a case where you want to go 624 up to 4 or 5 so we would be suggesting other amendments to the code to allow housing opportunities that’s 625 the new trend. I think we could make an amendment to this and the state says are you adhering to us and 626 we say yes and made it even better and they are like Orange County did something again to our 627 minimums. That’s just an idea I think we can address other sections of the code and since the state is 628 asking for this almost verbatim it would be better to let this fly. 629 630 Pete Hallenbeck: I don’t want to take a bad idea and say we combed it’s hair and put lipstick on it and now 631 it’s good. 632 633 Lydia Wegman: Craig, when you say address it in the code you would have to develop new amendments to 634 the code 635 636 Craig Benedict: Yes 637 Approved 7/1/2015 14 638 Lydia Wegman: Added to the long list already 639 640 Lisa Stuckey: You could do a completely identical parallel amendment to the code and just change the 641 things we like. We could have 2 of them sitting there. 642 643 Pete Hallenbeck: I’ll remind everybody that we have this dinner with the commissioners every year and 644 that’s an opportunity to say here are areas that we think would be interesting to look at this might be a very 645 good thing to look at and now you’re going to go through the right process instead of tweaking it and if this 646 goes away, we could still have our solution. 647 648 Laura Nicholson: I withdraw my amendment request however this is a solution without a problem. It’s a 649 unaffordable ridiculous thing but I am all for complying with state regulations. 650 651 Tony: 1 question for Mike, this temporary structure does this count against your impervious surface? 652 653 Michael Harvey: Everything counts against your impervious surface if it meets the definition. 654 655 Paul Guthrie: Between the septic laws and the impervious surface, I think there can be lots of decisions 656 made on the process. 657 658 Lydia Wegman: Craig & Michael you mentioned co -housing and it sounds like some discussion is going on, 659 is that something this could incude addressing this problem that we’re talking about? 660 661 Craig Benedict: Yes. I think this could go true we have new initiatives about affordable housing about small 662 housing but we’ve been trying to describe these new hou sing opportunities out there. Are they mobile 663 homes, are they RVs, are they micro houses, we will be presenting to the commissioners probably in 664 September of this year. These other type of housing options would address bringing the parents back in the 665 house. We’re into that process, we would expect getting a green light to address some of those issues in 666 September or October and bringing forward later this year. 667 668 Lydia Wegman: And would that kind of thing come to the planning board fi the commissioners said go? 669 670 Craig Benedict: Yes, definitely. 671 672 Lydia Wegman: Thank you. 673 674 Pete Hallenbeck: We have a statement of consistency to vote on and it says this isn’t against what’s in the 675 comprehensive plan. It addresses a .25% improvement on that plan. We’ll need a mot ion to vote on that 676 and then vote on the specific amendment items here. We’ll make a recommendation to the BOCC on the 677 statement of consistency that yes we think it is consistent. 678 679 MOTION made by: Buddy Hartley. Seconded by: Bryant Warren 680 681 Lydia Wegman: Housing goal #2 – Housing that is useable by as many people as possible regardless of 682 age, ability or circumstances but this is only useable by one person 683 684 Tony Blake: 1 income 685 686 Approved 7/1/2015 15 Laura Nicholson: it also says affordable housing earlier in that. 687 688 Lydia Wegman: I don’t think it’s consistent so ia m going to vote No. 689 690 Pete Hallenbeck: The comprehensive plan and the UDO are often in conflict with each other. 691 692 Lydia Wegman: I know that. 693 694 Pete Hallenbeck: We want affordable housing and we want sidewalks. 695 696 Lydia Wegman: I realize that I will just note this requirement to vote on consistency is an empty 697 requirement because as you say Pete, there’s always a lot of inconsistent things in the comprehensive plan 698 and you could find something to support almost any position in the plan. 699 700 Paul Guthrie: Are you going to call the vote. 701 702 Vote 10 to 2 (Paul Guthrie/Lydia Wegman*) 703 704 Paul Guthrie: I didn’t like it. 705 706 Pete Hallenbeck: Motion to approve the amendment as in the packet UDO amendments. 707 708 James Lea: What page is that on? 709 710 Pete Hallenbeck: 73 attachement 3. 711 712 Motion by Buddy Hartley. Seconded by Bryant Warren. 713 714 Pete Hallenbeck: This is the section in red we discussed where it says the submittal requirements and so 715 forth. This document is very much driven by the state law. 716 717 Ashley Moncado: Yes 718 719 Vote: 9 to 3 (Lydia Wegman, Lisa Stuckey and Paul Guthrie) 720 721 Pete Hallenbeck: Paul would you like to say anything. 722 723 Paul Guthrie: Bad law, we can deal with the issue without it. 724 725 Lisa Stuckey: I’m voting no simply because I don’t think we have all the facts. This is something worth 726 asking the attorney whether it could be made less restrictive to include nonrelatives to be in compliance 727 with other areas of our UDO to allow husband and wife to be in there together so I just feel like I would 728 rather let the attorney guide us, something for county commissioners to ask the attorney. 729 730 Lydia Wegman: I agree with Lisa. I’m concerned about approving just this piece without having the other 731 pieces. We’ve talked about going forward with it so it’s clear that we are presenting a whole package of 732 options to people who are facing this situation. We may need to follow up on Lisa’s suggestion and we 733 many need to approve this but I would like to see if there is a way at the same time to approve something 734 that is broader and meets the needs of many more people in the county. 735 Approved 7/1/2015 16 736 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 737 738 Pete Hallenbeck: Ok. Very good. That was the last item on our agenda. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 739 740 Motion to adjourn made by Bryant Warren. Seconded by L aura Nicholson 741 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair * Red text was added to the June 3, 2015 minutes to accurately present the vote regarding this item on July 2, 2015 following Planning Board adoption. From:Tony To:Perdita Holtz ; "Andrea Rohrbacher"; "Bryant Warren "; "Buddy Hartley"; Deputy Chief Pete Hallenbeck; "Herman Staats"; "James Lea "; "Laura Nicholson"; "Lisa Stuckey"; "Lydia Wegman"; "Maxecine Mitchell"; "Paul Guthrie" Cc:Erica L. Gray ; Debra Graham; Craig Benedict; Michael Harvey; Ashley E. Moncado Subject:RE: Additional Item for July 1 Planning Board Meeting Date:Monday, June 29, 2015 6:53:41 PM Not sure this came through in the minutes. While I tend to agree with the UDO amendment relieving slightly the regulation on impervious surface, I think the case used to make the impervious surface change was not a defect in the UDO, but a problem of disclosure on the part of the developer and a legitimate oversight on the part of the real estate agent. I argue that changing the UDO alone addresses the symptom, but does not address the root cause of the issue. I argue further that real estate agents and buyers must be alerted if/when the impervious surface limit on a subdivided piece of property under development falls below a certain ratio. Since it is up to the developer to parcel that restriction the burden of disclosure is on the developer. -Tony From: Perdita Holtz [mailto:pholtz@orangecountync.gov] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 3:13 PM To: Andrea Rohrbacher; Bryant Warren ; Buddy Hartley; Deputy Chief Pete Hallenbeck; Herman Staats; James Lea ; Laura Nicholson; Lisa Stuckey; Lydia Wegman; Maxecine Mitchell; Paul Guthrie; Tony Blake Cc: Erica L. Gray; Debra Graham; Craig Benedict; Michael Harvey; Ashley E. Moncado Subject: Additional Item for July 1 Planning Board Meeting Hello Planning Board Members, We discovered that we need to add an additional item to the Planning Board agenda: Approval of April 1, 2015 ORC Summary Notes. The file with the notes is attached for your use and information. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Perdita Holtz, AICP Planning Systems Coordinator Orange County (NC) Planning Department P.O. Box 8181 (mailing) 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor (physical) Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 919.245.2578 pholtz@orangecountync.gov