Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 100715Approved 11/4/15 1 MINUTES 1 PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 7, 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; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 8 Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, 9 At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large 10 Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: None 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 15 Planning Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 16 17 OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Koch, PE Earth Centric Engineering, Inc.; Tom Heffner, Developer Heffner Properties, Inc.; 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 22 a) Planning Calendar for October and November 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 a) September 2, 2015 ORC Notes 26 b) September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting 27 28 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 30 31 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the minutes. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33 34 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 35 36 No changes to the agenda. 37 38 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 39 40 Introduction to the Public Charge 41 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General 42 Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 43 development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and 44 accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner 45 which considers the present and future needs of its residents and business through 46 efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and 47 welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of 48 responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decision, and 49 recommendations. 50 51 Public Charge 52 Approved 11/4/15 2 The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board 53 asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the 54 Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any 55 resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to 56 leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum rail to be 57 restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to 58 this public charge is observed. 59 60 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 61 62 None 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation on a request to rezone an 65 approximately 9 acre parcel of property located at 4915 Hillsborough Road within the Eno 66 Township from Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1), Economic 67 Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection 68 Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District to Economic 69 Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection 70 Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. This item was 71 heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly public hearing. 72 73 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 74 75 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 76 77 Michael Harvey: There were no comments made at the public hearing by the public. We have provided, on pages 13 78 and 14 of the abstract, answers to the two questions asked at the public hearing concerning land use buffers and site 79 plan approval. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the statement of consistency enclosed in 80 Attachment 2 and the ordinance amending the zoning atlas in Attachment 3. We are asking you to make a 81 recommendation on this petition which will be presented to the BOCC at their November 5 meeting. 82 83 Pete Hallenbeck: We have a statement of consistency to vote on. Do I have any motions to approve the statement of 84 consistency? 85 86 MOTION made by Tony Blake to recommend approval of the statement of consistency. Buddy Hartley seconded. 87 VOTE: Unanimous 88 89 MOTION made by James Lea to approve the ordinance of approval. Herman Staats seconded. 90 VOTE: Unanimous 91 92 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a recommendation on a 93 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Henderson Woods, located at the intersection on Erwin 94 Road and Whitfield Road in Chapel Hill Township. The Plat is consistent with the Concept 95 Plan Flexible Design Option reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in June 2015 96 The Plat shows 19 single-family residential lots on a 48 acre parcel of property with 21.51 97 acres (44.9% of the site) held in common open space. 98 99 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 100 101 Patrick Mallett reviewed the abstract and presentation. 102 103 Tony Blake: On page 34, is that table looking at the perc sites on those lots? 104 105 Approved 11/4/15 3 Patrick Mallett: Yes the septic systems will all be contained on the lots; the wells may or may not. The goal is to have 106 every lot have an onsite septic and well. There are a few situations where that may not be the case. 107 108 Maxecine Mitchell: Will the access road from Erwin Road remain private? And will the landowners be able to use it? 109 110 Patrick Mallett: The access road is private and has access agreements with the existing property owners. The 111 easement will continue as it is currently aligned with the gravel road and will become a paved road with a gate that 112 will allow access for the property owners to continue use. 113 114 Lydia Wegman: Is there any comments from the neighbors we should be aware of? 115 116 Patrick Mallett: They have been resolved or were general questions regarding the nature of the request such as lot 117 size, density, rural buffer, and how does a cluster neighborhood work. There was one resident that had questions 118 about environmental sensitive areas so the applicant got the wetlands flagged and surveyed. The applicant is going 119 through the process for the wetlands permit with the state. 120 121 Paul Guthrie: I want to come back to septic and well. Looking at the preliminary sketch and the septic field areas and 122 wells, is everyone comfortable with the nature of the property and that there is sufficient separation to not overload 123 the groundwater areas around the wells? 124 125 Patrick Mallett: Based on the applicant’s experience they are familiar with the soils in the area and lay of the land. 126 There has been enough due diligence to figure out where to have the well sites and the available suitable soils for the 127 sceptics. 128 129 Paul Guthrie: I assume that with the areas drawn on the site plan that there is sufficient area for a single family septic 130 system? 131 132 Patrick Mallett: Yes, for the system and repair. 133 134 Paul Guthrie: You said the pond is pretty shallow which suggests to me there is not such pristine water. I was 135 wondering if that was thought about in terms of the overall plan? 136 137 Patrick Mallett: The pond is shallow because of sedimentation. I would say the waters are pretty clear. Environmental 138 Health has their rules and regulations that will have to be met. 139 140 Pete Hallenbeck: The key concept here is that Environmental Health has looked at this and they are happy with the 141 well positions. 142 143 Patrick Mallett: Yes, they have. 144 145 James Lea: How many homes will share wells? 146 147 Patrick Mallett: Environmental Health limits you to two. 148 149 James Lea: What happens when we have a drought when you are sharing one well? 150 151 Tom Heffner: Typically the deep wells put in subdivisions today are not affected by droughts. They are deep enough 152 to provide an adequate flow. On any lot that has shared wells I would go ahead and drill the well before we sell the lot 153 to determine the capacity of the well. The last thing we would want to happen is to sell someone a lot and they don’t 154 have water on it. 155 156 Tony Blake: Is there a well to be capped and a septic system to be abandoned? 157 158 Approved 11/4/15 4 Tom Heffner: Correct. The septic has already been abandoned and the well will be capped. Both of these are from an 159 existing home which will need to be removed. 160 161 MOTION made by Buddy Hartley to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Lisa Stuckey seconded. 162 VOTE: Unanimous 163 164 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 165 on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the existing public 166 hearing process for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related 167 items/amendments. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly public 168 hearing. 169 170 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 171 172 Perdita Holtz reviewed the abstract. 173 174 Perdita Holtz: As a result of questions asked at the public hearing by the BOCC and Planning Board there have been 175 a couple of changes made to the version presented at the public hearing. These changes are shown in orange text in 176 the agenda package. 177 178 Paul Guthrie: How are you going to legally document that you have mailed the notices? 179 180 Perdita Holtz: The person that does the mailings in the department does a certification of mailing. State statutes do 181 not require certified mail. 182 183 Perdita Holtz: The BOCC asked for the Planning Board to provide input on whether you think a quorum of Planning 184 Board members is necessary to hold a public hearing or if the proposal should stay as it is stating the Planning Board 185 is expected to attend the quarterly public hearing, but a quorum is not necessary in order to have the public hearing. 186 187 Pete Hallenbeck: What does everyone think about whether or not Planning Board members should be required to 188 attend? I am inclined to go around the room and allow everyone to comment. 189 190 Laura Nicholson: A quorum is important. 191 192 Pete Hallenbeck: When you say a quorum is important, that means you do want it to be a joint meeting where the 193 Planning Board members are required to be there and therefore you have to have a quorum. 194 195 Laura Nicholson: That is my opinion. I think if you have that and make it clear then it should not be a problem. 196 197 Maxecine Mitchell: I am sort of leaning both ways, but I feel sometimes rushed to make it to a meeting in order to not 198 hold it up or be the reason the meeting can’t go forward. I would still come to the meetings because I agree they are 199 important for us to make decisions. 200 201 Buddy Hartley: I don’t think a quorum is necessary. 202 203 Paul Guthrie: I’m torn. The quorum is probably a good idea for the educational benefit for this group. The reason I 204 support a quorum is because we need to be engaged in some of the items that come through. My other thought is we 205 need a better idea defining what a quorum is. If four people were legitimately ill, this could set back a whole process 206 for months. I would support a quorum, but would like some discussion with legal counsel how you calculate the 207 quorum if some event occurs. 208 209 James Lea: I personally do not think a quorum is necessary. 210 211 Approved 11/4/15 5 Herman Staats: I think documents can be written to indicate Planning Board members are expected to be there 212 without legally requiring a quorum. I think a quorum is not needed, but members are expected to be there. 213 214 Lisa Stuckey: I completely agree with Herman and I would direct our attention to page 97 of the materials where we 215 have our date, time, and location of regular meetings and Section 4 on page 96. I think quarterly public hearings 216 should be added as a section on page 96 and it be stated Planning Board members are encouraged to attend, but 217 not required. 218 219 Tony Blake: I agree with Laura. I think it should be a requirement if we are going to be bound by quasi-judicial 220 testimony and provide input to the decision makers then we should attend the meeting. 221 222 Andrea Rohrbacher: I feel that the Planning Board members are expected to attend, but I do not want to hold us to a 223 quorum. Part of that is based on Commissioner Jacobs saying that as long as you have a quorum at the start of the 224 meeting you are okay. I brought up the point that sometimes the meetings go on extremely long and people have to 225 leave due to other obligations and the County Attorney stated you can’t take a vote if someone leaves if you require a 226 quorum. I do not want to see us in that position. I also think it’s difficult for staff because we have had quorum 227 problems in the past. Should be expected to attend, but a quorum does not have to be present to hold the public 228 hearing. 229 230 Lydia Wegman: I support requiring a quorum, but that is linked to my view that I prefer having the Planning Board 231 make its recommendation after the Public Hearing. I still do not like having the Planning Board make its 232 recommendation before the public hearing. If the outcome is that the Planning Board makes its recommendation 233 before the public hearing then I am comfortable going with expected to attend not required to attend. 234 235 Pete Hallenbeck: My view is that I do not want to have a quorum because in the past there have been too many 236 times that the meeting was held up. I like the change requiring at least the chair or vice chair attend the public 237 hearing. I agree with the concept we should encourage members to come and put something in the policies and 238 procedures that members are required to attend at least two quarterly public hearings a year or be dismissed in order 239 to make it clear what their expectation is. 240 241 Pete Hallenbeck: Let’s move on and deliberate on the amendments. I will open the floor to any comments anyone 242 has. 243 244 Laura Nicholson: I wanted to be clear about the mailings. Will it still be certified with 500 feet and regular mail for the 245 500 to 1000 feet? 246 247 Perdita Holtz: We are suggesting everyone get regular mail. Having to separate mailing list may be confusing in the 248 future. 249 250 Lydia Wegman: I am comfortable with first class mail, but would it be possible to put on the outside of the envelope 251 notice of public hearing so people are aware they are getting a notice from the county. 252 253 Pete Hallenbeck: Signs will still go up? 254 255 Perdita Holtz: Yes. 256 257 Lydia Wegman: I continue to be concerned about having the Planning Board make its recommendation before the 258 BOCC meeting. I think the recommendation should be made following the hearing so that the Planning Board can 259 hear all the evidence before making a recommendation. 260 261 Tony Blake: The thing that resonated with me was the intent to give the public the last word. It’s difficult for us to go 262 after the public hearing and still have the public give the last word. But I share your concern that we are making a 263 recommendation before we have heard all the evidence. 264 Approved 11/4/15 6 265 Herman Staats: If I remember at our joint meeting the BOCC was saying that if there was a case that came up and 266 there was a lot of discussion or disagreement they had the opportunity to send it back to us for more discussion. 267 268 Perdita Holtz: The BOCC does have the discretion to send legislative items back to the Planning Board as needed. 269 270 Herman Staats: Is it possible that our recommendation to the BOCC was that we would like to defer our 271 recommendation to after the public hearing? 272 273 Perdita Holtz: Depending on what the recommendation is. The recommendation can be for the Planning Board to be 274 given an extended amount of time to consider the manner, but you can’t say you have to send it back to us. 275 276 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any other items in the proposal that people would like to discuss? If there aren’t then the 277 next step here is to make a recommendation on the statement of consistency. 278 279 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval of the statement of consistency. Buddy Hartley seconded. 280 VOTE: 9 – 2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed) 281 282 Tony Blake: If we are going to be part of the process and bound by the rules of quasi-judicial and ex parte 283 communication then we should be required to attend and that is the part that I find inconsistent. 284 285 Lydia Wegman: I feel that the Planning Board should be making its recommendation following the public hearing 286 because I am concerned with the Planning Board not hearing all the evidence that will go before the BOCC. I am 287 pleased to know the BOCC has the discretion to send something back to the Planning Board. In my perspective I 288 would prefer to have the guarantee for the opportunity of the Planning Board to consider an item after the public 289 hearing when I am confident all the evidence has been presented whereas I do not feel confident that is the case if 290 the Planning Board makes it recommendation prior to the BOCC meeting. Consistent with that my preference would 291 be if we continued to make our recommendation after the County Commissioners meeting that a quorum should be 292 required or the Board attest to hearing the BOCC public hearing so there is certification that the Planning Board is 293 knowledgeable about the evidence presented. The idea of having a preliminary Planning Board recommendation and 294 a subsequent or final Planning Board recommendation following the BOCC meeting is also one that makes sense to 295 me. 296 297 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the amendment package on pages 62 to 98 with amendments to page 92 298 regarding the expectations of Planning Board members regarding the quarterly public hearing and adding notice of 299 the public hearing to the outside of the mailing envelopes. James Lea seconded. 300 VOTE: 9 – 2 (Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman opposed) 301 302 Tony Blake: Same reasons, I believe it should be a requirement to be at the quarterly public hearing if we are bound 303 by the process. 304 305 Lydia Wegman: Same concerns I expressed previously. 306 307 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 308 on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land 309 uses, including shooting ranges. This item was heard at the September 8, 2015 quarterly 310 public hearing. 311 312 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 313 314 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 315 316 Approved 11/4/15 7 Michael Harvey: We have a standard in here that stipulates a discharged shell be directed into a backstop which 317 would consist of concrete, steel, wood, or combination. The concern is can any consideration be given to a property 318 owner who locates a shooting area in low lying area and takes advantage of topography to reduce to scope of 319 backstop. Since topography can be altered I am worried about relying on that as a means of guaranteeing a 320 reasonable backstop. 321 322 Herman Staats: I have a shooting range on my property with an earth backstop. The shooting range I have built on 323 my property does not meet the definition of suitable. I believe it is safe and I think some consideration should be 324 given to these other factors despite my own personal range. The other issue I have is that concrete and steel are not 325 ideal for a backstop if you have ricochet issues and there needs to be some consideration for that as well. Lastly, this 326 broadly specifies shooting activities and does not address shooting clay pigeons in the air. 327 328 Tony Blake: I agree. Steel is very dangerous. 329 330 Michael Harvey: What I am hearing from comments is if we could reconfigure the back stop standards and provide 331 distinction for skeet shooting? 332 333 Buddy Hartley: I think the earth backstop is obviously your best option. 334 335 Tony Blake: The Sherriff’s letter seems to indicate that he has standards for backstops and for safe shooting and I 336 was wondering if it would be a good idea to coordinate with the Sheriff’s Department. 337 338 Michael Harvey: The Sheriff does not have ordinance for stablishing regulations for a backstop. What they do is go 339 out and make a determination if the activity is safe, but they do not have specific standards. The Sherriff has 340 reviewed this. Also I would like to remind the Board the proposed text amendment indicates target shooting activities 341 are governed by the Ordinance. I would interpret that to mean skeet shooting as well. 342 343 Lisa Stuckey: Are there any state laws on this? 344 345 Michael Harvey: There are state laws, but they do not get specific to the construction of a backstop. There is 346 nebulous language in the general statutes, but not definite state law regulating the backstop. 347 348 Paul Guthrie: Are there any considerations on what type of weapons are being fired? 349 350 Michael Harvey: No. From a land use stand point we do not have the legal authority to tell people they cannot shoot a 351 certain weapon. 352 353 Herman Staats: This language on page 123 is the distinction of the times per month for shooting? 354 355 Michael Harvey: Yes on page 123 we added language with the direction of the County Attorney indicating that if you 356 are a property owner and are discharging your gun on your property three days or less a month that is not going to 357 be considered an activity that warrants you to build a backstop. 358 359 Lydia Wegman: For clarification, someone could go out on their property three times a month and target shoot all day 360 long? 361 362 Michael Harvey: Unfortunately, that is exactly what that means. 363 364 James Lea: And not only can they target shoot, but they can shoot any gun they want? 365 366 Michael Harvey: They can shoot any gun they want anyway, period. 367 368 Lydia Wegman: Does this exemption also exempt them from the hours of the day. 369 Approved 11/4/15 8 370 Michael Harvey: Yes because it would not be considered a shooting activity per this ordinance. 371 372 Lydia Wegman: That is why I am concerned because this seems overly broad as an exemption. 373 374 Lisa Stuckey: Do you have to keep the bullets on the property? 375 376 Michael Harvey: Yes. 377 378 Lisa Stuckey: The exemption that was added is kind of confusing. What exactly is exempted? For three days you can 379 shoot your bullets into your neighbor’s yard? 380 381 Michael Harvey: We may need to add language that says all bullets must be kept on the property. 382 383 Michael Harvey continued review of abstract. 384 385 Michael Harvey: We are recommending that all rec facilities, private or public, have frontage on public roads. The 386 reason being you don’t want a facility in the middle of nowhere on a private road and create hardship for neighbors 387 who maintain that road. 388 389 Paul Guthrie: As long as the use is on the same land it can be anywhere from one foot to five thousand feet from the 390 road? 391 392 Michael Harvey: The property has to have frontage and that’s where access is going to have to be provided. 393 394 Michael Harvey: I am recommending to review the proposed standards based on comments received tonight 395 regarding the backstop and exemption and bring it back to you. 396 397 Pete Hallenbeck: I do not think we are going to be able to agree on a statement of consistency tonight. 398 399 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to bring this item back to the November Planning Board meeting. Tony Blake 400 seconded. 401 VOTE: Unanimous 402 403 AGENDA ITEM 11: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 404 A. Board of Adjustment 405 None 406 407 B. Orange County Transportation 408 None 409 410 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT 411 412 Motion to adjourn made by Lisa Stuckey. 413 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair