Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 120215 Approved 1/6/2016 1 MINUTES 1 PLANNING BOARD 2 DECEMBER 2, 2015 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove 6 Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 7 Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 8 Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Herman Staats, 9 At-Large; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 12 Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, 15 Special Projects Coordinator, Meredith Pucci, Administrative Assistant II; 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 19 Craig Benedict: Opened the meeting by thanking Pete Hallenbeck for the work he has done as a member and as 20 Chair of the Planning Board. He noted that Pete worked on the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (SAP) and also the 21 implementation group for the Efland-Mebane SAP. 22 23 Pete Hallenbeck: Noted that while it may seem like a huge and long process, that Efland now has water and sewer 24 and has gone from nothing to being commercial allowed to over 2,000 acres that can now be commercial. The Sim 25 Efland property tract of land has opened up and the watershed has been pushed back so it makes sense and it is 26 actually an incredible amount of progress. His advice to the members is it to be true to the County and to 27 themselves. 28 29 Craig Benedict presented Pete Hallenbeck with a plague thanking him for his service. 30 31 The Planning Board members introduced themselves and gave a little background information about themselves and 32 their interest in serving on the Planning Board. 33 34 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 35 a. Planning Calendar for December and January 36 b. Reminder: Annual Election of Chair/Vice Chair in January 37 c. Revised Public Hearing Process Begins in January (Items on February QPH 38 Agenda will be on January Planning Board Agenda for a Recommendation) 39 40 Lydia Wegman reviewed the calendar and January QPH items 41 42 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 43 November 4, 2015 ORC Notes 44 November 4, 2015 Regular Meeting 45 46 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve the minutes. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 48 49 Approved 1/6/2016 2 Paul Guthrie: I have a question for Craig and Michael, in the minutes it reminded me of the dwelling and number of 50 people and medical supplemental housing; is there any relationship between that dis cussion and what Chapel Hill 51 has recently done and established the ability to add sub units, rental units inside of individual residential housing. 52 53 Michael Harvey: The best response from me is that in reading the newspaper article and reviewing some planning 54 blogs online, the Town of Chapel Hill’s goal is to essentially adopt the County’s accessory apartment guidelines but 55 increase the number of allowable units. I will make a personal statement that I believe it’s a lot easier to do that 56 within a municipality when you have water and sewer and are not relying on septic. I do not think it had any 57 relationship to recent state law amendments dealing with temporary health care structures. I believe it is their 58 attempt to address what they perceive to be the affordable housing issue in Chapel Hill. I think it will be interesting to 59 see what arises as a result of those amendments being approved. 60 61 Paul Guthrie: We may want to keep an eye on that for a while and see how the dynamic goes. 62 63 Michael Harvey: I believe their staff is supposed to report back within a year to three years. 64 65 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 66 67 No additions or changes 68 69 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 70 71 Introduction to the Public Charge 72 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General 73 Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 74 development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and 75 accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner 76 which considers the present and future needs of its residents and business through 77 efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and 78 welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of 79 responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decision, and 80 recommendations. 81 82 Public Charge 83 The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board 84 asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the 85 Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any 86 resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to 87 leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum rail to be 88 restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to 89 this public charge is observed. 90 91 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 92 93 No comments from the Vice-Chair. 94 95 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 96 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding 97 recreational land uses, including shooting ranges. This item was heard at the September 98 8, 2015 quarterly public hearing and was discussed at the October 7 and November 4, 99 2015 Planning Board meetings. 100 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 101 102 Approved 1/6/2016 3 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 103 104 Lydia Wegman: Could you review the setbacks? 105 106 Michael Harvey: We have recommended that anyone engaging in shooting activities to be located a minimum of 300 107 feet away from all property lines, rights-of-ways or easements; be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from occupied 108 dwelling units that are external to the property and be directed into a projectile proof backstop. We added language 109 to the proposal indicating if you are engaging in shooting activities indoors required setback changes to the activity 110 only having to be 100 feet from all property lines and the shot has to be kept in the structure. We have 111 recommended hours of operation for the discharge of firearms and obviously we have also recommended the posting 112 of warning signs and the maintenance of a land use buffer around the area where outdoor target shooting is 113 occurring. We also have provisions in the ordinance that incidental discharge of a firearm, the discharge of a firearm 114 in self-defense, or engaging in target shooting activities on a parcel of property less than 2 days a month is permitted. 115 116 Lydia Wegman: Does anyone have any concerns or questions about the information presented by Michael? 117 118 Laura Nicholson: I think that there should definitely be a backstop requirement for shooting. 119 120 Lydia Wegman: I agree. I think that the safety of the citizens is the most important issue. 121 122 Maxecine Mitchell: Will the Sherriff office still respond to calls about shooting on private property with this 123 amendment? 124 125 Michael Harvey: Yes, the sheriff deputies will still respond when called about shots fired. 126 127 Buddy Hartley: The Sheriff Deputies are going to come out to any call. If you call and say my neighbor is shooting 128 they have got to come out. 129 130 Paul Guthrie: The Sheriff’s Department is not going to be enforcing the land use that is disturbing a neighbor or 131 potential harm to the neighbor. It’s going to be a question of noise and stuff like. 132 133 Michael Harvey: Correct, we are not asking the Sheriff’s Office to enforce a land use component. 134 135 Andrea Rohrbacher: I think what really needs to happen is they need to consider the source of the complaint. 136 137 Laura Nicholson: I agree with Andrea but I think that the recommendation made would be suitable for everyone. I 138 would still like to see involvement from the Sherriff Department on where they stand with the issue. 139 140 Lydia Wegman: Should we make a motion to approve or does anyone have any other questions or concerns? 141 142 MOTION made by Lydia Wegman to approve text amendment. Seconded by Laura Nicholson and Buddy Hartley 143 VOTE: Unanimous 144 145 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a 146 recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 147 regarding sexually oriented businesses. This item was heard at the November 23, 2015 148 quarterly public hearing 149 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 150 151 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 152 153 Patricia Roberts: What is the point of regulating such businesses? 154 155 Approved 1/6/2016 4 Michael Harvey: For the same reasons we regulate other businesses. We want to ensure there is a balance allowing 156 for reasonable use of property. Sexually oriented businesses have identified secondary impacts that can affect 157 adjacent property owners. What these regulations are designed to do is ensure they can be developed and not have 158 an impact on those identified sensitive land uses. 159 160 Maxecine Mitchell: Are we legally able to restrict alcohol consumption from certain businesses? 161 162 Michael Harvey: State law grants local government the authority to regulate sexually oriented businesses including 163 establishing regulations governing the consumption of alcohol. 164 165 Laura Nicholson: Are there any zoned properties in Orange County that would allow this? 166 167 Michael Harvey: Yes there are a few properties zoned that could allow for the development of a sexually oriented 168 business. 169 170 Maxecine Mitchell: So if these lots are developed, any new sexually oriented businesses will need to get a property 171 rezoned for this kind of land use? 172 173 Michael Harvey: That is correct if available property is developed for such a use. There is, however, available land 174 area that could be rezoned to support such development. 175 176 James Lea: Will there be any substantial economic development impact from approval of the text amendment? 177 178 Michael Harvey: It depends on your point of view. There are those that might argue this regulation may impede the 179 development of a commercial venture. There is also a possibility local businesses may have an aversion to having a 180 sexually oriented business locating near them because of perception concerns and a desire not to want to see it. 181 From my standpoint, however, I believe the proposed regulation is reasonable. 182 183 Lydia Wegman: Does anyone have any further questions or concerns before we consider a motion? 184 185 Laura Nicholson: I just wanted to say that I think you all did a great job of including everyone’s concerns from the 186 quarterly public hearing. 187 188 Patricia Roberts: I still have concerns with regulating such businesses, especially how it is listed in the amendment. I 189 feel that these regulations are strict. 190 191 Paul Guthrie: I don’t feel as if this text amendment is substantiated from a legal standpoint. 192 193 Lydia Wegman: If there aren’t any other questions let’s move forward with our first motion. 194 195 MOTION made by Buddy Hartley to approve changes. Herman Staats seconded. 196 VOTE: 7 – 2 (Paul Guthrie and Patricia Roberts) 197 198 Lydia Wegman: Can you please state your reason for opposition? 199 200 Paul Guthrie: I disagree for the reason previously stated. 201 202 Patricia Roberts: I don’t think we should be so heavily restricting sexually oriented businesses. 203 204 Lydia Wegman: Should we go around the room to see if there are any concerns making the recommendations to the 205 BOCC? 206 207 Maxecine Mitchell: I recommend it. 208 Approved 1/6/2016 5 209 Patricia Roberts: I don’t have any opposition I guess. 210 211 Andrea Rohrbacher: I recommend the changes to be adopted. 212 213 Herman Staats: I have no concerns. 214 215 James Lea: I have no concerns. 216 217 Paul Guthrie: I still have concerns about the legality. 218 219 Buddy Hartley: I am fine with everything, so I recommend it. 220 221 Laura Nicholson: I am generally in favor. 222 223 Lydia Wegman: I see no concerns. Do we have a motion? 224 225 MOTION made by Buddy Hartley to make the recommendations to BOCC. Seconded by Andrea Rohrbacher. 226 VOTE: 8-1 (Paul Guthrie) 227 228 Paul Guthrie: I am opposed for the same reasons previously explained. 229 230 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - TO MAKE A 231 RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOCC ON GOVERNMENT-INITIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF 232 THE UDO REGARDING CAR SALES AND RENTAL OPERATIONS. THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AT THE 233 NOVEMBER 23, 2015 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 234 235 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 236 237 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract 238 239 Laura Nicholson: Why has this become more of an issue? 240 241 Michael Harvey: The County has been receiving complaints related to the storage and display of vehicles being 242 offered for sale, specifically too many cars being placed on a parcel of property blocking or impeding access for both 243 customers and emergency vehicles. 244 245 Patricia Roberts: I don’t think the allowed numbers of display vehicles is enough. 246 247 Herman Staats: Where did the number of cars displayed come from? 248 249 Michael Harvey: Ultimately the recommended numbers were designed to allow for approximately 20% of the property 250 to be used in support of motor vehicle display allowing for the remaining area to satisfy setback, office, customer 251 parking, and required land use buffer development. 252 253 James Lea: Does this address the storage of vehicles off-site? 254 255 Michael Harvey: This amendment would not address or impact vehicles being stored on another property or prohibit 256 same. Such storage would be treated as a separate, independent, land use and have to be permitted in accordance 257 with the provisions of the UDO. 258 259 Lydia Wegman: if vehicles stored on the property, and screened from view, would be counted as part of the display 260 limit. 261 Approved 1/6/2016 6 262 Michael Harvey: They would not be counted unless parked within the designated vehicle display area for the 263 property. Staff is providing an option allowing for the storage of vehicles not intended or ready for sale/rental onsite. 264 265 Craig Benedict: This is how a typical car lot is set up. (Craig drew a picture on the white board of a typical car lot as a 266 visual example). 267 268 Paul Guthrie: I actually think that vehicle limit is plenty enough, especially considering the few dealerships that are in 269 the County. 270 271 Andrea Rohrbacher: Is there a time limit as to how long someone can have a car waiting to be prepared to sell? 272 273 Michael Harvey: No there is not a time limit established. 274 275 Lydia Wegman: Are there any other comments or questions for Michael? 276 277 MOTION made Paul Guthrie to recommend changes to BOCC. Laura Nicholson seconded. 278 VOTE: 8-1 (Patricia Roberts) 279 280 Lydia Wegman: Can you please explain why you are opposed? 281 282 Patricia Roberts: I don’t think the proposed limit for vehicles displayed is enough. 283 284 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 285 A. Board of Adjustment 286 None 287 288 B. Orange County Transportation 289 None 290 291 292 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 293 294 Motion to adjourn made by Lydia Wegman. 295 ___________________________________________ Lydia Wegman, Vice - Chair