Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 010616 1 Approved 3/2/2016 1 2 MINUTES 3 PLANNING BOARD 4 JANUARY 6, 2016 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 8 Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 9 Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura 10 Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 11 Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, 16 Special Projects Coordinator, Meredith Pucci, Administrative Assistant II; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 19 20 Lydia Wegman: Opened the meeting by making sure everybody was there that was coming. 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2016 23 24 Lydia Wegman: The first thing we have to do is our elections. 25 26 Lisa Stuckey: Lydia, are you interested in being the Chair? 27 28 Lydia Wegman: I am willing to be the Chair if that is the will of our Board. But if others would prefer to be the Chair I 29 have no problem with that. Anybody else interested? 30 31 MOTION made by Laura Nicholson to elect Lydia Wegman as Chair. Seconded by Patricia Roberts. 32 VOTE: Unanimous 33 34 Lydia Wegman: Okay. Nominations for Vice-Chair. 35 36 Maxecine Mitchell: How about Tony? 37 38 Tony Blake: Well I will be Vice-Chair, if that’s the will of the Board. 39 40 MOTION made by Maxecine Mitchell to elect Tony as Vice-Chair, seconded by Laura Nicholson. 41 VOTE: Unanimous 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 44 a. Planning Calendar for January and February 45 46 Lydia Wegman reviewed the calendar and discussed a change in the rules; the Chair or the Vice-Chair is required to 47 attend the quarterly meeting. Everyone else is expected to attend, but not required. 48 49 Craig Benedict: The quarterly public hearing is a different date than usual in February. Usually it’s later in the month 50 and on Monday but this year it’s on a Thursday, so just make special note of that. 51 2 52 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 53 December 2, 2015 ORC Notes 54 December 2, 2015 Regular Meeting 55 56 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to approve both sets of minutes. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 57 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 58 59 60 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 61 62 Michael Harvey: Sign regulations are being pulled from tonight’s agenda. 63 64 Paul Guthrie: Do you care to elaborate? 65 66 Michael Harvey: The county attorney’s office has determined they want more time. 67 68 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 69 70 Introduction to the Public Charge 71 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General 72 Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 73 development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and 74 accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner 75 which considers the present and future needs of its residents and business through 76 efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and 77 welfare of the overall county. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of 78 responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decision, and 79 recommendations. 80 81 Public Charge 82 The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board 83 asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the 84 Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any 85 resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to 86 leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum rail to be 87 restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to 88 this public charge is observed. 89 90 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 91 92 No comments from the Chair. 93 94 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a recommendation 95 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding 96 mailed notifications. This item is scheduled for the February 18, 2016 quarterly public 97 hearing. 98 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 99 100 Perdita Holtz reviewed abstract. 101 102 Paul Guthrie: How do you plan to confirm that the applicants have filed by first class mail? I know in certified mail you 103 would have a postal receipt, how are you planning to be able to confirm that if there’s a challenge to lack of notice? 104 105 3 Perdita Holtz: The planning department is actually involved in the mailed notifications and we do a certificate of 106 mailing that you’ve seen in amendment packets. Whichever staff person is in charge of the mailing signs it to certify 107 it was done as stated. 108 109 Paul Guthrie: We don’t need to do any language in here to make sure that happens? 110 111 Perdita Holtz: Correct…. In the case of governmental uses, which those are most likely going to be your fire 112 departments, we are asking that whoever is heading up that effort for the fire department would give us a statement 113 that certifies that they mailed it when they said they mailed it. 114 115 Paul Guthrie: But you’re going to monitor private individuals who are asking for an action that are required to mail? 116 117 Perdita Holtz: Yes, we actually do the mailing. The planning department does the mailing; they just pay for them. 118 119 Tony Blake: But you guys make a copy of everything that’s sent out anyways, right? 120 121 Perdita Holtz: Well, we have the mailing list of property owners and the actual letter that goes into the file. 122 123 Lydia Wegman: Other comments? 124 125 Tony Blake: I had one from people that have called me, my phones lit up when they heard a story about the airport, 126 and a couple of people were thinking that a broader notification should go out, in light of an airport. Or something that 127 has significant impacts like noise or what have you. So I wanted to float that idea and I wanted to get that in the 128 minutes so that the County Commissioners read it as well. 129 130 Andrea Rohrbacher: I can’t remember what the outcome of this point was, it seems that at one meeting we discussed 131 putting some sort of lettering on the outside of the envelope to indicate that it had to do with development so that 132 people wouldn’t think that it was junk mail. 133 134 Perdita Holtz: Right, and that is in there under the public hearing portion that it’s going to say, “Notice of Hearing” on 135 the outside of the envelope. 136 137 Lydia Wegman: Other comments, questions? 138 139 Paul Guthrie: I have one other. Someone who doesn’t receive notice but hears about the project, will they just come 140 directly to the planning organization and say, “Hey, we heard this was going on. What’s going on?” 141 142 Perdita Holtz: Yes, because there’s still the sign that’s posted on the property so anybody seeing that sign could 143 contact us. 144 145 Paul Guthrie: Because there are certain things that affect well beyond 1000 feet or 500 feet. So you’re able to 146 accommodate that without any problems? You don’t need anything in the code to help you do that? 147 148 Perdita Holtz: No. 149 150 Paul Guthrie: Okay. Thanks. 151 152 Craig Benedict: Perdita, can you explain to the Board the new process a little bit that’s going to be occurring in this 153 amendment that they’re making recommendation and consistency before the public hearing? 154 155 Perdita Holtz: I hit on it earlier tonight, it’s the first time that we’re doing this new process and tonight is making a 156 recommendation in time for the February 18th quarterly public hearing so, it’s the same types of actions, they’re just 157 occurring in a different order than they used to. 158 159 4 Craig Benedict: So these do not get referred back to you unless the commission determines. 160 161 Lydia Wegman: So the commission could vote in February to approve this and we would not see it again? 162 163 Craig Benedict: That’s correct. So there’s some streamlining that we just accomplished as one of our goals for certain 164 things that are more housekeeping items like this. 165 166 Lydia: All right, any other comments or questions? 167 168 Lisa Stuckey: Okay, so I move approval of the statement of the consistency which is attachment 2 and the proposed 169 amendment package which is attachment 3 and that they be forwarded to the County Commissioners from the 170 Planning Board. 171 172 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve the text amendment. Seconded by Laura Nicholson 173 VOTE: Passed 9-1 (Tony Blake) 174 175 Tony Blake: I’m opposed. I’m opposed because I think that there’s room for other notification in the event of a major 176 enterprise or undertaking, such as an airport. 177 178 Lisa Stuckey: It occurs to me that that could be part of the airport amendments. 179 180 Tony Blake: Sure, well I don’t know so it’s not clear to me that you could amend the airport thing and have it 181 supersede this or what. That I’m not clear on. It’s my way of highlighting it. 182 183 Lisa Stuckey: I think that’s not a bad idea. 184 185 Lydia Wegman: Yeah. Craig or Perdita, any comments on that? 186 187 Perdita Holtz: That’s something that can be looked at when we go forward with the airport regulations, that the ORC 188 looked at in November. 189 190 Paul Guthrie: I just want to follow up on that. I think that’s right for the point that he’s making. I think there are some 191 issues beyond that that we could stumble into that you may at some point want to give yourself a background policy 192 to help you carry that out and don’t hit them blind without any resource other than the fact that the rules didn’t say we 193 had to do it. I can think of lots or monster projects that don’t take up a lot of ground that could have a great deal of 194 interest in the County as a whole, and so I think you need to think whether you need some kind of framing that will 195 give you the latitude to move ahead and not get stopped with procedural issues at the beginning. 196 197 Perdita Holtz: Well, there have been instances in the past, Paul, when there have been major actions that we’ve 198 gone out and done informational sessions and stuff like that, and that’s done on a case by case basis depending on 199 what the action is. It’s just, we haven’t done anything like that for the past 2 or 3 years because there haven’t been 200 major actions, but there is precedent that we’ve done stuff like that. 201 202 Lydia Wegman: And I’ll just add if I could, that it seems to be that those are projects that would come up as 203 independent or individual projects where it might come up, as opposed to something that would easily generally 204 define in the UDO text amendment. 205 206 Perdita Holtz: Yes, and that’s just something that the County can undertake as part of their discretion in being a 207 government, particularly with the County’ as the instigator. As you know, it gets dicier if it’s a SUP. 208 209 Craig Benedict: When we submit to the commissioners say, an amendment outline form, they ask us to do something 210 and we develop this form to say, “this is how we think we can accomplish it, this is what Boards may be involved, 211 maybe the environmental board is part of the amendment process.” And we also suggest public outreach that may 212 be beyond what the code says and that would be an opportunity for the commission to say, “Well, we think there 213 5 should be a broader outreach meeting beyond 1,000 feet. So that can occur, especially when it’s government 214 initiated. 215 216 Tony Blake: Yeah, the SUP case I was thinking of is the guy who builds the subdivision with 10 or 15 houses and a 217 runway and everybody’s got their own little hangar; is that a public airport? Is that a private airport? And then if it’s a 218 SUP and you only have to notify people within 1,000 feet that landing and taking off could extend quite a bit beyond 219 there. That’s the just of my concern. 220 221 Lydia Wegman: Okay, great, thank you. 222 223 Patricia Roberts: Is there any airport planned? 224 225 Craig Benedict: No, there are no airports planned. We are in the process of updating our airport regulations. Some of 226 our outreach meetings were occurring around the holidays so it was decided to move it to a less busy time to 227 evaluate the new regulations. The best time to update your regulations is when there are no proposals out there. So 228 we will begin again, we’re going to speak with the commissioners in a work session about the process and the 229 parameters of some of the updates and it probably will not come back until later this year. 230 231 Lisa Stuckey: I think all the schools I dealt with were in the cities of Chapel Hill or Carrboro, their jurisdictions. But 232 typically, we went way beyond 1,000 feet and there was a community meeting and there was a lot of use of various 233 media to get the word out because you don’t want to build a big thing like that and then have all these people angry 234 later. So you know what to incorporate. 235 236 Tony Blake: Yeah, and it may be something that’s already been considered and non-issue. I just couldn’t find it 237 anywhere and I couldn’t find anywhere where this could be superseded by a SUP. 238 239 Lydia Wegman: And the school would be a governmental use, wouldn’t it? 240 241 Perdita Holtz: Schools actually come under a different section, but there’s outreach you have to do. 242 243 244 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - To make a 245 recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 246 regarding temporary healthcare structures and other custodial care housing options. This 247 item is scheduled for the February 18, 2016 quarterly public hearing. 248 249 PRESENTER: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 250 251 Ashley Moncado reviewed abstract 252 253 Patricia Roberts: I was having kind of a hard time visualizing what this would look like. Does anybody have an 254 example? 255 256 Ashley Moncado: At one point we did have a little flyer, unfortunately it’s not included in your packet tonight. It’s a 257 mobile unit, so if you can picture a single wide manufactured home, even smaller than that. A temporary health care 258 structure originally is only about 300 square feet. It’s a mobile unit so it’s basically a room with a bathroom. It can go 259 on any lot where an existing single family home would be permitted. Your only issue with neighborhoods, they are 260 permitted at the county level, but if there’s covenants or restrictions then they trump the Session Law. 261 262 Patricia Roberts: I see 1,000 square feet everywhere here except for the table, on the table it said it can’t exceed 300 263 square feet. 264 265 Ashley Moncado: I think that is just referencing a temporary health care structure, which this is something from a 266 previous meeting where they wanted to know what other options there are out there for providing care to family 267 6 members, neighbors, friends. So this table was created to show all the different options that are currently available in 268 the County. 269 270 Patricia Roberts: 1,000 square feet is huge. 271 272 Ashley Moncado: Yes, and there was concerns shared from this Board as well as the BOCC regarding the original 273 proposed size. Originally, it was only 300 square feet and there were concerns that was too small. So, we increased 274 it to 1,000 square feet. 275 276 Patricia Roberts: And what’s temporary? How long is temporary? 277 278 Ashley Moncado: Temporary is not defined by state statute so it could be a week, a year. It’s not allowed to be 279 placed on a permanent foundation, it is to remain on its trailer so it can be pulled back out. 280 281 Patricia Roberts: What about hooking up the septic? 282 283 Ashley Moncado: You’d have to go through environmental health approval so they would be reviewed by Orange 284 County Environmental Health. If they don’t have the capacity to add that, because it’s considered an extra bedroom, 285 they will have to address that. 286 287 Patricia Roberts: So there’s not that many places in the County where you can put one of these. 288 289 Tony Blake: Well, if you have a 5-acre lot. 290 291 Laura Nicholson: I noticed that you changed a lot of the things, but I still see the one person as the occupant 292 requirement. Was there any wiggle room there to allow? I’m just looking at the table and still seeing one. 293 294 Ashley Moncado: Yes, the table is only referencing temporary health care structure standards. But, if you look at the 295 actual amendments, we are allowing up to five unrelated to live in a single family dwelling unit and up to two people 296 to live with a temporary custodial care unit. 297 298 Paul Guthrie: How are you defining family? 299 300 Ashley Moncado: Well, we have to actual definition on page 47 of your packets and it’s exactly as we’ve had it 301 previously, the only thing that we’re changing is a minor grammar error as well as increasing it from three to five. 302 303 Paul Guthrie: The reason I ask the question is, the definition of a family has changed radically. And the only time 304 when the question comes up is when somebody’s unhappy about it being permitted and one of the things you would 305 certify is that it meets this definition; and how do you prove a family? What are the standards of a family? 306 307 Ashley Moncado: I think it’s outlined pretty well in the definition of what we’re defining a family as and that’s 308 something that as it’s brought to our attention. 309 310 Paul Guthrie: Well, let me give you an example, two individuals live together and each individual, one has two 311 children and one has three children. There is no, in my mind, legal definition, of that being a family under the law. Are 312 they able to have a unit brought in for mom when she comes in from one of the mothers from one of the partners? 313 314 Ashley Moncado: Are you talking about the actual family definition of what we’re talking about five unrelated people 315 or are you talking about the temporary health care structure-because there’s no relationship requirement with that 316 anymore. 317 318 Paul Guthrie: I’m talking about that in the context of this whole. 319 320 Ashley Moncado: So the temporary custodial care unit, there’s no relationship requirement . 321 7 322 Paul Guthrie: So the original house does not have to related to the individual at all? 323 324 Ashley Moncado: No, that’s been removed. 325 326 Paul Guthrie: Okay. So, why are we defining a family as five? 327 328 Ashley Moncado: Because we have other issues regarding how many people are living within one single family 329 home, or a unit. Which this, the family definition is being changed because that was an issue that was brought by the 330 commissioners. They didn’t like that it was limited to three, they wanted to see it increased. So, to me, it sounds like 331 these are two different things. So, the family definition, we’re addressing that in conjunction with this just because it’s 332 something that’s been discussed previously that we just needed to address. We wanted to address it this time as part 333 of this amendment package. But, there’s no family relationship requirement related to the temporary custodial care 334 units anymore. 335 336 Lydia Wegman: So maybe Paul is raising a good point as far as the family that should be considered independently, 337 from the temporary custodial unit because it is true that now the term family doesn’t mean blood, marriage or 338 adoption. People do choose to live together. 339 340 Ashley Moncado: There’s a possibility you could have a lot of people living in a house without having some sort of 341 standard and structures to it. I understand that there’s a lot of people that have families that they have children, 342 they’re not married or they’re blended families. But, if you’re looking at a family of that situation, I mean you could 343 look at potentially having twenty people living in a house. And we have no way that you have to put some sort of limit 344 on it to avoid that situation because then you could be looking at environmental health concerns where they have 345 twenty people living in a house with four bedrooms. 346 347 Paul Guthrie: And you have adequate definitions in other parts of planning laws and regulations that limits the 348 occupancy of a house? 349 350 Ashley Moncade: Well our family definition is also reflective of the North Carolina State Building Code. Which the five 351 is derived directly from. There’s our standard but there’s another state standard that they have to adhere by. 352 353 Patricia Roberts: Well perhaps if they’re under 18 they don’t count. 354 355 Ashley Moncade: We can’t do that. The state building code doesn’t look at age. 356 357 Tony Blake: Chapel Hill is even more restrictive than this to reduce the number of students and people parking on the 358 lawn and all that stuff. That was directly to address… 359 360 Patricia Roberts: It’s four, right? 361 362 Tony Blake: Yeah, it’s one less. 363 364 Lisa Stuckey: If the parents were not married, it would still be allowed? 365 366 Craig Benedict: Yes, as it’s unrelated by blood. 367 368 Maxecine Mitchell: My understanding of it is, definitely people who are unrelated. So you can have a bunch of people 369 sharing a house less than six people and one of them wants to bring their parents on the property and put this 370 portable unit up, my question would be then that wouldn’t be allowed because you have too many unrelated people 371 there. Am I understanding that right? 372 373 8 Ashley Moncado: They would still be able to. You have six people, unrelated, living in the house. Yes, they would still 374 be able to bring that temporary custodial care unit on the property because we’re looking at something separate from 375 the temporary custodial care unit. 376 377 Maxecine Mitchell: I just got confused because I thought that was a point to be a determined fact of whether you 378 could put that portable unit for a parent or parents. But the family relationship has nothing to do with it? 379 380 Ashley Moncade: For bringing the temporary custodial care unit on the property, no. 381 382 Tony Blake: I have one question related to the fire departments. I see this footnote of manufactured homes are built 383 to the standards of the department of housing urban development, HUD certificate, is required by Orange County 384 prior to the placement in the County. Now, before a certain age there are trailers that are extreme fire hazards, built 385 before a certain year. On page 34, at the bottom of the table, there’s a footnote and I’m wondering, does Orange 386 County have an ordinance that is to age out some of these older mobile homes and stuff? 387 388 Michael Harvey: No. 389 390 Patricia Roberts: Doesn’t the state? 391 392 Tony Blake: It’s a problem in the fire department. A lot of people bring in mobile homes from other parts of the state 393 where they’re not allowed and they set them up and they’re extreme fire hazards. They have aluminum wiring, 394 they’ve just reached the end of their duty cycles and they’re a fire trap, they going up like a matchstick and it’s just 395 something to consider, that struck me when I read that because I think these are actually HUD certified. But, that 396 doesn’t necessarily mean much. 397 398 James Lea: I guess what’s interesting Tony is how would you get a manufactured home built to the standards to the 399 department of housing? 400 401 Tony Blake: Well these all existed before HUD and I think they’re pre-existing and as I said it’s been a concern where 402 these things are actually being imported from county to county where the regulations lack. That contributes to North 403 Carolina being in the burn belt. 404 405 Craig Benedict: I’ll check with the division. 406 407 Tony Blake: I think it is ’76. I thought it was as late as ’85 or something. 408 409 Perdita Holtz: It is ’76; I know this unequivocally. 410 411 Tony Blake: Okay. Because there are some in Orange County. 412 413 Perdita Holtz: Technically, they’re mobile homes before that and ’76 and later are manufactured homes. 414 415 Tony Blake: Okay, so you know the rule better than I do. It just kind of set off a little alarm bell to me because it might 416 encourage people to bring these things in and park them close. 417 418 Lydia Wegman: Are there comment, questions? 419 420 MOTION made by Laura Nicholson to approve the statement of consistency and the amendment. Tony Blake 421 seconded. 422 VOTE: Unanimous. 423 424 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 425 A. Board of Adjustment 426 B. Orange County Transportation 427 9 428 Lydia Wegman: Do we have any committee or advisory Board reports, Board of adjustments or the OUTBoard? 429 Michael, Craig? 430 431 Michael Harvey: BOA met November to review a Class B SUP for a retreat center and it was denied. 432 433 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 434 ___________________________________________ Lydia N. Wegman, Chair