Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 080217Approved 9/6/17 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 AUGUST 2, 2017 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little 7 River Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough 8 Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 9 Township; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At Large Bingham Township 10 Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham 13 Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 14 Township; 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, 17 Planner II; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Laura Streitfeld, Preserve Rural Orange County; Chris Durham; Carol Ann McCormick; Margaret 20 Wilkman; Alice Wilkman; 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 24 Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order and welcomed members of the public to the meeting. 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 27 a) Planning Calendar for August and September 28 29 Lydia Wegman noted that the next quarterly public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) may be 30 moved. Michael Harvey noted that there is an item in the Planning Board packet that will not be reviewed at the 31 upcoming quarterly public hearing, but clarified that the quarterly public hearing will still be held September 11, 2017. 32 This item will be further explained in Agenda Item 7. 33 34 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 35 May 3, 2017 Meeting Minutes 36 May 3, 2017 ORC Notes 37 July 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes 38 July 5, 2017 ORC Notes 39 40 MOTION by Laura Nicholson to approve all four sets of minutes. Seconded by David Blankfard. 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 44 45 Michael Harvey asked Planning Board members to provide feedback on the Meeting Minutes completed for the July 46 5, 2017 Planning Board Meeting, since there is a new Minutes Preparer under contract with the County. Please 47 provide observations, pros, cons, things you would like to see done differently moving forward, to Planning Staff at 48 any time. 49 50 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 51 52 Lydia Wegman read the public charge. 53 Approved 9/6/17 2 Introduction to the Public Charge 54 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 55 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 56 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 57 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and 58 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 59 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 60 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 61 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 62 63 PUBLIC CHARGE 64 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 65 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 66 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 67 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 68 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 69 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 72 73 No comments from Chair or Vice Chair 74 75 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – SUBDIVISION – To make a 76 recommendation to the BOCC on government – initiated amendments to the text of the UDO 77 that makes corrections to the amendments adopted on January 24, 2017 regarding 78 subdivisions. This item is scheduled for the September 11, 2017 quarterly public hearing. 79 PRESENTER: PATRICK MALLETT 80 81 Patrick Mallett reviewed the abstract. This text change was brought to Planning Board members at the Ordinance 82 Review Committee (ORC) last month. To recap, this item is part of the flexible development subdivision text change 83 that was done last year. In November 2016 at the quarterly public hearing, there were a couple of changes requested 84 by two commissioners. Those changes were made and it was approved in January 2017. However, there were 85 differences between the November versions and the January versions of the amendment. This effort is to solve those 86 discrepancies between the two versions and rectify incorrect references. Mr. Mallett reviewed the packet and went 87 over that items highlighted in yellow denote changes that are not in the packet but are necessary. For example, there 88 is a reference to notification mailings for Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIM) that now have to go to going out 89 to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, but this was recently changed to property owners within 90 1,000 feet. There are only a few of those types of changes in the amendment. Staff has been working with the 91 County Attorney to ensure legal sufficiency and that the current version is as close to the version originally approved 92 as possible. Mr. Mallett drew Board members’ attention to the seven-page insert of the amendment, a portion most 93 recently reviewed by the County Attorney. Mr. Mallett went over the insert with Board members. The first page is the 94 Rural Buffer cover sheet (page 55 of Planning Board packet) and changes in blue reflect the way that the 95 amendment was presented to the BOCC at the November quarterly public hearing. Staff is trying to get the exact 96 same language from that version into this version. The next change is footnote (6) on the back page. Here again, 97 language is verbatim from the version from the November quarterly public hearing; additionally, the text mirrors the 98 language in residential zoning districts in Section 3 of the UDO. On page 79 of the packet, there is a number change 99 to correct a reference. On page 84, there are word changes and reference changes to the Estate Lot section of the 100 Ordinance. The changes on page 93 are illustrative of an example of Staff trying to maintain consistency with 101 references throughout the Ordinance; typically a section in the UDO would be written as “7.12.4.” The County 102 Attorney’s preference is to go through the entire Ordinance and make references consistent, but that effort should not 103 be comingled with this effort. In the last section, there was a question about this – “Common Area” was stricken from 104 the November quarterly public hearing version as it is not really a relevant definition to use. The others, “Common 105 Open Space” and “Primary Open Space,” are defined under Section 10, but they are listed alphabetically under “O” 106 Approved 9/6/17 3 for “Open Space” instead of “C” for “Common Open Space.” Mr. Mallett said that these changes make it so this 107 version is as close to the November 2016 as possible. This version will not be exactly the same since other 108 aforementioned parts of the UDO have changed since November 2016. He concluded his presentation and asked if 109 there were any questions. 110 111 Lydia Wegman asked if anyone had questions or comments. 112 113 Michael Harvey said that whoever is making the motion to reflect the changes as recommended by the County 114 Attorney’s Office and the addendum that was submitted this evening . 115 116 MOTION by Randy Marshall (to reflect what Michael Harvey stated above). Seconded by David Blankfard. 117 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 118 119 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 120 PERMITTED USES – To make a recommendation to the BOCC government – initiated 121 amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in response to 122 the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision and modify other sections to endure consistency 123 within the ordinance. This item is scheduled for the September 11, 2017 quarterly public 124 hearing. 125 PRESENTER: MICHAEL HARVEY 126 127 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. As Mr. Harvey explained in his email to Planning Board members, the Board 128 will not be taking action on this item tonight. The County Attorney’s Office has asked for some additional work to be 129 done to address some concerns over legal sufficiency. He also wants Staff to consider some modifications. Staff 130 could have conceivably had a packet ready for the Board for a recommendation, but this is too important to rush. 131 This item is not going before the BOCC at the September quarterly public hearing; this is going in November (date 132 to be determined since the hearing is going to be moved). Mr. Harvey said that most of his presentation would 133 focus on what the County Attorney’s Office recommended is reviewed. He asked if there were any initial comments 134 and let the Board know that this item will not be further reviewed at the next ORC meeting, but rather brought 135 before the Board at the October meeting to take action. Planning Staff will send the Board the most recent version 136 in preparation for the October meeting. Staff will keep the Board updated with their work effort and any other issues 137 that transpire. The first issue (page 134 in the packet) – Staff received a comment from the County Attorney’s Office 138 last Thursday asking Staff to combine the land use category “Composting Operation, with grinding” and 139 “Composting Operation, no grinding,” into one land use category called “Composting Operation,” and to distinguish 140 grinding/no grinding in the use standards. Staff does not object to this; the problem is that if Staff changes this 141 language, will it trigger having it to be reviewed by other entities at this juncture, especially since there was no 142 original recommended change to this section. The distinction is that Composting Operation is permitted in one 143 district with no grinding and permitted in other districts with both no grinding and grinding. From Staff’s standpoint, 144 there is no reason not to have them as separate categories, but there is also no reason not to combine them, other 145 than avoiding unnecessary delay. 146 147 Lydia Wegman asked if there is a difference between a grinding Operation verses a non-grinding Operation that 148 would be meaningful to residents. 149 150 Michael Harvey responded that yes, in terms of what districts the uses are allowed in, but that is it. He defined 151 “Composting Operation, with grinding” as the grinding down and breaking-down of materials. Planning Staff will 152 keep Board abreast of any developments. Mr. Harvey said that he was not interested in messing with the 153 “Agricultural” land use category as currently contained in the UDO. 154 155 Lydia Wegman responded that that is understandable. 156 157 Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 135) in regards to “Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair,” 158 “Motor Vehicle Repair Garage,” and “Motor Vehicle Service Station.” While the County Attorney understands that 159 Approved 9/6/17 4 there are differences in definitions between these three land use categories, he is recommending these categories 160 are combined from three to two, for the reason that there is not sufficient enough distinction for three separate 161 categories. As with grinding in the Composting Operation category, there are nuanced differences in what district 162 the land uses are allowed in. The principal difference amongst a lot of these categories is that one land use, 163 particularly “Motor Vehicle Service Stations,” is allowed to sell gas; the others are not. Staff will review the need to 164 consolidate these categories. 165 166 Lydia Wegman commented that the selling of gas is a pretty significant difference. 167 168 Michael Harvey agreed, saying that if Staff collapses the categories of “Motor Vehicle Repair Garage” and “Motor 169 Vehicle Maintenance and Repair,” “Motor Vehicle Service Station” would be kept as-is. Mr. Harvey said that even 170 though it is not detrimental to make this change, there may not be a reason to do it. However, the County Attorney 171 has his reasons, and despite Staff’s preferences to keep the categories separate. 172 173 Kim Piracci asked for clarification on the point being made, asking if Mr. Harvey wanted to keep the categories 174 separate but the County Attorney wants to put them together. 175 176 Michael Harvey answered and further explained by saying that the County Attorney’s Office wants Staff to further 177 provide a rationale for the distinction, other than “because it’s the way it current is,” but Mr. Harvey said that he 178 does not want to muck-up anyone’s view about what is or is not allowed. 179 180 Kim Piracci responded by saying that there are places that only repair, so that is reason alone to separate the 181 categories, isn’t it? 182 183 Michael Harvey thanked her for proving his point. He said that from his standpoint, there is a good reason to keep 184 the categories separate. The County Attorney’s thought is that if they are combined – or in this case, if “Motor 185 Vehicle Maintenance,” which is synonymous with a body shop, and “Repair and Motor Vehicle Repair Garage” are 186 combined - Staff would spell out in Article 5 where activities are allowed by zoning district (i.e. “a body shop is only 187 allowed here”). The County Attorney thinks that this layout will work better. Mr. Harvey reiterated that he is not 188 saying that this will not work. However, he does not see a compelling need or interest to collapse the categories 189 yet. Still, he is obligated to respond to the County Attorney’s suggestion and will keep Board members informed. 190 191 Andrea Rohrbacher asked if a body shop usually has more un-drivable and damaged vehicles in storage than a 192 repair shop. 193 194 Michael Harvey answered that this is not necessarily the case. A repair deals with a blown engine and a body shop 195 deals with repairing dents, for example. He thinks that it is often the case that both body shops and repair shops 196 have a large collection of vehicles that are being repaired. In his opinion, there are not more vehicles in storage in a 197 greater amount than the other. 198 199 Lydia Wegman asked for confirmation that “Motor Vehicle Service Stations” will remain separate. 200 201 Michael Harvey answered yes, as of this point in time. 202 203 Michael Harvey continued presentation (page 136). He said that the County Attorney’s Office asked that Staff 204 consider dumping the terms “adult and child” from this land use definition of “Adult and Child Care & Educational 205 Facilities,” and just say “Care & Educational Facilities.” The County Attorney does not see a need to say “adult and 206 child,” but Mr. Harvey recognized that the Planning Board members went round and round at one meeting and 207 asked that the use type be “adult and child.” 208 209 Kim Piracci asked for the original wording. 210 211 Approved 9/6/17 5 Michael Harvey answered that originally, the category was called “Child Care & Educational Facilities.” He said that 212 the reason he did not want to have just “child care” was because Staff is adding adult uses, so you cannot just say 213 “child” anymore, and that the addition was also in tune with Planning Board members’ feedback. 214 215 Kim Piracci asked for clarification as to whether or not the County Attorney just wants the land use to say “Care & 216 Educational Facilities.” 217 218 Michael Harvey confirmed this. 219 220 Lydia Wegman commented that she still likes the “adult and child” addition. 221 222 Michael Harvey said that he understood and that he will convey the feedback on this discussion. 223 224 Michael Harvey continued his presentation (page 137). The County Attorney suggested that Planning Staff change 225 the listing of “University, Colleges & Institutes” to “Schools: Universities, Colleges & Institutes.” Staff considers this 226 to be an easy change that will require updating language throughout the UDO. As discussed previously, the County 227 Attorney does not see catchall categories as a viable option, so Staff has deleted them and they will go under 228 further review. There will likely be cases in other communities involving legal action around what is and is not 229 allowable to influence changes or additions to categories in our UDO in the future. 230 231 Lydia Wegman asked a question about the category “Schools: Preparatory” (page 136). 232 233 Michael Harvey responded that by definition, “preparatory” is now the collapsing of elementary, middle, and 234 secondary preparatory education all into one land use category. It is designed to capture those land uses tied to a 235 curriculum consistent with the NC Department of Education requirements. 236 237 Michael Harvey continued his presentation (page 138). He reminded the Board that during the last ORC meeting, 238 there was a recommendation to eliminate the “Construction/Contractor Offices” land use category, and capture 239 these uses in an “Office” component rather than listing them separately. The County Attorney agrees with this 240 change. Next, in regards to “Extraction of Earth Products” (page 139), there was a concern about ensuring that 241 Staff properly spelled-out products with on-site processing and/or off-site processing. The County Attorney’s Office 242 believes that it is within the County’s legal right to say “no on-site processing allowed,” as a land use restriction. In 243 other words, extraction of earth products is allowed but they cannot be processed on-site. This would be defined by 244 this one central category. Mr. Harvey went on to say that it is more than likely that the County is preempted from 245 several things in regards to the extraction of earth products, most notably fracking. He asked Board members to 246 keep this in mind as the process moves forward. He then discussed the “General Office/Financial Institutions “(page 247 140) listed wherein “Construction/Contractor Offices” is now categorized. Staff has also collapsed other office uses 248 into “Construction/Contractor Offices,” “Financial Offices,” and “Professional Offices.” There are definitions for these 249 in Article 5. The “Professional Office” category would include the real estate agent, the attorney, the architect; and 250 “Financial Offices” is for the insurance carriers, credit agencies and institutions, and the like. 251 252 Lydia Wegman asked if medical offices were included in this section. 253 254 Michael Harvey answered that no, medical offices are handled under “Health Services,” which is made clear in the 255 Definitions. 256 257 Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 141). Staff discussed “Government Uses” during the last 258 ORC meeting. The County Attorney’s Office is interested in having any and all terms listed as examples previously 259 within of Government Uses categories moved out of the Table of Permitted Uses and put into the Definitions 260 sections. For example, the land uses listed under “Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings,” (Administrative, 261 Housing, Education, Public Health, Community Centers, Library, Planning/Community Development, Social 262 Services, etc.) will be explained in Definitions, and the main category will be defined by the County Attorney and 263 Planning Staff in consideration of the terms. 264 Approved 9/6/17 6 265 Lydia Wegman asked if the “etcetera” will be eliminated since all terms will be defined. 266 267 Michael Harvey confirmed this and said that “Government Protective Services” will be handled in the same way in 268 that there will be a definition of Government Protective Services that includes in it police and fire stations, rescue 269 squads, volunteer fire departments, and the like. 270 271 David Blankfard noticed that one of the examples under “Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings” that was 272 removed from the category is “Libraries,” but “Library” is also a category under “Adult and Child Care & Educational 273 Facilities.” He asked if there would be a conflict. 274 275 Michael Harvey answered that the government can develop a government facility in any and all zoning districts, so 276 if the government develops a library, it can be in any zoning district where it is allowed. In the “Adult and Child Care 277 & Educational Facilities category, “Library” is defined as private. 278 279 Lydia Wegman asked about state and federal uses in the “Government Facilities & Office Buildings” category. 280 281 Michael Harvey said that state and federal have been deleted because the County cannot distinguish these uses 282 and that they are likely preempted by the state and federal government from following county zoning. 283 284 Lydia Wegman followed-up to ask if there will be elsewhere in the Table where state and federal facilities and 285 buildings will be addressed. 286 287 Michael Harvey answered no, and that said that the same logic is applied to “Military Installations” in that certain 288 categories and examples will be removed from the Table and explained under Definitions. 289 290 Lydia Wegman asked if Planning Staff would share these definitions with the Board. 291 292 Michael Harvey responded that once the definitions are finalized and to everyone’s satisfaction, Staff will share 293 them with the Board. 294 295 Michael Harvey continued the presentation (page 142). He drew the Board’s attention to an update in the 296 “Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing” category. The County Attorney recommended that this category be 297 more consolidated by changing this category to “Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing – Food,” so all food-298 related activities will be listed under this category, and other uses listed under “Manufacturing, Assembly, and 299 Processing – Other” (page 144). 300 301 Lydia Wegman asked if “other” is further defined. 302 303 Michael Harvey said that “Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing – Other” lists out all uses related to this 304 category exclusive of food preparation or food manufacturing. 305 306 Lydia Wegman asked if all other uses related to this category will be listed under Other. 307 308 Michael Harvey affirmed this and went over some of the uses under Other and showed where certain uses had 309 been consolidated, based on Staff and County Attorney recommendations. For example, “Electronic Equipment” 310 used to have several subcategories, but now this category has been reconfigured and called “Electronic Equipment 311 Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing.” The independent uses previously listed are now defined under 312 Definitions. 313 314 Lydia Wegman commented that Definitions are going to play a major role. 315 316 Michael Harvey responded that the County Attorney’s Office prefers to have the structure handled in this way. 317 Approved 9/6/17 7 318 Michael Harvey continued his presentation (page 151). 319 320 Kim Piracci noted a typo under “Medical Uses” where “Metal Health” should be “Mental Health.” 321 322 Michael Harvey thanked her for pointing it out and noted that will be corrected. He continued with his presentation 323 on Medical Uses and spoke about “Health Services.” He said that currently in Orange County “Health Services” are 324 restricted to certain square footage limitations. In April, Staff recommended that the Health Services categories 325 could be consolidated and described in Definitions, and this change is reflected in the Table. “Health Services” are 326 still defined by square footage, the current methodology described in Article 5 per district. The County Attorney has 327 not expressed a concern about these changes. 328 329 Lydia Wegman asked if the changes in the how “Retail” is defined is similar to “Health Services” with square 330 footage. 331 332 Michael Harvey explained that “Retail,” which was defined by travel trips per day, is now being defined by square 333 footage, and “Health Services” is following that, in an attempt to establish a universal methodology. 334 335 Michael Harvey explained to the Board that Commissioner Burroughs has requested a meeting with Staff to discuss 336 mental health and substance abuse centers in more detail. These centers are only allowed with a Class A Special 337 Use Permit, and even though Commissioner Burroughs understands the rationale for having a heightened level of 338 review, Mr. Harvey thinks that she will want to discuss other options . He will keep the Board advised about the 339 meeting and any related outcomes. 340 341 Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 151). The County Attorney’s Office is concerned about the 342 category “Veterinary Clinic, mobile.” This is an existing land use that allows a veterinarian to go through a process 343 to establish a mobile veterinarian clinic on a parcel of property where the vehicle could be parked, materials could 344 be stored, and administrative duties engaged in. However, the County Attorney is concerned that this set-up does 345 not establish a principal use of property and wants more information on the history of this land use. Staff is working 346 to provide more information, per the County Attorney’s request, but does not see a reason for this use to be 347 deleted. The example given was if Buddy was a veterinarian and wanted to turn his house into a mobile veterinary 348 clinic staging ground where items could be stored, where some staff could work, but he sees his animal clients by 349 driving to their homes. This is the purpose of this land use category and it was an idea supported by the elected 350 officials when working on agricultural service enterprise work several years ago. Mr. Harvey believes that the 351 County Attorney just wants more information as to why this use exists, and Staff will provide him with this. 352 353 Lydia Wegman asked if the County Attorney has any other free-standing objections to this use. 354 355 Michael Harvey responded that the County Attorney currently does not see this as a permitted use, so the details 356 from Staff will provide reason for this use to remain in the Table. 357 358 Lydia Wegman said that she understood. 359 360 Craig Benedict asked if a mobile veterinary clinic could be similar to a home occupation. 361 362 Michael Harvey answered that he is wary to include that use as allowable as a home occupation. Due to the level of 363 specificity in the development review requirements, and potential impacts that are not covered under the home 364 occupation special permitting process, he thinks it should be treated as a standalone use. 365 366 Michael Harvey continued presentation (page 152). The County Attorney’s Office has requested that “Race Track 367 (motorized, etc.) and Go-Kart Track Facilities” be changed to “Race Track Facilities.” Mr. Harvey’s only concern is 368 that the original category met legal sufficiency at the time it was adopted, but otherwise, he has no major objections 369 with the suggested change. 370 Approved 9/6/17 8 371 Lydia Wegman asked if there will be a definition of Race Track. 372 373 Michael Harvey said yes and continued the discussion (page 152) on “Recreational” uses. He said that “Theater” is 374 a new addition to the Table and includes indoor and outdoor performances with regulations covering outdoor 375 performances. The County Attorney has not provided any comments on this category. 376 377 Mr. Harvey continued his presentation and reviewed Residential land uses (page 153). The County Attorney has 378 requested additional explanation on the differences between “Family Care Home,” “Group Care Home,” and “Health 379 and Personal Care Facility.” Mr. Harvey reviewed with the Board that a “Family Care Home” is only intended to 380 serve a maximum of six clients. A “Group Care Facility,” which has to be licensed by the state as such, handles 7-381 15 clients. A “Health and Personal Care Facility” is a new category created to address concerns that the Table 382 lacked a land use category for a large-scale operation designed to provide assisted living or congregate care for 383 more than 16 clients. Staff will provide this level of detail to the Attorney’s Office with the recommendation that 384 these categories should be broken-out into three separate activities based on occupancy and use. 385 386 Lydia Wegman asked if these categories are allowed in difference districts. 387 388 Michael Harvey confirmed this and said that the Table currently shows the recommendation for where “Health and 389 Personal Care Facility” should be allowed, pending County Attorney review for legal sufficiency. Mr. Harvey 390 continued with his presentation. “Rehabilitative Care Facility” has not been changed, but “Fraternities, Sororities, 391 and Dormitories” as examples under “Residential Hotel” will be removed and detailed in Definitions, per the 392 convention of previous land use category changes discussed. 393 394 Randy Marshall asked how bed and breakfasts had been categorized. 395 396 Michael Harvey replied that bed and breakfasts is categorized under Services. He said he would review that 397 category later in the presentation and continued the discussion on Residential uses. The County Attorney’s Office 398 asked Staff to review the term “Orphanage.” Mr. Harvey said that Staff’s goal is to provide additional flexibility, 399 inclusive of housing, for adolescents and children without parents, like foster care facilities. If a family decides to 400 have foster children, the use is considered to be a single family residence, as long as definitions of family comply 401 with the UDO, and thus this does not need to be distinguished in the Table at all, in his opinion. At this juncture, 402 Staff will need to create a new set of criteria for “Orphanage.” 403 404 Michael Harvey continued the presentation (page 154). The County Attorney asked Staff if “Country Store” could be 405 eliminated and combined into “Retail.” Initially, Staff thought it best to keep the category since it is defined by a 406 specific construct as to what “County Store” is supposed to be under the UDO. Staff is reviewing the Attorney’s 407 recommendation and will keep the Board informed of any changes. As the Board has reviewed, the “Retail” 408 category will now be based on square footage instead of travel trips per day. 409 410 Michael Harvey continued the presentation (pages 155 and 156). The land use categories under “Services” have 411 been expanded. Mr. Harvey reminded the Board about discussions on churches and that Staff had replaced that 412 term and with “Religious Facility.” The County Attorney’s Office wants to take this one step further and is studying 413 the viability of eliminating “Clubs or Lodges; Social, Fraternal; or Union Clubhouses,” “Community Centers,” and 414 “Religious Facility” and have these uses consolidated into a land use defined as “Assembly.” In the County 415 Attorney’s opinion, the aforementioned uses could be better described in this way. Mr. Harvey said that while this 416 change sounds good in theory, some of these uses are only allowed in certain districts, specifically, “Clubs or 417 Lodges; Social, Fraternal; or Union Clubhouses,” and “Community Centers” (which may need a Special Use 418 Permit), whereas a “Religious Facility” is allowed in every zoning district. Staff will prepare a memo and matrix for 419 the County Attorney showing how these uses are different, permits needed and other requirements, and if it is 420 possible to see how assembly occupancy uses could be collapsed into one central land use construct. 421 422 Approved 9/6/17 9 Lydia Wegman asked that if this change were to be made, would the definition draw a distinction between uses 423 within the category? 424 425 Michael Harvey answered that yes, there would be a definition to distinguish between the many levels of assembly. 426 427 Lydia Wegman asked if in defining “Assembly,” can Staff address these uses going in different districts? 428 429 Michael Harvey responded that this would be defined in Use Standards in Article 5 of the UDO. 430 431 Buddy Hartley said it seemed to him that there is a huge difference between a community center, a club, and a 432 place of worship. 433 434 Lydia Wegman agreed. 435 436 Michael Harvey also agreed and clarified that he thinks the County Attorney is looking for more information on why 437 his own recommendation may not be practical in order to move forward more comfortably in approving the Table, 438 as proposed. Mr. Harvey continued with his presentation moving on to the topic of kennels. The County Attorney 439 suggested that “Kennel, Class I” and “Kennel, Class II,” be consolidated into one central land use category. Mr. 440 Harvey explained that “Kennel, Class I” as a land use allows someone to have more than five but less than 20 dogs 441 on his/her property for hunting, competition, or sport, but is not considered to be a commercial operation. In Class I, 442 there is no service activity. A “Kennel, Class II” requires a Special Use Permit because it involves boarding, 443 rehabilitation, could be what we call “doggy daycare,” and involves more than 20 dogs. If someone has 100 dogs, 444 regardless of her/his reason for having these dogs, this use also fits into Class II. Staff will provide more 445 information to the County Attorney to show why consolidating these categories is not a viable idea. 446 447 Lydia Wegman asked why “Kennel, Class I” was not listed with “Kennel, Class II” under Services. 448 449 Michael Harvey answered that “Kennel, Class I” is listed in “Miscellaneous” within the Table because it is not a 450 service activity. 451 452 Kim Piracci asked about “Funeral Home” in the Table and talked about a friend that helps guide people through the 453 process of having at-home wakes and funerals. Would this land use fall under this category? 454 455 Michael Harvey answered that “Funeral Home” refers to the professional, commercial activity where services are 456 held, and in certain instances, other activities occur on-site. It is not a commercial activity to have a wake or viewing 457 of a loved one at his/her/their private residence, based on the definition of “Funeral Home.” Mr. Harvey also gave 458 the example that if someone were to get married at his/her/their house, the house is not a retreat center or a church 459 or anything else. 460 461 Kim Piracci asked a follow-up question about her friend - what about the work she is doing, not just the land use? 462 463 Michael Harvey responded that if she is having the services at her house, as defined by the commercial operation 464 “Funeral Home,” she would need to get the appropriate permits. If she is acting as a funeral coordinator or a guide 465 to people and has a home office, she would need to go through the home occupation permit process. 466 467 Michael Harvey continued the presentation (page 156) and discussed bed and breakfasts. A bed and breakfast is 468 categorized in the Table as a “Rural Guest Establishment.” A “Rural Guest Establishment - Bed and Breakfast” is 469 classified as having three bedrooms or less; these are allowed in certain zoning districts. A “Rural Guest 470 Establishment – Bed and Breakfast Inn” has four to eight bedrooms, and a “Rural Guest Establishment – Country 471 Inn” has over eight bedrooms, and both allowed in certain districts with a Special Use Permit. These land uses have 472 not changed. Mr. Harvey moved on to discuss “Sexually Oriented Businesses” in the Table and said that Staff is not 473 making any changes to this category, adding that there was some suggestion that Staff needed to consider 474 changing where these businesses are allowed, but Staff is respectfully disagreeing. Some County Commissioners 475 Approved 9/6/17 10 are going to provide Staff with some comments on the possibility of expanding where these businesses are 476 allowed. Currently, “Sexually Oriented Businesses” are only allowed in two industrial zoning districts. 477 478 Lydia Wegman asked if it would be helpful to have comments from the Planning Board on this topic. 479 Michael Harvey said that the Board’s comments are welcome. 480 481 Lydia Wegman noted that she supports his position on “Sexually Oriented Businesses” and thinks that it is the best 482 for Orange County. 483 484 Michael Harvey thanked Lydia. 485 486 Michael Harvey reviewed “Day Spa” (page 155) and said that the County Attorney asked if this category could be 487 combined with those similar, like beauty and barber shops, nail salons, and tanning salons. The rationale against 488 this is that someone could have a nail salon or a massage operation or a tanning salon without having all the other 489 services of a day spa. Mr. Harvey believes each should be a separate category, including “Day Spa,” instead of an 490 overriding category that does not provide flexibility. He also noted that per discussions at the last Planning Board 491 meeting and with the County Attorney, “Repair Services” (page 156) will be collapsed into one central category and 492 further defined and differentiated in Article 5. As an example, if bicycle repair is not in Neighborhood Commercial 493 districts, this should be spelled-out in Article 5, not in Definitions. 494 495 Randy Marshall asked how “Tourist Home” is different from the other categories. 496 497 Michael Harvey responded that “Tourist Home” is different in terms of how many bedrooms and types of services it 498 allows. At a bed and breakfast (Inn or Country Inn), there is the ability to serve food and is usually run out of the 499 proprietor’s home, whereas a “Tourist Home” is more like a hotel, but not considered to be a commercial operation. 500 “Tourist Homes” are currently allowed in certain residential districts. This may end-up being combined with “Rural 501 Guest Establishments – Bed and Breakfast” but there has been no directive to address this by the County Attorney 502 at this time. 503 504 David Blankfard asked if “Tourist Home” has to be in rural areas. 505 506 Michael Harvey answered that the “Tourist Home” is allowed in higher intensity residential districts, whereas “Rural 507 Guest Establishments” are allowed in agricultural and residential districts. 508 509 David Blankfard followed-up with the example that if he wanted to have an Air B&Bs in downtown Hillsborough, 510 would it be classified as a “Tourist Home?” 511 512 Michael Harvey answered that following that example, in a more urban setting he may have to do the tourist home. 513 514 Alexander Gregory said that it seems like “Tourist Home” is more like an Air B&B option. 515 516 Michael Harvey said that this could be the case. He went on to say that there are sufficient court cases that would 517 prohibit someone from renting out their house for a week or a month or six months. With Air B&B there are a 518 plethora of options, and if it is a bed and breakfast, there need to be the appropriate permits. If someone decides to 519 rent his/her/their house out for a week, is that a commercial land use? Various court cases over the years have 520 determined that no, it does not. In a recent court case in Currituck County, a 24-bedroom house was found to be a 521 single family residence, not a commercial land use operation. It is hard to take an example from a coastal region 522 where the economies and scale are different than the Piedmont, but the 24-bedroom house is classified this way for 523 permitting purposes and is rented out, and this is an un-regulated activity. The provision of service, like breakfast, 524 puts something into the category of a bed and breakfast or a tourist home. Issues around Air B&Bs continue to be 525 reported and considered by Staff, and Staff will continue to be cognizant of what separates a “transient hotel-ish” 526 situation from a single family residential situation. 527 528 Approved 9/6/17 11 Kim Piracci asked for the definition of “Sexually Oriented Businesses.” 529 530 Michael Harvey answered that it is anything that meets the state statutory definition, including businesses like adult 531 cabaret, adult bookstore, adult motion picture theater, “adult hotel,” and other examples defined in the UDO. 532 533 Randy Marshall asked if massage parlors are included in these examples. 534 535 Michael Harvey answered that a massage parlor is a recognized physical therapy treatment center, albeit, if they 536 offer certain services, it could be a violation of state rules and local ordinances. 537 538 Randy Marshall asked if “adult massage parlor” was included in the definition. 539 540 Michael Harvey answered that it was not specifically included, and said that the sexually oriented business category 541 is a global land use category of a myriad of different activities. 542 543 Kim Piracci asked if the category includes in the retail sales of certain clothing and that kind of thing? 544 545 Michael Harvey said that no, but it would include the sale of adult oriented merchandise, including videos and 546 devices, for example. These businesses are currently only allowed in industrial districts. He said that there are also 547 percentages that come into play here; for example, a convenience store or video store that sells sexually-oriented 548 magazines or rents sexually oriented movies is not be a sexually oriented business because the percentage of the 549 sales that you generates is less than the majority of overall sales. If a store sells only lingerie, it is a clothing store, 550 but if it sells other merchandise defined in sexually oriented businesses, the store may only be permitted in certain 551 districts. 552 553 Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 157) and discussed Telecommunications. While Staff is not 554 proposing any changes to this category, there will likely need to be an overhaul to existing standards in the UDO 555 soon, based on recent changes to state law (and more changes coming). Mr. Harvey asked that the Board skip its 556 review of Temporary Uses (page 158) for now as the County Attorney and he are continuing to work on this section. 557 He will keep the Board up-to-date on any changes. The “Temporary Uses” categories was created because there 558 are temporary uses in the UDO, and the mantra during this process was to list them in the Table, but they may be 559 left out of the Table and remain in Article 5 only. Mr. Harvey reviewed “Utilities” (page 159) next and said that Staff 560 is not making any changes. He reminded that Board that the County Attorney and Staff are reviewing what legal 561 authority they have in permitting utilities, and where the County could be preempted by state law. He used the 562 example of the case of Special Use Permit proposing a regional gas line in Orange County several years ago. Even 563 though the entity was required to get, and did obtain, a Class B Special Use Permit, they vehemently argued that 564 they did not have to obtain such a permit. Since they did not appeal the decision, the permit requirement did not 565 change. Looking back on the case, there is some thought that with activities regulative under the Utilities 566 Commission, the County may not have as much regulatory authority as they think. This will be reviewed and 567 handled as part of a separate process. As current regulations entail, there are certain activities permitted by right, 568 while others only with a Special Use Permit. Staff is not changing any of the current requirements. 569 570 Lydia Wegman asked for the definition for “Solar Array – Large Facility.” 571 572 Michael Harvey said that a large facility can generate over 100,000 kilowatts. 573 574 Randy Marshall also asked for more information about solar arrays being put on schools or other government 575 buildings. 576 577 Michael Harvey responded that language in Article 5, Section 9.6 spells-out that for non-residential activities the 578 solar array is limited to the amount of kilowatts necessary to support the operation of your project. Following Mr. 579 Marshall’s example, if there is a school with a need for 50,000 kilowatts of power, there could be solar arrays on-580 Approved 9/6/17 12 site to support that amount of power without the Special Use Permit requirement. However, a school would need a 581 Special Use Permit per the UDO. 582 583 Randy Marshall asked if the school was already there and it wanted solar arrays, how would it go about getting 584 them. 585 586 Michael Harvey responded that if they wanted to add solar arrays, the school would need to amend its current 587 Special Use Permit for the school to accommodate new development on the school project. Mr. Harvey used the 588 example of Gravelly Hill Middle School off of West Ten Road in the Cheeks Township. As part of its existing 589 development, it has a physical fitness track and a football field. If the school did not have these facilities, and 590 Orange County Schools came to Planning to add a track, an athletic field and lights on this property, the Special 591 Use Permit would need to be amended and re-approved, since the additions were not in the originally approved 592 permit by the Board of County Commissioners. If they wanted a solar facility, the same course of action would 593 apply; the existing Special Use Permit would have to be amended to include a modified site plan to include it and 594 documentation showing that the solar facility would be generating power consistent with current power usage. 595 596 Randy Marshall asked if residential solar arrays are regulated. 597 598 Michael Harvey responded that residential solar arrays are regulated in terms of kilowatts and location, including 599 setbacks. If the solar arrays are roof-mounted, Planning requires documentation proofing they are mounted in a 600 structurally-sound way. 601 602 Lydia Wegman asked – what is a 5 megawatt solar array? 603 604 Michael Harvey answered that at that level, it is a public utility. 605 606 Kim Piracci noted that there is no mention of wind as a utility in the Table. 607 608 Michael Harvey said that no, wind is not included. He explained that originally, when solar energy as a utility was 609 being added as an amendment to the UDO, Staff was proposing an entire amendment packet to include alternative 610 energies that was all-encompassing. The County Manager at the time, who was supportive of the construct, 611 decided that it would be easier to do it piecemeal and to focus on the main desire at the time: solar. He did not want 612 to delay opportunities for permitting and requirements because someone took issue with other types of alternative 613 energy. Staff has continued to consider bringing back the discussion of alternative energies, but in light of recent 614 laws and moratoria, it is not something Staff is pursuing at this time. 615 616 Craig Benedict said that similar to the worries that telecommunications towers could disrupt birds’ migratory 617 patterns, there were concerns that wind farms would have the same effect. This is an example that could have 618 halted the movement on solar utilities at the time. 619 620 Michael Harvey continued with his presentation (page 160 and 161). He said that no changes were made to “Waste 621 Management.” In regards to “Wholesale Trade – Durable Goods” and “Wholesale Trade – Non Durable Goods,” the 622 10 -15 uses that were named in this category have been consolidated and will be further distinguished in 623 Definitions, not to mention that all of the uses were allowed in the same zoning districts. Lastly, Mr. Harvey 624 reviewed “Miscellaneous” with the Board. He said that Planning Staff has recommended the deletion of “Airports” 625 from being allowed in the residential zoning districts (Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, Rural Residential); they 626 are now only allowed in industrial districts. Under “Miscellaneous,” the Table shows certain terms as stricken, such 627 as “Cemetery,” “Church,” and others, because they were moved and/or rebranded. 628 629 Randy Marshall said that playing the devil’s advocate, would we want an airport in an industrial district, or would we 630 want it out somewhere where there was nothing a plane could run into? 631 632 Approved 9/6/17 13 Michael Harvey answered said that in consideration of the County’s land use pattern, he thinks that “Airports” 633 should be considered entirely differently. Until he is directed by the BOCC to revisit how to devise regulations on 634 airports, he thinks that their deletion from residential districts is reasonable. 635 636 Kim Piracci commented that we already have an airport. 637 638 Michael Harvey explained that the current airport is located within Chapel Hill’s planning jurisdiction. 639 640 Randy Marshall asked if farmland is considered residential. 641 642 Michael Harvey responded that farmland in-and-of-itself is not regulated but it is located primarily within residential 643 areas, but since the County does not regulate farming, there could potentially be a farm in an industrial or economic 644 development district. 645 646 Randy Marshall said that farms provide the sufficient amount of land to accommodate an airport. 647 648 Michael Harvey agreed. 649 650 Randy Marshall confirmed that farmland is not regulated. 651 652 Michael Harvey responded that farmland for use for agricultural purposes is defined in state law as not regulated. A 653 non-farm activity would be regulated, and if a farmer wants to put an airport on his or her property, then Staff would 654 argue that it is not a permitted activity. 655 656 Lydia Wegman asked for clarification (in relation to the above example) if there would be a way for this activity to be 657 permitted. 658 659 Michael Harvey answered that if this amendment is adopted, and the allowance of “Airports” in residential districts 660 is removed, then commercial airports would not be permitted. Having said that, he said that he could conceive of an 661 argument being made that a farmer may need a plane to spread herbicide or pesticide or dealing with other crop 662 issues, Staff may lose the argument that it is not a farm-related activity. 663 664 Buddy Hartley said that there already are private landing strips on some farms. 665 666 Michael Harvey said that this proposal is meant to eliminate commercial activities. 667 668 Lydia Wegman asked if the categories under “Miscellaneous” in the Table that are not crossed-out are also being 669 moved out of the section. 670 671 Michael Harvey answered that no, they will remain under “Miscellaneous.” The County Attorney has not expressed 672 concern about them. 673 674 Randy Marshall asked if there is anything in the Table on drones. 675 676 Michael Harvey answered that there is nothing currently on drones. 677 678 David Blankfard asked if there is anything in the Table on food trucks. 679 680 Michael Harvey responded that Orange County land use regulations do not regulate food trucks. Food trucks are 681 handled by an ordinance in the General Code of Ordinances where they are allowed on non-residentially-zoned 682 property, not residentially-zoned property. 683 684 Approved 9/6/17 14 David Blankfard followed-up his question to ask about a food truck on someone’s property, like the mobile 685 veterinary clinic, where there was a home base to store supplies and food. 686 687 Michael Harvey responded that this set-up would need a home occupation permit. 688 689 Michael concluded his presentation and thanked the Board. 690 691 Lydia Wegman asked if Michael Harvey could give any report on the public meetings that Planning Staff had held 692 on this amendment involving the Table of Permitted Uses. 693 694 Michael Harvey said that there were several comments made requesting that there be language and definitions 695 included on weddings. Staff is taking these comments under advisement whether to include the term wedding in the 696 “retreat center” category. He noted that there are several members of the public that attended these meetings that 697 are also here tonight, and they may wish to address the Board. 698 699 Lydia Wegman invited the members from the public to speak 700 701 Laura Streitfeld introduced herself as the Executive Director of Preserve Rural Orange, a non-profit in Orange 702 County. She said that she was here tonight because several members of her organization and she have attended the 703 informational meetings and have been following several issues for a number of years, but in particular and most 704 recently, they have been focused on weddings, permitting, and camp retreat centers for weddings, and rural special 705 events permits. She raised the question about whether facilities that are pursuing the status of an event center, may 706 claim an agritourism exemption for weddings. She said that there is a pattern in Orange County; there are at least 707 three facilities that are claiming an agritourism exemption from zoning to run wedding and other events, though it 708 appears that they might have to obtain a Class B Special Use Permit. In one case, there was one facility in southwest 709 Orange County, the Barn of Chapel Hill, that was denied a Special Use Permit three times by the Board of 710 Adjustment, and then based on two appeals, was denied the exemption for holding weddings as agritourism. There is 711 great community concern about the definition of where weddings can be held. She said that it was their 712 understanding, based on their review of notes from previous meetings, that weddings are listed exactly once in the 713 UDO, under “Rural Guest Establishment,” though the word wedding is not defined, nor is event center. Most recently, 714 the event center (Barn of Chapel Hill) that was turned down by the Board of Adjustment, was still able to apply for 715 and receive a Rural Special Events permit. However, she does not see weddings as a permitted use under Rural 716 Special Event permit. Special events, in the definition, appears to say that special events don’t include rural events 717 such as 4-H and horseshoes. She said that she hopes that they can have some clarity about what is already in the 718 UDO and if weddings can fall under Camp Retreat Centers and require a Class B Special Use Permit. Preserve 719 Rural Orange thinks that this would be useful to have this specified as an example in the definition in some way. 720 They have a number of requests for the Board and have prepared a handout to submit them in writing. She read 721 aloud the five requests on the handout (see handout in Board materials) and explained them in more detail. First, in 722 order to help citizens stay on-top of issues before decisions are made (and they do appreciate being able to attend 723 these meetings with the Board and Planning Staff) it would be useful to post public records of permit-related 724 documents as they are filed, as well as any proposed changes to the UDO on the County website accessible to the 725 public well in advance (10 days) so that citizens could sift through these 200 pages to get a sense of what is being 726 proposed and any items of interest. The second request is that the Board would require advance notice to property 727 owners within one mile of applicant property prior to issuing a Rural Special Events permit. Third, they ask that the 728 Board require applicants to list each proposed date, time and duration of event on the Rural Special Events permit 729 application. She said that this point is particularly important to them because they have seen Southeast Property 730 Group, the real estate investment firm that owns the Barn of Chapel Hill, receive a Rural Special Events permit that 731 did note how many times in each month there weddings would be held on-site but there was no mention of which 732 dates the weddings would be held. Because there is no process like a special events permit hearing, they asked for 733 the surrounding community to have an opportunity to weigh-in, ask for conditions, see a site plan, and understand the 734 potential effects an event could have on the community (i.e. up to 150 arriving in a rural community without the 735 community knowing when). The fourth request is for the Board to require advance notice to surrounding property 736 owners within one mile of applicant property, at the time a permit is issued, of each date on the Rural Special Events 737 Approved 9/6/17 15 permit. The fifth and final request is that the Board clarify wedding events, where and how they are permitted 738 (inclusive of bed and breakfasts and camp/retreat centers with Special Use Permits). She also said that the 739 organization is concerned that if something is not specified in the Table of Permitted Uses, it may be permitted in 740 every district. It seems as though it would be important to clarify where weddings could occur. She also commented 741 on the earlier discussion on assembly uses by Michael Harvey, and if the idea on assembly uses being combined 742 together and if they could be permitted in any zoning district, Preserve Rural Orange would be strongly opposed to 743 that. She said that at least two of the event centers she noted earlier began as wedding event venues, and when 744 there appeared to be opposition to this use, they re-labeld their projects as agricultural. This is of concern. It is 745 concerning that building on-site was proposed as a utility building but is then used as a building for assembly and 746 was permitted, like in the case of the Barn of Chapel Hill. The more information people know about these proposed 747 uses in as far advance as possible, there will be enough oversight and more opportunity for public input. 748 749 Lydia Wegman asked for a copy of Ms. Streitfeld’s comments. Ms. Wegman said that these requests will be included 750 in the meeting notes. She said that she knew that Michael Harvey has taken these comments under advisement and 751 would discuss them further with the Board once he had time to think about them further. 752 753 Michael Harvey confirmed this. 754 755 Lydia Wegman thanked Michael Harvey for going through the Table of Permitted Uses with the Board. 756 757 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 758 a) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 759 b) ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION 760 761 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any reports from the Board of Adjustment or the Orange Unified Transportation 762 (OUT) Board. 763 764 Michael Harvey said that the last two Board of Adjustment meetings have been canceled. One item on the agenda 765 was for a Class II Kennel, and while this application has not been withdrawn, the applicant has asked that the 766 application be put on indefinite hold until they address issues around well and septic, and access issues related to 767 comments from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 768 769 Randy Marshall asked if there had been any updates on the tire and mosquito issue raised at the last Planning Board 770 meeting in July. 771 772 Craig Benedict responded that Planning is still working with the Environmental Health Department in regards to how 773 the program could be expanded beyond the personal application of mosquito control to going out into the field on 774 specific instances such as tire storage. He said that he will check back with the Environmental Health Department 775 since they are the ones that have led the charge on this issue since there were funding sources for this issue within 776 the department. 777 778 Randy Marshall said that he has observed even more tires at the location than there were before and there have 779 been several rains. 780 781 Lydia Wegman asked if he was speaking about Triangle Tire. 782 783 Randy Marshall said that he was. 784 785 Kim Piracci asked if Environmental Health had called Triangle Tire. 786 787 Craig Benedict responded and said that to his knowledge, Environmental Health had reached out to them. He said 788 that there is new partnership at the business and that he is looking into asking them about storage inside buildings of 789 tires (a code issue) and if the tires can be covered, and if they would spray the area. 790 Approved 9/6/17 16 791 Lydia said that unless members had additional comments, the meeting could be adjourned. 792 793 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 794 795 MOTION by Randy Marshall to adjourn the August 2, 2017 Planning Board meeting. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 796 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 797 ____________________________________ Lydia Wegman, Chair