Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 100417Approved 11/01/2017 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 4, 2017 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), 7 Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large 8 Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Alexander 9 Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 12 Township; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, 15 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Planner II; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Meredith Kern, 16 Administrative Assistant II; 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Parker, Settlers Point Developer; Ariel Gamboa, Engineer from Summit Engineering, Ed 19 Sarginey, Traffic Engineer; MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC; Imbi Kiiss, Charlene Summers, Vicki Berry, Amanda Berry, 20 Ralph Warren, Deborah Markely, B. Tatum, Ursula Stumpf, Ricki Walker, Michael Efland, Joseph Shore, Charles 21 Brantley, M.K. Ramm, Gerald Scarlett, Tara Hulse, Truitt Holmes, Ellen McRae, Deborah Christensen, Jim Record, 22 Joe Chockley, Phllyis Moody, Lindsay Tapp, Michele Dixon, Carol Yavalek, Malinda Wilson, Edward Lourdevwik, 23 Nannie Richmond, Robert Kadle, Ariel Gamboa, Robin Schectman, William Piscitello, Wayne Honeycutt, Janet 24 Marks, Joan Kalnitsky, John Lemaine, Jane Ottara, Amber Dunn, David Liner, BJ Ray, Brenda Tate, J. Davis, Jana 25 Doherty, Sandra Tromba, Craig Burch, Kevin Nicholson, Beverly Scarlett, Ron Spada, Beth Rosenberg; 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 28 29 Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order and thanked the Board and members of the public for being present. She 30 went over how the meeting would run and advised that if members of the public wanted to speak, they should sign-in. 31 32 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 33 a) Planning Calendar for October and November 34 • November 1 – Planning Board Meeting 35 • November 14 – Quarterly Public Hearing 36 37 Lydia Wegman informed the Board of the several upcoming meetings: Planning Board Meeting on November 1st and 38 the Quarterly Public Hearing on November 14th; the next Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board Meeting on 39 October 18th; a Joint Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) - Town of Carrboro Meeting on the October 26th, 40 regular BOCC meeting on October 17th and Nov. 2nd; the Assembly of Governments Meeting on November 16th and 41 an OUTBoard meeting on November 15th. Ms. Wegman noted that Planning Board members’ attendance is expected 42 and desired at the BOCC November 14th Quarterly Public Hearing. 43 44 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 45 September 6, 2017 ORC Notes 46 September 6, 2017 Regular Meeting 47 48 MOTION by Kim Piracci to approve the September 6, 2017 ORC Meeting Notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 50 51 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the September 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Kim Piracci. 52 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 53 Approved 11/01/2017 2 54 55 AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 56 57 No additions to agenda. However, item 8 will be deleted as it is not ready for discussion. 58 59 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 60 61 Introduction to the Public Charge 62 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 63 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 64 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 65 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and 66 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 67 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 68 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 69 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 70 71 72 PUBLIC CHARGE 73 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 74 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 75 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 76 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 77 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 78 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 79 80 Lydia Wegman read the public charge aloud. 81 82 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 83 84 No comments 85 86 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS AND ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 87 – FLOOD REGULATIONS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated 88 amendments to the text of the UDO pertaining to flood regulations and to remove the Special 89 Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) from the Zoning Atlas. This item is scheduled for the November 90 2017 quarterly public hearing. 91 92 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 93 94 Michael Harvey greeted the Board and began reviewing the presentation. Mr. Harvey reviewed the components of 95 the packet (beginning on page 19) and provided a little bit of background on flood regulations. In 1968, Congress 96 created the National Flood Insurance program. Orange County has been a member of the program since 1976. This 97 program is intended to provide a means for property owners to financially protect themselves from the possible 98 damage of structures resulting from flood events. Flood insurance supplements typical homeowners’ insurance 99 policies which do not usually cover damage from a flood. Flood insurance is available to communities participating in 100 the program, and since Orange County is a participating, flood insurance is available to local residents. Participating 101 in this program means that a community adopts and enforces regulations (commonly referred to as Flood Damage 102 Prevention Regulations) designed to mitigate or reduce flood risk. This includes adoption of Flood Insurance 103 Regulation Maps (FIRM maps) denoting areas that are susceptible to flooding. Staff uses these documents to 104 evaluate the anticipated level of floodwaters during a storm event which allows Staff the opportunity to work with 105 property owners to plan for reasonable, viable development that will be reasonably free from inundation during a 106 Approved 11/01/2017 3 flood. FIRMs are modified over time by the Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reflect increases and 107 decreases in anticipated flood levels. Local communities like Orange County do not develop or maintain FIRMs; 108 these maps are maintained and modified by FEMA. While Orange County participates in the creation of these maps, 109 Staff does not do the studies, analyze data, create flood models, or make determinations with respect to what 110 property should and should not be included within a flood zone. Once communities are determined to be eligible to 111 participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, these communities are required to adopt FIRMs. Thus, if new 112 maps are not adopted, the County will no longer be eligible for participation in program, meaning flood insurance will 113 not be available to local residents. FEMA has finally approved new flood maps, a 3.5-4 year process that has 114 involved numerous revisions and modifications to the existing study. FEMA is also modifying its model floodplain 115 ordinances and established definitions and regulatory components. Orange County is obligated to adopt this in order 116 to insure consistency with FEMA policies and in order to preserve participation in the flood management program. 117 Staff is proposing to add new maps, enforceable once the BOCC acts on the proposed ordinance amendment. Staff 118 is also proposing to amend the Zoning Atlas to eliminate the Special Flood Hazard Overlay District. In 2007, the 119 County Planning Department was directed by the County Attorney (at the time) that flood regulation in and of itself 120 constituted a land use regulation tool, and as such, needed to be reflected on the Zoning Atlas, so the flood maps 121 were adopted and incorporated into the Zoning Atlas. However, as FIRMs change, Staff is obligated to continuously 122 update the Zoning Atlas. Now, in 2017, there is a new County Attorney who does not understand why Staff is 123 maintaining several different data sets in order to enforce FEMA flood map data, since the maps are the legally-124 binding documents that the County has to observe. So, based on this reasoning, the recommendation is to eliminate 125 the Special Flood Hazard Overlay District. Staff is also to proposing updates to the ordinance that eliminate 126 inconsistencies that have existed for several years. Specifically, there are provisions that the state has encouraged 127 local communities to include, which Orange County did adopt, that would allow local government leaders (BOCC) to 128 issue waivers for certain activities to be done in the flood zone. Such uses would include solid waste facilities, 129 salvage yards and chemical storage facilities. This does not make any sense to Staff, and since the County is not 130 obligated to have it, Staff is recommending the elimination of this mechanism. The elected body should be given a 131 methodology to practically issue permits to develop in these areas. Staff is also recommending changes to update 132 compliance issues for consistency with state law. Specifically, bona fide farms located within extra-territorial 133 jurisdictions (ETJs) that are located within a municipality, like Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, do not have to 134 comply with towns’ flood standards. By state law, they do have to comply with county flood standards. The effort is to 135 adopt the ordinance to be consistent with state law and to properly identify what the County does and not have 136 authority over. Staff is also updating existing definitions to be consistent with FEMA standards. There have been 137 some minor changes and tweaks to the definitions of design flood, Special Hazard Flood Area, and other related text 138 for FEMA’s satisfaction. What impacts will these changes have? There are some properties where there has been an 139 increase in identified floodplain, meaning the property will be regulated under existing floodplain management 140 standards. This does not mean that affected properties owners will have to secure permits the day after the maps are 141 adopted to make modifications to their property to bring it into compliance with the Ordinance. The adoption of new 142 flood map data does not automatically mandate property owners to address compliance immediately. If a structure 143 was built respective of regulations at the level, and level of development the time, it was legal, so the property owner 144 will not have to bring it up to compliance under the flood management ordinance, and will not create an automatic 145 zoning enforcement action. However, the structure may not be able to be expanded or modified. In response to many 146 calls from residents who are also in attendance at the meeting, Mr. Harvey said that the County – as a matter of law 147 or policy -- cannot compel, require, force or mandate that property owners get flood insurance. Mr. Harvey said that 148 lending agents have the ability to do this, especially with federally-backed mortgages. Mr. Harvey said that he does 149 think it is a good idea for property owners to consider getting flood insurance and there is plenty of information at the 150 Planning Department and on the County’s website about the many reasons. However, he wanted to make clear that 151 the County will not compel property owners to buy flood insurance. The biggest update is to eliminate references to 152 the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District from within the UDO and replace them with “Special Flood Hazard 153 Regulation.” Mr. Harvey addressed questions from residents about why they were notified about these said changes. 154 He said that Orange County’s UDO requires that any time the County initiates a Zoning Atlas amendment on a parcel 155 of property, that property owner has to be notified of the proposed change via certified mail. For this effort, Staff sent 156 our approximately 2,000 certified letters. 157 158 Lydia Wegman asked if the letters were sent out because the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay is being eliminated. 159 Approved 11/01/2017 4 160 Michael Harvey responded that yes, Staff is eliminating the Overlay District which is a Zoning Atlas amendment. By 161 definition, Staff is required to notify people within set distances; placards were also posted to property owners within 162 1,000 feet of the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District regarding the elimination of the Overlay District. There 163 have been lots of questions regarding the notification system being a proper use of County tax dollars. In response to 164 this, Mr. Harvey said that the UDO, as adopted by the elected officials, obligates him to follow the guidelines 165 explicitly. He also noted that the same notification process is required for the upcoming public hearing with the 166 BOCC. 167 168 Lydia Wegman asked if Mr. Harvey was talking about the November 14th Quarterly Public Hearing. 169 170 Michael Harvey answered that he was and that just last night, the BOCC confirmed that this item would be 171 discussed. Mr. Harvey continued with his presentation. He said that the Planning Department’s website includes a 172 factsheet, links to the NC Flood Risk Information System which can give property owners an understanding of where 173 there properly lies within the existing and preliminary floodplain maps based on floodplain data. Even with the 174 elimination of the Overlay District, the department will be maintaining floodplain data on the County webpage for easy 175 access for residents and Staff. Mr. Harvey encourages residents to meet with Staff to review the various services 176 offered as part of the County’s flood management program. Mr. Harvey read over the components of the factsheet. 177 He noted that one question answered in an updated version of the factsheet is if the County can update a FIRM to 178 take a property out of the floodplain, and the answer is no, it cannot. However, an individual can petition FEMA to 179 make this change, and Staff has included information on how this can be done via a link on the factsheet. The 180 Planning Department can provide assistance to individuals going through this process but only on a basic level. Next, 181 Mr. Harvey showed a visual of the Flood Risk Information System (FRIS) maps and guided the Board and other 182 meeting attendees through how to find the maps by address using online tools. Staff can work with property owners 183 who visit the Planning Department on accessing these online maps and related information. Mr. Harvey said that the 184 Planning Director recommends that the Board review the proposed amendments, deliberate, and make a 185 recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 3), the amendment to the Zoning Atlas 186 to eliminate the Special Flood Hazard Area Overlay District (Attachment 4), Statement of Consistency for the 187 proposed UDO text amendments (Attachment 5), and the actual proposed UDO text amendments (Attachment 6). He 188 asked if there were any questions. 189 190 Tony Blake asked if, in a nutshell, the County wants to get out of the business of being between FEMA and the 191 property owner. 192 193 Michael Harvey responded that the County is always in this position because the County is in the role of local 194 floodplain administrator and it is the County’s job to help individuals understand what they can and cannot do within a 195 floodplain, and how to navigate through FEMA. He said that the County is getting out of the business of is no longer 196 maintaining multiple data sources that could be seen as conflicting with official FEMA data and could potentially put 197 the County in jeopardy if someone argued that the County is not using the appropriate flood map. 198 199 Paul Guthrie said that some time ago, he received a letter from his insurance agency saying that his property was in 200 a floodplain district and he needed to get a floodplain insurance policy. He was concerned about the communication 201 from the insurance organization since he did not consider his property to be located within a floodplain. He asked if 202 there is anyone to get word out to residents that communications from insurance agencies may not be based on 203 FEMA floodplain determinations. He thought that a property owner might reach out to FEMA to find out the most 204 accurate information. 205 206 Michael Harvey agreed with Mr. Guthrie that a property owner should reach out to FEMA to verify information from a 207 non-government entity claiming that property is in a floodplain. Property owners can call the Planning Department for 208 an immediate answer as to whether or not their property is located within a floodplain. Staff provides a document 209 called a Site Assessment denoting a property’s development opportunities and constraints, including information on 210 floodplain on a parcel of property. If a property is located within the floodplain, Staff will provide information regarding 211 applicable regulations. Mr. Harvey noted that the Planning Department can only provide accurate floodplain 212 Approved 11/01/2017 5 regulation information to property owners with property in the County’s planning jurisdiction, and cannot provide 213 comments to property owners living within another local municipality’s jurisdiction. 214 215 Lydia Wegman asked if residents with property in a local municipality’s jurisdiction should go to their municipality’s 216 Planning Department for more information on floodplain. 217 218 Michael Harvey answered that yes. For example, if someone has property in Chapel Hill, that person should go to the 219 Chapel Hill Planning Department, or even the Town of Chapel Hill’s Stormwater Group to speak to the Floodplain 220 Manager. 221 222 Tony Blake asked for more information on the minor corrections FEMA requested be made to the County’s submitted 223 documents. 224 225 Michael Harvey said that the feedback was more about the way a definitions reads, and Staff is making all changes 226 FEMA requested. 227 228 Tony Blake asked if Michael Harvey knows approximately how much land in Orange County is in a floodplain. 229 230 Michael Harvey said that he does not know specifically, but he did say with certainty that there are areas of the 231 County where the floodplain is decreasing, though there are some significant areas with increases. He will be 232 meeting with some property owners who live off of Starlight, a small residential subdivision off of NC-86, on Friday to 233 go over how the new flood maps will affect their property (once the maps are adopted) and how the changes will 234 affect their land use options. It is possible that the floodplain data for this community should have been denoted on 235 maps several years ago. 236 237 Tony Blake said that based on research he has been doing on his own, the FEMA flood maps are notoriously 238 inaccurate in some areas. He said that FEMA may be looking for this feedback. 239 240 Michael Harvey said that the current model takes into account a myriad of factors previously excluded; it takes into 241 account more topography data, uses better survey data, applies data from LiDAR for elevations of houses, and 242 consults hydrologic studies to identify where the model may have been excessive or not descriptive enough. While 243 Mr. Harvey empathizes with property owners who are going to see more floodplain encumbering their property, it is 244 his job to help them understand their options, provide answers on what can be done to flood-proof their home, and 245 assist them as flooding incidents occur so that they can take advantage of FEMA funding when and if a flood does 246 occur. 247 248 Lydia Wegman asked if there are options for a property owner dealing with an increase in floodplain. 249 250 Michael Harvey answered that there are options but they might not all be great options; still, there are options for 251 flood-proofing a house that does not compel elevation and steps to mitigate exposure to flood. There are properties 252 that now have floodplain fully engorging the area where the house is located and there are properties with a more 253 engorged floodplain than before. This is a fact but the County is willing to work with them. 254 255 Lydia Wegman asked for confirmation that those property owners are not required to do anything immediately. 256 257 Michael Harvey confirmed this. He said that action will typically be needed if a property owner with floodplain is 258 looking to modify, expand or retrofit their residence; or, when there are damages from a flood event, the property 259 owner will have to work with the County as to how the house can be retrofitted to bring it into compliance. 260 261 Lydia Wegman asked if the County can advise on what retrofits are acceptable. 262 263 Michael Harvey replied that the County defers to FEMA on that topic. 264 265 Approved 11/01/2017 6 Tony Blake noted that with federal financing, the recipient must agree to certain federal rules governing changes in 266 order to receive such funding. 267 268 Lydia Wegman asked the Board if there were any additional questions. Hearing none, she referred to the audience 269 for comments and questions. She and Tony Blake said that there will be a 3 minute rule in place for persons 270 speaking. Ms. Wegman announced that she would read the names of people who had signed-up to speak, and at 271 that time, if an individual wanted to speak, they would be welcome to come up to the microphone to ask a question or 272 share comments. The read the following names: James Davis, Shannon Murdoch-Doherty, Ruth Lun (spelling?). 273 274 Tony Blake asked if the names she was reading aloud were those of people who wanted to speak. 275 276 Lydia Wegman said that instead of reading off the list, she invited all audience members who wanted to speak to line-277 up behind the microphone. She then invited those individuals to introduce themselves before their comments. 278 279 Claude B. Tyson introduced himself. He said that he lives at 904 Miller Road off of 70. He explained that he has a lot 280 of water around his property, which he likes. He asked for more explanation for how he can understand the difference 281 between what his floodplain looks like now as compared to the new floodplain plat he received in the mail. He asked 282 if Mr. Harvey could show an example using online maps of how to compare the floodplain maps. 283 284 Michael Harvey said that the maps mailed by the County were color-coded. The blue on the maps indicates 285 floodplain; the lavender/pink color shows areas that were not previously in the floodplain but are being added; yellow 286 shows areas no longer in the floodplain. He remembered that Mr. Tyson’s property showed only blue, so even with 287 new data, the maps are the same. 288 289 Lydia Wegman reiterated that there is no change on Mr. Tyson’s flood maps. 290 291 Michael Harvey concurred. More information is available on the Orange County webpage including the project 292 factsheet (he showed this visually), a floodplain information page that provides details of program, protections, 293 resources and links to other information, and copies of certain properties with elevation certificates on-file. Within the 294 factsheet, Staff has provided links to the UDO, to County’s GIS webpage to look-up a property, to the FRIS webpage, 295 and information on how to petition FEMA (link) to request a “letter of map change.” 296 297 Tony Blake asked if the County’s GIS data is in sync with the FRIS data. 298 299 Michael Harvey responded that the data is in sync with the current effective flood maps. These online maps will be 300 updated once the County officially adopts the new maps. He said that people can access archived data for residents 301 to use to compare and notice changes (2000-2007 FRIS maps). 302 303 Mike Efland wanted to know if there are any changes in setbacks from the floodplain line. 304 305 Michael Harvey said yes, the County enforces a buffer measured from the edge of the Special Flood Hazard Area, 306 and if there are increases in the floodplain on one’s property, then this buffer has also increased. 307 308 Tony Blake said that the same logic applies here - enforcement action will not being taken immediately. 309 310 Michael Harvey agreed and said that if there is development that was already in existence, the structure was legal at 311 the time of development. The fact that there was a change to the ordinance regarding floodplain would not be cause 312 for Staff to cite a property owner for violating the floodplain buffer requirements. 313 314 Lydia Wegman said that all existing development is “grandfathered-in” (or still considered legal) but future 315 development may be affected as far as where it could go on the property. 316 317 Approved 11/01/2017 7 Mike Efland followed-up on his question and asked if the footage off of the floodplain would change. He noted where 318 the buffer was shown on the map he received. 319 320 Michael Harvey reiterated that if the floodplain on Mr. Efland’s property is increasing, the buffer will also be 321 increased, based buffer requirements in the UDO. Mr. Harvey said that the map shows the size of the buffer which is 322 based on the slope of property going into the floodplain. 323 324 Lydia Wegman asked if the slope determines the setback on the property from the floodplain. 325 326 Michael Harvey corrected setback to the floodplain buffer. 327 328 Tony Blake said that the setback requirements referenced in the UDO are defined from the new floodplain buffer line. 329 330 Michael Harvey agreed with this statement. 331 332 Lydia Wegman said that the existing UDO buffer requirements remain in effect. 333 334 Michael Harvey reiterated that the floodplain buffer requirements are not changing. 335 336 Lydia Wegman asked Mr. Efland if that answered his question. 337 338 Mike Efland replied that it did. 339 340 Ed Johnson who lives off Buckhorn Road close to a creek questioned the fine-grain accuracy of floodplain maps. He 341 talked to Michael Harvey before the meeting about the positioning of his house within the floodplain. His house is 342 built on a flat slab but he said that the floodplain map shows his house half-in/half-out of the floodplain. He thinks this 343 is logically impossible. He wondered about the accuracy of the map and whether he is stuck with what is on the map 344 or if it can be nullified by the Board. 345 346 Michael Harvey recommended that Mr. Johnson petition FEMA by writing a letter to request a map change. 347 348 Lydia Wegman asked if this information helped answer his question and recommended that he reach out to FEMA 349 and talk with Mr. Harvey about his concerns further. 350 351 Ron Spada, who lives on McKee School Road off of highway 57, said that his property is affected by increased 352 floodplain. He asked if there are programs for property owners to mitigate floodplain and erosion issues. The Little 353 River is behind his property. Is there anything that the state or County would help with, like with a retaining wall, for 354 example, to slow things down. 355 356 Michael Harvey responded that there are hazard mitigation block grants available on the federal level that can 357 provide assistance for retrofitting. These grants are competitive and the County has to apply for them. Ten years ago, 358 the County applied for and received this grant and used it for elevation certificates for 70 homes during the last flood 359 maps review. Additionally, grants have been used to purchase people’s homes that were in floodplains and turn the 360 area into open space. The County does not have an allocation for funds for hazard mitigation and federal aid is being 361 reduced and/or re-routed to municipalities majorly hit by flood events like hurricanes. 362 363 Tony Blake asked if the USDA could help in any way. 364 365 Michael Harvey responded that he does not think that the USDA has a program designed to help with flood 366 management issues. 367 368 Lydia Wegman said that the question comes back to FEMA having funding for local block grants and that they 369 unfortunately have a huge demand on their resources right now. 370 Approved 11/01/2017 8 371 Michelle Dickson/Dixon said that she inherited her property from her husband, the late Mitchell Dickson/Dixon. Based 372 on the new maps, her property will no longer be in a floodplain. She wanted the Board to know that in 1998 there was 373 a permit granted to put a road in right through the identified floodplain. Unfortunately, even though there was a road 374 built, it was not built through the property and now Ms. Dickson is landlocked. She is concerned that the Planning and 375 Inspections Department has an inaccurate permit on file for the road, which was built around the floodplain, not 376 through the property as originally described when the permit was granted. Now the issue is that she cannot access 377 the property and the changing floodplain area does not help the long-standing problem. 378 379 Lydia Wegman asked if Michael Harvey or Craig Benedict would be able to address the speaker’s concerns. She 380 said that the Planning Board would not be able to change the situation. 381 382 Michael Harvey said that the Planning Department has a flood development permitting process that allows for 383 development in a floodplain, roads being the biggest example (or utilities). If this type of development provides the 384 only viable legal access to someone’s property, the department would not be able to prohibit that outright. Mr. Harvey 385 asked Ms. Dickson to make an appointment with him so that he can look into the matter more directly. 386 387 Tony Blake asked if it is possible for someone to be landlocked out of their property due floodplain. 388 389 Michael Harvey said that roadways are allowed to be developed in a floodplain, otherwise a property owner would be 390 landlocked and the land would lose value. 391 392 Tony Blake said that there would be different requirements for development a road. 393 394 Michael Harvey replied that the County and the state FEMA office would have certain requirements for this 395 development. There would have to be a “no rise” certification meaning that the development of the road would not 396 cause an increase in floodplain. 397 398 Lydia Wegman noted that in the case of Ms. Dickson, the floodplain decreased. 399 400 Michael Harvey said that he would need to look at the specifics of her case. 401 402 Michelle Dickson noted that the property still floods and that she would talk to Mr. Harvey about the issue further. 403 404 Lydia Wegman asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this matter. Hearing no one else, she 405 thanked members of the public. She then asked Mr. Harvey to remind her of the recommendation. 406 407 Michael Harvey repeated the recommendation (see motion below). 408 409 Tony Blake asked if the recommendations should be made in individual motions. 410 411 Michael Harvey suggested that the Board could approve the Planning Director’s recommendation in total. 412 413 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the Planning Director’s recommendation in total - to approve the Statements of 414 Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendments in Attachment 3, the ordinance amending the zoning atlas in 415 Attachment 4, the Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendments in Attachment 5, and the proposed 416 UDO text amendments in Attachment 6. Seconded by Randy Marshall. 417 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 418 419 Lydia Wegman thanked Michael Harvey. 420 421 Approved 11/01/2017 9 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that Item 8 was pulled from the agenda. Staff is not going to going to be 422 reviewing Future Land Use or Zoning Atlas amendments for properties south of Interstate 40. Per his emails to the 423 Board, that discussion will have impacts on Agenda Item 9. 424 425 AGENDA ITEM 9: MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SETTLER’S POINT - To make a recommendation to 426 the BOCC on an application for an MPD-CZ (Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning). 427 The proposed project encompasses 272 acres in and adjacent to the Hillsborough Economic 428 Development District (EDD) south of Interstate 40 on both sides of Old Highway 86. This item 429 is scheduled for the November 2017 quarterly public hearing. 430 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 431 432 Michael Harvey reviewed the presentation. He guided the Board through the additional materials Staff passed out, 433 including a replacement page for the recommendation (page 259), a revised Attachment 7 which is the ordinance 434 amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas for this project. Mr. Harvey said that Staff has received a Zoning 435 Atlas amendment that proposes a rezoning of 20 parcels of property, approximately 272 acres of land south of 436 Interstate 40 through a Master Plan Conditional Zoning designation. Mr. Harvey showed visually the area which 437 located both within Economic Development Transition and Rural Residential (R-1) (shown visually), and within urban-438 designated and rural-designated within the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Harvey said that Staff recommends that 439 the review of District 3 (properties 10-20) be tabled for this discussion this evening, reason being that this area 440 containing said 10 parcels of property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the way that a Master Plan 441 Development isreviewed. This area is not in a land use classification that will allow the review of this project. Mr. 442 Harvey continued with the presentation and discussed the rezoning of the subject parcels of property from Economic 443 Development – Hillsborough 2 (EDH-2), Economic Development – Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4), Economic 444 Development – Hillsborough Research and Manufacturing (EDH-5) to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning 445 (MPD-CZ). He also noted that there are portions of the property within the Special Flood Hazard Area District 446 Overlay, and until the Overlay is eliminated, it has to be referenced. District 1 is intended to allow for research and 447 manufacturing land uses (see revised Attachment 7, page 307). The first parcel of property is 148 acres (see 448 breakdown of each Parcel Identification Number in packet) of land to be rezoned to allow for research, manufacturing 449 and industrial land uses. It is west of Old NC 86, south of the interstate, and is currently accessed via a service road. 450 As noted, these properties are located with an economic development transition area, according to the Future Land 451 Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for the MPD-CZ. District 2 encompasses 10 total parcels covering 47 452 acres in area; it is intended to be commercially-zoned. It is located east of Old NC 86, south of interstate, and is 453 currently accessible via Old NC 86. It is also located within an economic development transition area which allows for 454 a MPD-CZ. The intended land uses include office, retail, service operation, hotels, restaurants, etc. He reminded the 455 Board that District 3 is not being discussed at this meeting. Mr. Harvey briefly reviewed the MPD-CZ rezoning 456 process wherein Staff reviews the proposed plan which, being different than a Special Use Permit, does not require 457 sworn testimony as part of the application. The schedule of review of this project started with a Neighborhood 458 Information Meeting (NIM) on the September 14, 2017 per the UDO. The developer held its own neighborhood 459 meetings without Planning Staff for adjacent property owners. The second action in the review process is for the 460 Planning Board to make a recommendation and then the project will go before a public hearing, which if 461 recommended, will go to the upcoming November 14, 2017 Quarterly Public Hearing. Per Section 2.9.2 (F) (3) of the 462 UDO, mutually-agreed-upon conditions can be imposed, addressed compatibility with the proposed development with 463 surrounding property, and proposed development of support facilities and other matters the County may find 464 appropriate, and the petitioner may propose. The applicant and Staff have created conditions through this 465 mechanism. If approved, the Zoning Atlas would be modified to change the 10 properties identified to MPD-CZ, 466 allowing for the development of the Settler’s Point project. Mr. Harvey said that the development of individual land 467 uses will be handled by Staff (i.e. reviewing site plans for permissible uses) but there will be no additional Board 468 review. This proposal would establish a zoning district and development will be accordance with the UDO along with 469 any specified condition articulated in Attachment 7 that the developer has asked to be imposed. 470 471 Tony Blake asked if there would be special uses. 472 473 Approved 11/01/2017 10 Michael Harvey replied that Mr. Blake’s question would be reviewed later in the presentation. He continued with his 474 remarks saying that the Boards would only review this proposal again if the developers proposed an amendment to 475 the Master Plan. Mr. Harvey summarized the conditions (25 pages) of which the applicant is imposing. One condition 476 is that the project is not guaranteed utility services by the Town of Hillsborough. With respect to utilities, the applicant 477 must comply with the provisions in the UDO. The developer proposes that the project be served by public water and 478 sewer and Staff agrees. Utility provision must meet UDO and Town standards. Mr. Harvey said that extension of 479 utility services to District 2 shall have to be reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough prior to its 480 development. The County is working on a detailed agreement with Hillsborough but the County has already 481 committed to extend water and sewer under the interstate, which could be used to serve District 1. The extension of 482 utility services to District 2 would have to go through a similar process by the Town amending its agreement to allow 483 for water and sewer to serve District 2. 484 485 Lydia Wegman asked if the County would do the extension. 486 487 Michael Harvey replied that it would be on the developer or successor to secure this extension; it is up to the 488 individual(s) proposing the project. Mr. Harvey said that the project must go through site plan review per the UDO 489 and that per the developer’s recommendation, all submittals will be subject to an environmental and transportation 490 impact analyses. He reviewed that an environmental assessment (or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) looks 491 into potential negative impacts on environmental features on the property (namely water bodies, floodplain, 492 wetlands), soil composition, best location for a road, and weighs environmental constraints on the property. Staff’s 493 site plan review takes into consideration this assessment to ensure that environmental conditions are not 494 exacerbated. The Transportation Improvement Assessment (TIA) is designed to identify internal and external 495 roadway improvements required. Typically, these are only required once certain thresholds are met, but the 496 developer suggested that TIAs be mandatory for every site plan review. These reviews ensure that the data that the 497 developer submitted as part of the master plan application is viable as conditions change over time, and can 498 implemented to reach individual site plan approval. Mr. Harvey pointed the Board to the existing TIA included in the 499 proposal that gives a broad picture of what traffic improvements will be required for this project. The additional 500 submittals of TIAs with site plan review provides Staff with any information on changes, that improvements are 501 necessary and consistent, and that the TIA is approved in concert with the site plan so that it is installed by the same 502 developer. 503 504 Tony Blake asked when the Department of Transportation (NCDOT) gets involved. 505 506 Michael Harvey said that NCDOT has been reviewing the existing TIA since March 2017. While Staff has not heard 507 back from them with feedback, he hopes to hear from them soon. Since NCDOT is on an advisory committee that 508 reviews site plans, they will be reviewing all documents along the way. Applicants are also required to document 509 everyday water and sewer needs for a cumulative track record. The Town of Hillsborough will provide courtesy 510 review on this project and will benefit from data on utility needs as well. Landscape plans will detail how vegetation 511 will be cared for. 512 513 Lydia Wegman asked for a review of the impervious surface area requirements. 514 515 Michael Harvey said that the developer is required to document existing and proposed impervious surface area as 516 well as building-to-open-space ratios. Since there are mandatory restrictions on total building area for each district 517 and requirements for percentage of open space (based on the building to open space balance), the developer will 518 continue to update Staff on where they are in meeting those thresholds. He noted land use buffers for the project. 519 District 1 will maintain a 100 foot land use buffer along the western and southern property lines, roughly up to the 520 economic development zoning line. There is a 50 foot buffer proposed along Old NC 86. There is a request to allow 521 for thinning in this area to accommodate potential access, parking and stormwater features, along with replanting 522 requirements. As proposed, Staff does not have an issue with the thinning of vegetation within the 50 foot buffer. The 523 Major Transportation Overlay (MTO) will also be maintained along the interstate and has a required 100 foot buffer. 524 The applicant is also proposing for thinning in this buffer, which Staff also finds reasonable since the UDO allows for 525 breaks in the buffer to create visibility, especially since the developer is providing a replanting plan and describes in 526 Approved 11/01/2017 11 detail how the area would be disturbed, setting-up reviews in the site plan approval process. The developer provided 527 illustrations of buffers for proposed parking lots in front of buildings (see narrative section). Standards for allowable 528 architectural materials have been met. Transportation impact plans comply with the regulations outlined in 6.10 of the 529 UDO. Specifically, external roadway improvements will meet NCDOT requirements; internal roadways will be public; 530 sidewalks and bicycle lanes will be developed; and 4 bus pullouts and transit shelters will be constructed to serve the 531 project. By design as outlined in the developer’s conditions, no structure or building erected will be outside the 532 recommended distance to a transit stops to ensure accessibility. Staff is very supportive of this. 533 534 Tony Blake asked if building heights and setbacks are included in the plans. He asked if they are following a form-535 based code. 536 537 Michael Harvey replied that setbacks and building heights are included and said that the project is not being 538 proposed within a fully-functioning form-based code. 539 540 Paul Guthrie asked if there is consideration of the expansion of Interstate 40, especially in relation to planning going 541 on adjacent to the right-of-way. 542 543 Michael Harvey answered that even though Interstate 40 will be expanded in the future, Staff can only plan in the 544 now as Interstate 40 exists. If NCDOT secures additional right-of-way, the buffers, setbacks and other details will be 545 affected, but until this time, people cannot be denied reasonable development opportunities on their property. Mr. 546 Harvey said he is unsure of the time horizon on the expansion and NCDOT is still working out the details. 547 548 Paul Guthrie replied that he asked the question because he suspects that NCDOT can do expansion within the 549 proposed plan MPD-CZ without a problem, but some of the ramps may require more property. 550 551 Michael Harvey said in response that the TIAs will help with the integration of these plans over time. The developer 552 can only be consistent with NCDOT comment, and Mr. Edwards with NCDOT has not indicated anything about a 553 large-scale exit ramp reconfiguration yet. 554 555 Paul Guthrie said that he had seen a map of long-term expansion. 556 557 Michael Harvey replied that it is a good idea to keep the interstate expansion in mind. Mr. Harvey redirected the 558 discussion to land uses. In District 1, an abbreviated list of land uses includes computer and electronic 559 manufacturing, pharmaceutical research manufacturing, metal production manufacturing, furniture man, food and 560 beverage bottling manufacturing, research facilities, etc. In District 2, commercial services could include retail, 561 professional office, restaurant, recreational land use, health services, hotel and motels, and gas stations. The 562 applicant asked if an elementary-secondary level school could be allowed as part of this project. Staff does not have 563 an objection to the use, just to the use of it by right. The development of a school would be required to go through the 564 Special Use Permit process, just as any proposed school would have to go through. 565 566 Tony Blake asked if the plan provides for fire services and the like. 567 568 Michael Harvey responded that it does and that government services (inclusive of protective services) are permitted 569 in every district. 570 571 Tony Blake said that he knows that they are permitted, but does the development plan take into account the 572 additional resources needed? Building height would affect the fire department. 573 574 Michael Harvey said that the Orange County Fire Marshal serves on the Planning Department’s advisory committee 575 and will be reviewing all site plans . With respect to Mr. Blake’s question, he noted that there is a condition that 576 requires the County Fire Marshal and the Town of Hillsborough’s Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Utility Director 577 of the Town of Hillsborough, to approve road layout at construction, location of fire lanes, location of fire hydrants and 578 location of proposed standpipes. There will also have to be float tests required. 579 Approved 11/01/2017 12 580 Tony Blake asked for confirmation that this project is located within the County and not in Hillsborough. Is the fire 581 department Orange Rural for this area? He wants to make sure that the local fire department is also included in the 582 review. 583 584 Michael Harvey replied that yes, it is in the County but will be in the Town’s jurisdiction at some point. 585 586 Buddy Hartley noted that the local fire department is #316. 587 588 Michael Harvey said that the local fire department can be added to the advisory group on these topics. He believes 589 that Hillsborough will provide mutual aid, especially with the extension of water-sewer. As structures go over a certain 590 height, there will be a sprinkler requirement. 591 592 Tony Blake said that he wants to ensure that the local department responsible for fire protection is involved in the 593 process. 594 595 Michael Harvey said that he can accommodate that. He continued with his presentation and discussed the extensive 596 signage provisions. He said that he has heard concerns from Board members and from attendees at the NIM about 597 the architectural landmark as the visual identifier for the development. Staff has shared these concerns with the 598 applicant. The applicant described the development’s visual identifier as more of an architectural feature than a sign. 599 Waterstone has the big architectural feature as well. Staff is suggesting that the applicant provide visual examples of 600 the feature. As described, the sign will be subject to UDO guidelines that govern design for an entry portal marker. 601 Staff did not have any major concerns with signage; they just want to ensure that the signage does not exceed 602 square footage requirements, despite this being a high intensity project. 603 604 Tony Blake said that a project such as this may want a sign visible from the interstate. This issue is better addressed 605 sooner than later. 606 607 Michael Harvey responded that there are not going to be many opportunities for a McDonald’s to come to this site 608 and have the 60 – 70 foot sign. The applicable signage requirements from the UDO still apply. 609 610 Tony Blake replied that he had brought-up form-based code for this reason. 611 612 Michael Harvey said that master planning, at its heart and soul, gives a developer the opportunity to propose different 613 standards to try and address peculiarities of a specific project, and it is up to the BOCC to determine if there is 614 sufficient justification. Mr. Harvey explained that with this project, the Staff and the applicant have been working on 615 how to best apply design standards, landscaping, and signage innovatively and reasonably while following the UDO. 616 There is some flexibility in this project, like with the MTO buffer, that still upholds the County’s vision of preservation 617 of the view-shed along the interstate as best as possible. Mr. Harvey said that Staff is satisfied that the application is 618 complete and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated that Staff and the developer agreed that 619 environmental assessments would be part of all site plan reviews, though it is too soon for a formal Environmental 620 Impact Assessment (EIA) as the layout of the property has not yet been determined. The development is consistent 621 with other existing and anticipated development in this area, and Staff believes that that the land uses are compatible 622 and consistent with what is already allowed in the economic development districts. Mr. Harvey said that the Town of 623 Hillsborough has provided the County Planning Department with its courtesy review comments and expressed some 624 concern about District 3. District 3 was originally proposed as residential, specifically senior housing. Future Land 625 Use Map amendments cannot be updated until the Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and other 626 related documentation is modified to allow for this are to be considered as Transition Area. Per the emails that Mr. 627 Harvey sent to Board members, the Town of Hillsborough and County elected officials are interested in meeting to 628 discuss this further; Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough’s Planning Director and County Planning Staff are working to 629 facilitate this meeting. As discussed previously, District 3 will not be considered at this time due to its current land 630 use designation. The Board’s options are to recommend tabling the entire application until the Water and Sewer 631 Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) and Future Land Use Map are modified (Staff is not recommending this option); 632 Approved 11/01/2017 13 recommend approval of District 1 and 2 for this project as they would be consistent with current and anticipating 633 development activity and are consistent with the Future Land Use Map, with a recommendation of delaying action on 634 District 3 until the Water and Sewer Boundary Map (WASMPBA) and Future Land Use Map issues are resolved; 635 recommend denial of the project (Staff is not recommending this option); or recommend approval of the application 636 as submitted, including District 3 (Staff is not recommending this option). 637 638 Kim Piracci said that this is the first time she has heard of Settler’s Point mixed use development and it seems like 639 with very little information, she has more questions than answers. She said that if she moved to approve this, she 640 does not feel like she knows what she is approving. 641 642 Michael Harvey said that part of this process is for the Board to ask questions to get a comfort level. He pointed to 643 the detailed, comprehensive narrative that Staff has provided and maps outlining what the area will look like. This 644 project was originally submitted February/March of 2017 and was then tabled. It was resubmitted in August 2017 and 645 this is the first hearing for the Planning Board to review the project. The narrative provides the standards for 646 developing this project. Since this is a master plan, there are not specifics on where exactly a hotel or a motel or an 647 industrial site will go. Board members are being asked to approve the zoning and regulatory limitations that will 648 govern this project overtime, from setbacks to land use buffers to parking requirements, etc. Staff will utilize the 649 Board’s approval to approve or deny the developer’s site plans as they come forward. This is different than a Special 650 Use Permit application is required to have a site plan showing how the property is going to be developed. Rather, this 651 process is a rezoning process. Design standards and criteria can and are going to be opposed. This criteria will be 652 the basis for approval of site plans as Staff moves forward. 653 654 Kim Piracci asked what Michael Harvey meant at the beginning of his presentation when he told the Board that this 655 was the last time they would see this project. 656 657 Michael Harvey replied the Board would be approving the zoning district. Site plans are going to be reviewed by 658 Staff, subject to permitted uses in the UDO. What he meant was that the Board will not see site plans for this project, 659 unless the concept of the school moves forward. He did note that the school would need a Class A Special Use 660 Permit and that application would go through the Board. 661 662 Tony Blake asked if Staff had received much public comment on this application. Were people concerned? 663 664 Michael Harvey responded the NIM notes that go over concerns and other comments are included Attachment 5 in 665 the packet. Mr. Harvey said that people were concerned about traffic impacts, congestion and congestion 666 management. There is a TIA outlining what external traffic improvements will be required to accommodate the 667 project. There was also some concern that this project could even be served by water-sewer. Staff made the 668 aforementioned conditions regarding this concern. Additionally, there were concerns expressed about the intensity of 669 District 3. There is also buzz in this project because of the economic development interest it brings to the County. 670 Neighbors at the NIMs also expressed concerns about noise and air pollution. There are regulatory standards of 671 which the applicant is aware that will hopefully address these concerns. 672 673 Tony Blake said that he did not get the impression that the public would have more time to comment on this if the 674 Board approves it tonight. 675 676 Michael Harvey said that the public always gets the opportunity to comment on any development project that goes 677 through Orange County, even if the project is permitted by right; and they get to comment tonight and at the BOCC 678 public hearing. However, they cannot influence the outcome. Staff is reviewing and taking action on permitted land 679 uses, most of which could already be developed in this area. From Staff’s standpoint, the benefit of the project going 680 through the master plan process is that it gives a comprehensive approach of developing roadway standards and 681 addressing buffer issues, purposeful utility management in coordination with Hillsborough. The master plan process 682 helps establish a zoning district that addresses some of the applicant’s needs, the Planning Department’s needs, and 683 economic development needs in the County. There could still be limitations that impact this project, just like any 684 project. 685 Approved 11/01/2017 14 686 Tony Blake said that the streamlining is clear. He wants to make sure that the people affected by the project have 687 been listened to. 688 689 Michael Harvey said that the applicant’s gone to great lengths to alleviate concerns, as has Staff, by making 690 conditions of approval that address concerns. Mr. Harvey said that unfortunately, nothing is perfect. However, the 691 application represents a reasonable move forward in this area of the County, and as Staff continues to address 692 external roadway improvements, ancillary agencies will have more ability to compel some modifications of roadways 693 that may impact certain components of projects. 694 695 Lydia Wegman acknowledged Paul Guthrie to speak. 696 697 Paul Guthrie asked a couple of questions: Has there been a formal analysis on the capacity with potential increases 698 for water and sewer? And to what level? 699 700 Michael Harvey said that he will let the applicant answer that question. 701 702 Paul Guthrie asked - Who is going to pay for the expansion of the facilities if Hillsborough takes on the responsibility? 703 Will the water supply be from Hillsborough? 704 705 Michael Harvey said that was not a question he could answer. 706 707 Paul Guthrie asked about a transmission line about a block-and-a-half from the site. Have there been discussions 708 with the power company about this line? 709 710 Michael Harvey replied that no, there have not because no site plan has been submitted yet. While Staff knows there 711 is service availability, it is currently unclear which use will be reviewed for approval first. It is incumbent upon the 712 developer to make improvements on utilities for the good of the project, just like any developer in Orange County 713 when it comes to utility upgrades. As site plans come-in, the Town of Hillsborough will decide if they can handle 714 capacity, and if they cannot, the use cannot be approved. 715 716 Paul Guthrie asked if the developer will pay for additional costs associated with this. 717 718 Michael Harvey responded that if a developer wants utility upgrades for a project, they will have to pay for it. He 719 cannot comment for the Town of Hillsborough. 720 721 Paul Guthrie noted that there has been an interesting dialogue going on with Hillsborough on this project, as he read 722 in the materials provided. 723 724 Michael Harvey agreed and said that most of that dialogue is on District 3. Ms. Hauth’s letter voicing concern over the 725 Town serving a residential project this far south, outside the Town’s corporate limits, is included in the materials given 726 to the Board. These are the issues to discuss further. 727 728 Paul Guthrie said that Hillsborough will have to weigh capacity of water needs/use based on what gets built on the 729 site. 730 731 Michael Harvey replied that applicants have to provide information for site plan review to figure out these very issues. 732 733 Craig Benedict said that in regards to water capacity for District 1, the agreement that the County has with 734 Hillsborough does have a certain allocation – 108,000 gallons/day. This is part of the agreement in that area. Any 735 uses that come forward will have to spread-out over the 148 acres or so to accommodate the capacity. For other 736 issues outside of District 1, District 2, and possibly District 3, there will have to be an independent agreement 737 between Hillsborough and the developer to negotiate water and sewer consumption. The County is involved with the 738 Approved 11/01/2017 15 District 1 agreement because the County is involved with getting the sewer system under the interstate and 739 beginning the loop of a water system to support that project and more. 740 741 Michael Harvey said that Staff’s recommendation is for the Board to receive this application, to deliberate, and 742 consider the following recommendation: Table action on District 3 with a recommendation to the elected officials that 743 this area (District 3) come back to the Planning Board for continued review and discussion for your April 2018 744 meeting. If there is action that would enable District 3 to be acted upon by the County, the Board would have 745 sufficient time to do so. Staff wants to avoid the unnecessary re-advertisements if the Planning Board can review this 746 at a later time after the elected officials make a recommendation. 747 748 Tony Blake asked if NIMs for District 3 are done. 749 750 Michael Harvey replied that the NIMs for the entire project are done. He continued with the recommendation. Staff 751 recommends that the Board approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 6 with the provision that any 752 references to property in District 3 be eliminated; approve the ordinance, Attachment 7, which has already been 753 modified to eliminate references to District 3. Mr. Harvey said that he will fix some errors in Attachment 7 at the 754 appropriate time, once he gets more direction from the Board. He turned the presentation over to the applicant. 755 756 Someone from the audience asked when the public would be able to make comments. 757 758 Lydia Wegman replied that the applicant will make his presentation and then the public will be invited to speak. 759 760 Jim Parker introduced himself and said that he is representing Old NC 86 Partners as the developer and applicant. 761 He also introduced the engineer for the project, Ariel Gamboa from Summit Engineering and Ed Sergainey, Traffic 762 Engineer. Mr. Parker said that Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict did such an extensive presentation that he would 763 not show the same maps again, but would focus on the history of the project as he and his partners see it, and then 764 take questions, listen to the public and try to respond. He said that he has lived and worked in Hillsborough for over 765 30 years, and in that time, has worked on various development. He and his partners are very familiar with the County 766 and the Town from working and living in the area for many, many years. The County has had its Economic 767 Development Districts (EDDs) for a long time and they are meant to provide economic benefit for the County and the 768 Town. He said that they saw the Hillsborough EDD as a gem. The subject area has one of the best interchanges in 769 the County and it is close to Hillsborough. He said that he believes the development will provide a transportation 770 market, a transient market. This does not mean that the development is not of quality or second rate in relation to this 771 market; but it is positioned well to provide economic development and benefit the tax base. For the last 2.5 years, Mr. 772 Parker and his partners have been assembling properties in the southeast quadrant (showed a map). He said that 773 they set the template for the development for the site plans that would occur in this area. The land uses presented 774 mirror what the County has already identified as viable for the subject properties. He said that they are bringing an 775 assembled mass that will spur development. It is very difficult for development to occur on a 1 acre property, but the 776 properties collectively together give the uses a palette through which the development can occur. Mr. Parker thanked 777 the Board for its consideration of this project and hopes that they will vote favorably for it. He said that they are here 778 to answer questions. 779 780 Lydia Wegman thanked him for the time he put into evolving project and for involving the Planning Department, 781 Michael Harvey in particular. She recognized Paul Guthrie to ask a question. 782 783 Paul Guthrie said as a follow-up to his previous question, has asked Mr. Parker if he had any conversations with the 784 Town of Hillsborough about who is going to pay for the expansion of water services and treatment facilities if 785 necessary. 786 787 Jim Parker replied that in regards to utilities within the site, within the public right-of-way, other than the sewer and 788 water infrastructure discussed by Mr. Harvey and Mr. Benedict, the developer would pay for it. He said that there is 789 capacity, but they have not yet identified what may be needed to improve the capacity for the development. At this 790 point, they do not know exactly the volume, based on the buildings. Development will be done on a piece-by-piece 791 Approved 11/01/2017 16 basis. If it were to reach that limit, and the capacity was not there to reach the next site plan, the developer will have 792 to pay to expand the capacity. 793 794 Paul Guthrie said that he asked the questions because some years ago he was involved in the funding and building 795 of some 200 community treatment plants in another state and provided a water supply. The biggest trap was when 796 developers came with grand designs when they heard there was land available, and then the community got stuck 797 with building a new facility without recourse to keep money out. The result was great burdens on the small 798 communities without great capacity ability. 799 800 Jim Parker responded that he appreciated the comment and that as Mr. Guthrie knew, there are good officials 801 working on these issues that will not let a scenario like what he just described happen. He noted a water line (16 802 inch) in the right-of-way off Old NC 86 that has been serving Hillsborough from OWASA for years. It is now becoming 803 Hillsborough’s to meter. The sewer line being put in will be 12 inches in diameter. There has been some planning and 804 sizing of the lines for the areas in the EDD, with the anticipation of a certain volume being generated from the land 805 uses. 806 807 David Blankfard asked about the neighborhood meetings that Mr. Parker held separately from the Planning 808 Department. How did it go? 809 810 Jim Parker thanked him for asking that. He said that they have held 3 neighborhood meetings: September 2016, 811 August 2017 and September 2017. The meetings have been generally well attended. At the first meeting, they mostly 812 talked about the area itself since they did not have specific plans together at the time. There were questions from 813 adjacent property owners that live outside of and south of this property. These neighbors have not come back to 814 subsequent meetings. There have been concerns over types of uses, traffic, but generally, no concerns from 815 individual property owners with specific things they wanted from the developers. The attendees have been well-816 informed and he said that he and his partners have listened to them. 817 818 Tony Blake asked if in the project would expand in the future if additional adjacent properties became available. 819 820 Jim Parker said that they have reached out to most every property owner in the area and offered to buy their property 821 to make it part of the development. The properties in the development are a result of property owners selling their lots 822 to Mr. Parker’s group. 823 824 Tony Blake responded that he sees the challenge facing the County that there are no big areas for development, just 825 segmented properties. 826 827 Jim Parker said that other EDDs look similar; it’s just the way it is. There are a lot of little properties that need to be 828 amassed to do a development. 829 830 Michael Harvey made a point of clarification. He said that if the development secured additional property, the Settler’s 831 Point Master Plan would have to be amended to add the additional properties into the proposal, which would initiate 832 another public hearing process. If Settler’s Point is approved without District 3 and District 3 becomes possible to 833 develop later on, the developer will have to go through an entire new process to do so as well. 834 835 Lydia Wegman asked for clarification. If the Board tabled District 3 this evening, there would not be a need for an 836 entirely new process, unless District 3 is withdrawn. 837 838 Michael Harvey said that this is correct and added that if District 3 were to come back to the Board but there is no 839 movement forward on the components still needed for it to be viable, the Board may recommend that it is denied, and 840 it would have to go through the process again as well. 841 842 Jim Parker said that they are supportive of Staff’s recommendation. 843 844 Approved 11/01/2017 17 Kim Piracci said that she did not do her homework to study the materials for this development. She cannot make an 845 informed decision on any of the items tonight. She said that she suspected that other members may be in a similar 846 position. If she recommended that this item be tabled, the world would not come to an end. What is the worst that 847 would happen? 848 849 Michael Harvey responded that if the decision is to table the entire project, it will be tabled and brought back up at the 850 Board’s November regular meeting. With the delay, the project would not be going forward to public hearing in 851 November because there will likely not be enough time to get it to the BOCC. He recommended that she ask Mr. 852 Parker any questions. He also said that he would need direction on what Staff should provide in terms of more 853 information or direction. 854 855 Kim Piracci said that she needs more time to study this project. She feels like this is too much to go forward with, for 856 her personally. 857 858 Lydia Wegman said that she appreciated Ms. Piracci’s comments and gave Mr. Parker a chance to respond. She 859 said that she would also like to know how other members feel, and wanted to give the public a chance to comment. 860 The public has been extremely patient. 861 862 Jim Parker said that he understands Ms. Piracci’s position. He said that on his end, they are on a timeline and have a 863 contractual obligation. Mr. Parker said that he does feel like the world would come to an end for he and his group. He 864 wishes the project had been ready to move forward this past spring but here they are so much later. He said that he 865 really hopes the Board approves the project. If anyone has questions, he will take as long as it takes to answer all of 866 them. He thanked the Board. 867 868 Lydia Wegman turned to the public for their comments. She thanked them for being patient and asked people who 869 wanted to speak to come forward to the microphone. 870 871 Beth Rosenberg said that she lives off Davis Road and she is in the same boat as Ms. Piracci. She did not know 872 about this important meeting until she saw a sign. She did not find information about the project online. She wished 873 that the developers had also met with property owners in the area at large since the interstate entrance/exit she uses 874 to get home is the same entrance/exit as the proposed development. Her neighborhood will be impacted. She noted 875 that already Old 86 can get busy with back-ups from the highway and more traffic on Interstate 40 is concerning. She 876 is also concerned about environmental impacts of the project on her neighborhood. 877 878 Lydia Wegman thanked Ms. Rosenberg for her comments. She noted that the notification requirement is only to 879 property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property/properties of the intended development. 880 881 Janet Marks said that she lives off of Davis Road in a small neighborhood. They chose their neighborhood because 882 they could easily get to Interstates 40 and 85 but also live in the country. As a neighborhood, they have not been 883 involved in the discussion. The signs on the side of the road notifying the public about these meetings were too hard 884 to read and were put in places where it was too dangerous to pull-off the road and read them. She said that there is 885 so much traffic already (for example, 4 dead squirrels on the road in one day). Both the heavy as well as the light 886 environmental impacts all matter. Living in the country to her means that lights are dim. She conveyed her frustration 887 in not being included in the neighborhood meeting process; her neighborhood is very much impacted by this 888 proposed development. 889 890 Gerald Scarlett said that his driveway is Scarlett Mountain Road, the southern boundary of the subject property. His 891 property goes about a half a mile back into the woods. While he came with a lot of questions tonight, he is not going 892 to ask them because they involved District 3. One of his main concerns is with water. If the County is so concerned 893 about “going green” and renewable energies, the point should be made that there are no renewables for water. He 894 said that he lives at a high elevation and has a line of sight to the Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant when the skies 895 are clear. The proposed development is at a lower level than his property. His well was made 250 feet down through 896 solid granite. Even though the discussion has been about public water infrastructure, the development document 897 Approved 11/01/2017 18 online shows the digging of wells for landscaping purposes, and the wells would be used when storm retention ponds 898 are dry, for irrigation. This is of great concern – if retention ponds are dry during a drought and then the wells will be 899 used and he may not be able to get access to water while the trees in the development look nice and pretty. This 900 concerns him as an individual and he thinks it should concern everybody in that area. He does not know how big the 901 water table is but he thinks it needs to be considered. He is also concerned about traffic. He knew a development like 902 this would be coming since the state took part of his property to build interstate 40. It is incumbent on the County and 903 the state to do something about Old 86 before this kind of development goes in, or at the same time. Driving from 904 Carrboro to Hillsborough on Old 86 can be dangerous. Bicycle lanes may be created for this project but bicycles are 905 going to be traveling from Old 86 to get there. He hopes that the Board and the developer will consider his 906 comments. He said that for himself, he would say leave everything like it is, but he is trying not to be one of those 907 people. He asked that they consider the problem of timing for this. 908 909 Vicki R. Berry introduced herself and said that the former speaker was one of her school mates. She said that she is 910 a Hillsborough native and involved in Hillsborough activities. She said that she and her family live off Old 86 South, 911 on a small farm. She talked about her upbringing of going to a church and being a part of a sharing community of 912 love and hope, not destroying and taking from each other, and displacing families. She said that she and her family 913 want to stay where they are and nurture it to be what it once was and help it to grow. She is not against economic 914 growth; she is for it and for schools and for health. She recently retired to take care of her granddaughter and is from 915 a family of artists, attorneys and teachers. They all want economic growth but with less congestion, less development 916 and other populations moving in. Such big changes can all be detrimental to children and their growth and 917 development. Maybe there could be development of schools along the development area. She is also considered 918 about the traffic but is in support of water and sewer along Old 86. She supports progress as long as it does not 919 interfere with people’s wellbeing and privacy. 920 921 Joseph Shore said that he lives off of Old 86 and the proposal would be building all the way around him. He just 922 bought his house a year ago. He agreed with Ms. Piracci that delaying the project would not end the world and could 923 provide benefits to have a greater understanding of the impacts. He said that with all due respect, he disagrees with 924 Mr. Harvey. He thinks that the NIMs were not well attended (6 – 10 people) and should have been expanded to 925 neighbors who lived closeby but outside of the 1,000 foot notification area. He encouraged the Planning Board to 926 take its time, do what they think is the best decision for this area and the people who live there and the overall 927 County. His questioned if the proposed zoning change would be all around him. His parcel is not included in the 928 zoning change but it is one of 4 parcels surrounding the development area. How will the zoning affect his property? 929 How will it affect the sale of his home? If his property zoned differently than everything around it, will he have to get it 930 rezoned for it to be marketable if he want to sell it one day? 931 932 Lydia Wegman asked Michael Harvey or Craig Benedict to try and answer this question and discuss the process Mr. 933 Shore would have to go through for a rezoning. 934 935 Michael Harvey said that the decision would be between Mr. Shore and the developer, not the County. He has a 936 residentially-zoned property surrounded by economic development-zoned property, and it has been on the map that 937 was since the 1980s and 90s. Many of the uses that the applicant is proposing can already be developed on these 938 parcels as currently laid out. This process does not change Mr. Shore’s property. His property can still be used for 939 residential purposes and it is still surrounded by economic development-zoned properties that could be developed, 940 even if this project gets denied, based on the UDO as it exists today. 941 942 Tony Blake asked about the changes to any setbacks that are currently in place. 943 944 Michael Harvey said that there is still the 100 foot buffer around the project. If someone wants to sell their property, it 945 is incumbent upon he/she to do this. Regardless of whether or not the Board approves this project tonight, these 946 parcels are economic development-zoned; water and sewer are already being extended to the area through an inter-947 local agreement; thus, there are already opportunities being set-up with this area. 948 949 Tony Blake said that development could not affect the buffers by which Mr. Shore’s property is protected. 950 Approved 11/01/2017 19 951 Michael Harvey agreed that the perimeter buffer would remain the same. He showed District 1 visually and how the 952 100 foot buffer is situated around the development. He also noted buffers around streams and floodplains per 953 Section 6.13 in the UDO. There is a condition that the applicant adheres to those standards and requirements. He 954 also showed District 2 and certain properties on Old NC 86 that are also zoned Economic Development and are not a 955 part of the project. 956 957 Tony Blake asked Mr. Harvey to point to Mr. Shore’s property on the map (displayed on the screen). 958 959 Michael Harvey pointed out Mr. Shore’s property on the map. 960 961 Lydia Wegman thanked everyone for their questions and feedback. 962 963 Corinn Shaker said that she lives off of Davis Road as well. She said that her concerns mirror those her neighbors 964 have expressed. She explained that she has lived in Hillsborough for the past 11 years and has watched businesses 965 start and empty out. Why is the plan to expand and development outside of Hillsborough when it seems like there are 966 places inside of the Town that are dying in a sense? She voiced concern that Hillsborough would one of those 967 communities with a vibrant downtown with an area in between Old 86 and Interstate 40 that is dying, and now there 968 is a development like District 1 and District 2. Why not go back and reinvigorate the parts of Hillsborough that have 969 not been doing well? She does not understand this dynamic. She said that if the Planning Board votes on the re-970 zoning, they will have no other control after it is zoned residential over what is developed there. 971 972 Lydia Wegman said that portion of the development being reviewed is not residential; it is light industrial and 973 research in Distirct 1 and commercial/retail in District 2, not residential. These properties have been identified since 974 the ‘80s and ‘90s that the County wanted to focus on for economic development. The current zoning is for economic 975 development. 976 977 Corinn Shaker commented that the Board still does not know definitely what will be developed in District 1 and 2; 978 there could be a hotel or a restaurant or a pharmaceutical company. 979 980 Lydia Wegman said that the Planning Board would not be able to approve any of that anyway. The Planning 981 Department will be reviewing this. The provisions of the master plan allow for specifics to come in later. 982 983 Corinn Shaker replied that she can understand that. She still just feels shocked that she did not know about the 984 development. Why is the County not working to fix what is inside of Hillsborough before focusing out? 985 986 Lydia Wegman responded that that would not be up to the Planning Board but rather individual developers and 987 business owners. It is not the Board’s job to tell them where to go. 988 989 Tony Blake agreed that this would be out of the Board’s scope. The Planning Board is an advisory board. 990 991 Corinn Shaker said that she is just putting her concern out there about how Hillsborough is evolving over time. 992 993 Tony Blake confirmed that Davis Rd. is in the County’s jurisdiction. He thanked Ms. Shaker for her comments. 994 995 Joan Kalnitsky said that she also lives off of Davis Rd. Her concern is District 1 and the light industrial permitted uses 996 described on pages 309-310. She is concerned about the noise. She tried to read the document but it was 997 exhausting to read. She read that noise and light will be governed by County standards and she does not know what 998 that means. There are over 70 homes in the Davis Road community mentioned earlier; it is a not a small community. 999 Their community has consistently voted to keep it dark in terms of lighting enhancements. She said that even though 1000 residents there are not within 1,000 feet, they are within 1 mile of the proposed development. If the proposal goes 1001 through, the flavor of the area is going to change drastically. She wished that the community had been invited to the 1002 NIMs. She hopes that that Board will ask for more information on what light industrial uses are considered, which 1003 Approved 11/01/2017 20 could potentially include a textile mill, which would change their lives dramatically. She asked the Board to consider 1004 her comments, to read over the packet thoroughly, ask more questions, and better understand the potential impact 1005 of unknown the light industrial uses. 1006 1007 Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman looked to Michael Harvey for more information on light industrial uses that the 1008 speaker mentioned (referring to page 314). 1009 1010 Michael Harvey said District 1 is, by its zoning designation, and as defined in the current UDO, a light industrial 1011 zoning district. He said that the County is currently revising its Table of Permitted Uses and that the Board has been 1012 participating in reimagining what the Hillsborough Economic Development Districts would be like, going back a year 1013 ago. The Planning Board and the elected officials recommended expanding the uses in general, including in this light 1014 industrial and research zoning district, EDH-5. The permitted uses listed in the application narrative are the same as 1015 those listed in the application. 1016 1017 Tony Blake said he knows that the Table of Permitted Uses is being redone. Is it the case that if a use is not 1018 identified as an allowable use in a zoning district, it is permitted by default? Is this a state ruling? 1019 1020 Michael Harvey said yes, Mr. Blake is referring to a state court ruling. 1021 1022 Tony Blake asked if the master planning process protects the area better than what the Table of Permitted Uses lists. 1023 1024 Michael Harvey said that it sort of does. As a condition, the developer agrees to the list of permitted uses spelled-out 1025 in Staff’s conditions of approval, and understands that this is all he gets. Thus, there cannot be the same reaction for 1026 a use that is not listed, which could mean that by definition, it is permitted. One benefit of the master planning 1027 process it that the aforementioned argument will not stand, based on conditions set and agreed upon. As Board 1028 members and Staff have noted, there will be a Table of Permitted Uses that will allow for a lot of these activities that 1029 are not going to be completed in a comprehensive manner consistent with the UDO, but that process is not this 1030 process. For example, typically, Staff can only require EIAs and TIAs if certain thresholds are met, whereas this with 1031 master planning process, a condition is listed that mandates it. There will now be mandatory assessments, based on 1032 the conditions, on how development of this project could impact Old 86 and the interchanges on the interstate. While 1033 everyone’s concerns may not be addressed, the master plan process does allow for more opportunity to work with a 1034 developer to establish reasonable conditions, especially with respect to environmental and transportation impacts at 1035 the site plan level. If thresholds are not met, Staff does not usually have the opportunity to require a developer 1036 consider the impacts of environmental and transportation impacts. He said that there was some concern about not 1037 being able to find information on this project. The application is on the Planning Department’s website with a link to 1038 the Settler’s Point website. The existing TIA is also available for study (a 600+ page document). 1039 1040 Amanda Berry Shocklu introduced herself as Ms. Berry’s (previous speaker) daughter. She lives at 3303 Old 86 in 1041 Hillsborough. She said that they have about 8 acres of land. She said the family is working with someone to get rid of 1042 some trees on the property. She had heard that she needs to have a certain amount of trees on the property to turn a 1043 profit from logging. The wooded area on the property currently has a lot of snakes which is a concern for her. She 1044 also said that her family would like to be connected to Hillsborough’s public water expansion instead of using her 1045 current well, which she worries is not clean. 1046 1047 Tony Blake said that he is not sure if the expansion of water-sewer will affect her property. There would be a fee to 1048 hook-up. 1049 1050 Lydia Wegman said that Mr. Harvey could provide some guidance on how to begin the process. 1051 1052 Michael Harvey said that the first step is figuring out if her property is in the primary service area where water-sewer 1053 services are being extended. If it is located there, she needs to petition the Town of Hillsborough. If their property is 1054 not within the service area, they will not be able to get public water at this time. Mr. Harvey advised Ms. Berry to 1055 Approved 11/01/2017 21 come to the Planning Department to meet with him on concerns around the development of her property so that he 1056 can provide the best information, instead of answering individual questions about her property at this meeting. 1057 1058 Lydia Wegman agreed that the best thing to do is to contact the Planning Department and setup a meeting with Mr. 1059 Harvey about both of the issues she raised. 1060 1061 Tony Blake said that he sympathizes with her about the snakes. 1062 1063 Craig Benedict agreed that for those specific cases, it is best to meet with Staff at the Planning Department. 1064 1065 Debra Markley said that she also lived off of Davis Rd. She said that she frequently walks on Davis Rd. in order to 1066 get to another development to be able to walk for a distance. She said that with the increased traffic that is trying to 1067 get to Orange Grove Rd., she worries that the area will not be walkable or safe with even more traffic. She is also 1068 concerned about light from the development as well as sound issues. She moved to her community 19 years ago and 1069 she has seen development now where areas are clear-cut to make way for Waterstone (mixed residential) and for 1070 development with the Sportsplex. She is most concerned about development with District 1 with furniture and textile 1071 factories and chemical uses. These uses really concern her. She asked that the Board to take a month to study this. 1072 1073 Randy Marshall asked how long ago the area was established as an Economic Development Zoning District. 1074 1075 Michael Harvey said that it was established in the late ‘80s. The Hillsborough Economic Development District was 1076 created as it currently exists in the mid to late ‘90s. 1077 1078 Randy Marshall said that it sounded like the possibilities for many of these uses have been there for 20 to 30 years. 1079 1080 Michael Harvey clarified that there are land uses as part of this application that are currently are not allowed. He said 1081 that said land uses have been discussed in several forms with this Board and the BOCC as uses that these bodies 1082 want to see. The applicant has mirrored its application based on the proposed changes in the Table of Permitted 1083 Uses. There are aspects of this project that are currently permitted. If the question is, could there be some type of 1084 industrial operation in this project, the answer is yes. Would it be reviewed under the current confines of the UDO? 1085 Yes. This area has been encouraged and promoted as a good area for heightened economic development. 1086 1087 Randy Marshall said that several people have pointed out that they know that something is coming to the area and 1088 no one wants to have their quality of life impacted by the area being developed, but the County wants to develop it. 1089 He said that the Board is trying to make the best decision about what goes into the area. 1090 1091 Michael Harvey said that it is also important to note that up until recently, there have been limitations on development 1092 in this area; most notably, lack of infrastructure. That’s about to change, he said. In a way it is inevitable that this area 1093 be used for economic development, notwithstanding utility services, and because it is one of the last interchanges in 1094 the area that has not seen appreciable development. The scarcity of land like this positioned near interchanges will 1095 make this area attractive. These are the facts but these comments are not meant to make the Board act now. He 1096 made the point again that the necessary tools to make development more possible in this area are being extended. 1097 1098 Lydia Wegman asked Michael Harvey to identify which of the uses listed on page 314 would not currently be allowed 1099 but that are being considered for inclusion in the revised Table of Permitted Uses. 1100 1101 Michael Harvey said that most of these uses on page 314 will be included in the revised Table of Permitted Uses, 1102 based on the directive Staff has from the Planning Board and the BOCC. There is not a lot of distinction, and the 1103 developer used the Table of Permitted Uses discussion to influence what the County wants to see land use-wise. In 1104 consideration of the purpose and intent of this zoning district, there could be a heightened level of industrial uses 1105 allowed, once the Table is adopted at some future date. 1106 1107 Approved 11/01/2017 22 Craig Benedict said that the regulations that the County has put together, in anticipation of this land use 1108 implementation that has been on the map since the ‘80s, takes into account the impacts that community members 1109 voiced. Traffic-wise, road capacity is evaluated by the TIAs. When traffic from this project meets certain thresholds, 1110 the developer has to make improvements. Mr. Benedict said that this is not a case where the project continues and 1111 someone else fixes the project later. Many residents raised concerns about lighting. Orange County has one of the 1112 best “dark sky” ordinances in North Carolina. The lighting program in Section 6.11 of the UDO requires that light be 1113 limited and directed down. In terms of the environmental issues, the site-by-site EIAs will be considered alongside 1114 master planning for stormwater management which protects the water table. Even though wells are permissible 1115 within the development, they may not necessarily have to install them. It could be the case that stormwater areas 1116 down to groundwater could provide the water for irrigation and other landscaping. 1117 1118 Tony Blake asked if there is something that can be done to restrict the amount of water used from a well during a 1119 drought. He acknowledged the technical solutions but asked if verbiage could be added to address the issue. 1120 1121 Craig Benedict responded the water table in Orange County is not in the typical stratospheric table seen in other 1122 parts of the country. It is in granite. The creation of a well is about hitting the right cracks in the rock. Since there are 1123 some adjacent properties with wells that are outside of this project, if there are wells are requested in the future for 1124 landscaping, Staff can direct the developer to an area with the least susceptibility of affecting nearby wells. 1125 1126 Tony Blake said that there could be something codified about this issue. 1127 1128 Craig Benedict noted that the protections as part of the MPD-CZ are more intense than in general use zoning. The 1129 amount of uses allowed in a master plan development is a restricted list from the full list in the Table. There are more 1130 precautions in a MPD-CZ, with traffic impacts, and more comprehensive development that is a value to everybody 1131 and to the surrounding Towns, and people who use the roads in the area. This type of project takes a better look at 1132 all of the impacts on-site and off-site. 1133 1134 Kim Piracci said that she understands that it has been established that the County has and wants to develop this 1135 area, and this is a valuable area. She asked if developers tell Board members what they are planning to do with this. 1136 1137 Craig Benedict replied that there is not going to be 272 acres of development all at once. The perimeters will be set 1138 with approved zoning and then the developer will market the property. In this case, there is not a specific site plan or 1139 use that says that an Ikea is coming here; it is not this type of proposal. This type of proposal develops the road 1140 pattern - the utility pattern, the use pattern, the buffer pattern, and other such patterns. Once something like this is 1141 established, there will be more activity and will be prepared to a higher level than in the past for the advent of the 1142 infrastructure being put into this area. In the early ‘80s, I-40 was not there. The impact of I-40 spurred interest in 1143 creating an interchange and jobs. This project will likely feed off of the interstate with people going to work from the 1144 rural areas of the County. The traffic here is interstate-related to a large degree. 1145 1146 Kevin Nicholson said that he lives at 1006 Davis Rd. He said that he is part of the sixth generation living on his 1147 property; he lives in his grandfather’s house. He raises chickens, cows and has a farm (farm use value program). 1148 This proposed development within a mile of the house. He said that he can remember a time when there was a 1149 proposal to widen Davis Rd. to 5 lanes. Everybody from his family and in community fought this proposal off. Is there 1150 a plan to widen Davis Rd. with this project? He knows that something will have to be done with Old 86 eventually. 1151 1152 Jim Parker said that his project is not proposing the widening of Davis Rd. 1153 1154 Craig Benedict said that there is long range planning for road patterns. Based on the long range planning going on, 1155 he can say that there are no long-range plans to widen Davis Rd. but there are plans to widen NC-86 over the long-1156 term and short-term. The road between Old 86 and new 86 through the Waterstone development was part of the 1157 Planning Department’s planning efforts 15 years ago. There may be a traffic light at Davis Rd. someday, when it 1158 meets NCDOT’s needs. 1159 1160 Approved 11/01/2017 23 Kevin Nicholson said that in regards the economic development zoning in the ‘80s, he would not know anything 1161 about such a plan formed when he was a kid. Will economic development zoning continue down Davis Rd or 1162 continue towards Carrboro? 1163 1164 Craig Benedict said that even though economic development plans have been around for 30 years, and they have 1165 only gotten this far. The long range planning in Orange County focused on interchanges, like at Mt. Willing Rd., 1166 Buckhorn Rd., and there will be plans for the US 70 I-85 interchange in the Eno Township. There are about 3,000 1167 acres of land zoned for economic development and Staff does not see an expansion. He also noted the Water and 1168 Sewer Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) between Hillsborough, OWASA, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange 1169 County. This boundary starts around Davis Rd. and flows north towards the Hillsborough sewer system. From the 1170 south of the Davis Rd. ridge, it flows towards Jordan Lake. The department has a compact development pattern that 1171 keeps it development clustered as close to cities and towns as possible and will not be running down Old 86 or new 1172 86. 1173 1174 Kevin Nicholson said that he knows that the Board is going to do what they are going to do. If he had the kind of 1175 money that developers had, he would buy all that land and keep it the way it was. He thanked Board members for 1176 their time. 1177 1178 Lydia Wegman thanked Mr. Nicholson for coming to the meeting. 1179 1180 John Lemaine introduced himself as a taxpaper who lives in a community off of David Rd. which is outside of the 1181 1,000 ft. boundary. He said that he would be most considered if there was a District 3 at this point. He thanked Mr. 1182 Harvey for his explanations but said that he was still unclear. Is the plan to change District 3 from rural to economic 1183 development of some sort? He said that this is different than the established zoning of District 1 and 2. He said that a 1184 change in zoning for District 3 would establish a change to the community and he is concerned about this. He said 1185 that he did not quite follow the process of when District 3 would come-up again. Could he get some clarification 1186 please? 1187 1188 Michael Harvey said that District 3 was explained in the application, it would have single family and multifamily 1189 housing with nursing and continuing care facilities; it would be an age-restricted development. It is intended to be 1190 high-intensity senior living community. District 3 is not being reviewed tonight. If the Planning Board recommends the 1191 approval of this project tonight, it will not include District 3. District 3 is currently zoned Rural Residential, a 1192 residentially-zoned parcel of property, and this proposal calls for a higher intensity residential land use than is 1193 currently permitted. Staff has recommended that all discussion on District 3 be tabled and that sounded like the 1194 Planning Board wanted the BOCC to refer this part of the plan back to the Planning Board at a future date, if the 1195 externalities keeping them from reviewing it tonight are modified, allowing District 3 to move forward. However, 1196 District 3 may have to be modified or abandoned, and the developer will need to decide what action he will take. 1197 Staff’s recommendation to the Board is that they table and wait for further input from elected officials. As mentioned, 1198 there will be meetings with the Town and County elected officials regarding how the southern portion of this area will 1199 be developed. He recognized that Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, was present and should correct him if he is 1200 wrong, but he said that the Town was interested in purposeful extension of economic development and opportunities 1201 that can be served by the Town. At this juncture, District 3 is a non-issue and the only recommendation for it is for all 1202 talk of it to be delayed until everyone can make an informed decision about it. 1203 1204 Tony Blake said that there is potentially a capacity issue for water and sewer that still needs to be discussed. 1205 1206 Michael Harvey agreed with this statement and said that a reason that the conditions read the way they read is to 1207 anticipate the eventuality of the capacity issue. A process will have to be established regarding how a developer with 1208 a site plan can work with the Town. 1209 1210 Tony Blake said that regardless of the proposal, the set of uses would not be permitted in District 3. 1211 1212 Approved 11/01/2017 24 Michael Harvey said that District 3 was proposed for residential development only. Right now, District 3 will remain a 1213 rural residentially-zoned parcel of property. 1214 1215 Tony Blake said that he was pointing this out to quell apprehension. 1216 1217 (Michael Harvey clarified with the previous speaker that District 3 would not be acted on.) 1218 1219 Charles Brantley spoke and said that he lived off of High Rock Rd. He asked when the Board had received the 1220 plethora of materials in this packet. He asked if Board members had seen this packet before tonight. 1221 1222 Tony Blake and Lydia Wegman responded that Board members had received these packets. 1223 1224 Charles Brantley said that he was under the impression that Board members had not seen it. 1225 1226 Tony Blake said that it is a lot to go through but they did receive it. 1227 1228 Lydia Wegman asked if any other members of the public wanted to speak. Hearing none, she invited Mr. Parker to 1229 speak and to address some of the questions. 1230 1231 Jim Parker thanked Ms. Wegman. He reiterated that as developers, they see this as a transportation and interstate 1232 market. He said that what they have done is collectively bring parcels together to form one parcel to which this zoning 1233 would apply, as opposed to individual property owners having to go through individual rezoning processes, which 1234 may not be effective since the parcels alone make-up a smaller area. He said that they are trying to create the palette 1235 by which they can attract and bring in users into a development. He said that he cannot say what will go there except 1236 that they will be land uses that are needed and desired, or that are allowed to develop in that type of environment. He 1237 addressed concerns about the neighborhood meetings, notifications, and attendance. He said that the first and third 1238 Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) were well attended with about 15 people, though the second meeting 1239 was not as well attended, but he believes there were about 10 people there. He conveyed that they would have liked 1240 to notify further but that that area of notification beyond the County’s requirement is hard to define. Where do you 1241 stop? With this dilemma in mind, he followed the County’s requirement. 1242 1243 Tony Blake pointed out that the County’s notification requirement goes further than what the state requires. The state 1244 only requires notification to property owners within 500 ft. of the subject property, not 1,000 ft. like the County’s 1245 notification. 1246 1247 Jim Parker remarked that the addition of the wells was a project component put in in 2008-2009 during dry spells in 1248 the County when people were trying to find different irrigation techniques without using potable water to put less of a 1249 demand on public water. 1250 1251 Lydia Wegman thanked him. 1252 1253 Jim Parker continued with his responses. He said that his traffic engineer could answer more technical questions but 1254 as far as the improvements to NC 86, they will be extensive when all of this land is developed. It is unlikely that this 1255 process will all happen at once. The ultimate build-out will likely be 4 lanes with turn lanes and signals at the 1256 interchanges serving the entrances to District 1 and 2. There will be 3-4 signals, one at the service road. In regards to 1257 comments about dying business in Hillsborough, he sees Hillsborough as a growing town. He said that the “interstate 1258 businesses” should be kept on the interstate and the ones in the intersections of town should grow healthy there. He 1259 said that his development provides a place for some of the businesses that one sees around interstates. He said that 1260 the vision for District 1 is for light industry and an increase in tax base by the land uses allowed there. District 2 is the 1261 interstate market, meaning commercial, restaurants, and a potential hotel that could provide a meeting space in 1262 addition to lodging. He hopes that the Board will approve this tonight. By doing so, the Board does not relinquish 1263 control. Staff will ensure that moving forward the development plan is in concert with the guidelines. He thanked the 1264 Board. 1265 Approved 11/01/2017 25 1266 Kim Piracci asked Mr. Parker if the Board does not approve this tonight, will the project be “done.” She asked if this is 1267 what he said and how it would work if this is not approved. 1268 1269 Jim Parker said that they are on a timeline and not making a decision tonight will push the process back. He asked if 1270 Mr. Harvey knew how far it would be pushed back. 1271 1272 Michael Harvey replied that it is hard to say because the next item on the agenda deals with how public hearings are 1273 scheduled. The scenario that could be forthcoming on this project is that the Board tables the decision and takes it up 1274 at the November meeting and the Board makes a recommendation at the November meeting. It is conceivable that if 1275 the text amendment being reviewed next is approved, it could be scheduled at a public hearing in December, 1276 January, or February to review this case. 1277 1278 Lydia Wegman asked if there was a possibility that this could be reviewed at the November 14th quarterly public 1279 hearing if the Board made a decision at its November 1st meeting. 1280 1281 Michael Harvey said that would not be possible because of the heavy workload associated with getting meeting 1282 packets together. Draft minutes may not be done in time and the BOCC needs to be able to review the draft minutes 1283 to understand the Planning Board’s decision. There is not sufficient time. 1284 1285 Lydia Wegman said that she understood. 1286 1287 Kim Piracci asked – what if this gets put off for 6 months. Why would the developer say “nevermind?” 1288 1289 Lydia Wegman quickly noted that this project could potentially be heard in February 2018 at the quarterly public 1290 hearing, a 3 month delay. 1291 1292 Kim Piracci asked that if it were 6 months, why would the developer want to exit? 1293 1294 Jim Parker said that they are contractually-bond to the land. 1295 1296 Tony Blake said that it sounded like there was a contingency at play and there is an end date on it. 1297 1298 Kim Piracci asked if these properties had already been purchased. 1299 1300 Paul Guthrie said that it sounded like options to buy. 1301 1302 Jim Parker said that they are options, which is typical. 1303 1304 Kim Piracci asked if Mr. Parker could tell them when the contract expires. 1305 1306 Jim Parker told him that he will not tell the Board when the contracts expire as a matter of confidentiality between the 1307 seller and the buyers. 1308 1309 Lydia Wegman agreed that it was a matter of confidentiality. 1310 1311 Randy Marshall said that he is ready to make a motion. 1312 1313 Buddy Hartley said that this is as good an application that he has seen. Mr. Parker has covered about everything that 1314 needs to be covered. For the Board to make a recommendation on this, there is nothing that is not to approve. He 1315 said that the County does need senior housing somewhere. He said that he will be a senior someday too. 1316 1317 Approved 11/01/2017 26 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any additional comments. She thanked everyone for coming to the meeting to 1318 speak and thanked Mr. Parker and his team for coming, and to Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict for their help this 1319 evening. She said that from her perspective, she appreciated the applicant’s willingness to have continued 1320 discussions on the environmental and transportation assessments; this is very important. That component is a plus of 1321 this application. She did hear concerns about transportation and she does hope that the developer and other 1322 businesses will work closely with members of the community on transportation and environmental concerns. She 1323 asked again if anyone else had additional comments. 1324 1325 Michael Harvey said that if there is a consensus among Board members that the item be tabled until November, it is 1326 the Board’s prerogative. If the decision is that there is a consensus to recommend this project, there are 1327 modifications that need to be made to Attachment 7. He will walk the Board member through making the motion on 1328 this part in order to address the Board’s comments and to fix some items in the review that he did not catch earlier. 1329 He needs to ensure that the motion is consistent and clean to address all concerns from Board members, and 1330 modifications that ensure District 3 is eliminated from any review, point or discussion. 1331 1332 Tony Blake clarified that Item C would include Attachment 7 as amended. 1333 1334 Michael Harvey added that it would read “as amended and as further amended,” if that is the decision to move 1335 forward. 1336 1337 Lydia Wegman asked if any of the modifications would be relevant in the Board’s thinking. 1338 1339 Michael Harvey said that they could potentially be relevant. 1340 1341 Lydia Wegman asked for Mr. Harvey to go through the modifications. 1342 1343 Michael Harvey said that in Attachment 7, he will be applying the following notes. He heard from a Planning Board 1344 member tonight that in regards to Condition 4 regarding site plan approval (page 308) that references be included to 1345 local volunteer fire departments to review site plans. 1346 1347 Tony Blake said that this would be for the primary responding volunteer fire department. 1348 1349 Michael Harvey continued with his proposed modifications. He said that there would have to be explicit language 1350 saying that the Town of Hillsborough has to review and indicate if there is capacity for water and sewer service, prior 1351 to the County Planning Department issuing a site plan approval. On page 311, in Condition 6, the local volunteer fire 1352 department needs to be added to the Orange County Fire Marshall and Town of Hillsborough sharing review and 1353 approving location of fire lanes, location of fire hydrants, and location of proposed standpipes. The local volunteer fire 1354 department shall also be involved in the float test, which is now all in Condition 8. On page 315, for District 2, 1355 numbers 3 and 16 are for movie theaters. There only needs to be one movie theater so the recommendation would 1356 be to delete number 16 and renumber accordingly to correct the duplication. On 317, the condition (Condition H) 1357 regarding landscaping around the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, a statement needs to be 1358 added to number one at the end to say, “unless clearing is consistent with Section 6.6.5 (a) of the UDO.” The UDO 1359 does allow for breaks for visibility in the MTC. He said that there was some discussion that the BOCC receive a 1360 rendering or an example of the architectural landmark sign and an entry portal sign so that they can make a 1361 recommendation if the proposed square footage is acceptable. Mr. Harvey said that he did not hear the Board 1362 express concerns about the square footage of the signage, but everyone wants to see and understand what the 1363 feature will look like to determine if it is appropriate. The recommendation is that the developer provides this. There 1364 are examples of other signage in the application. 1365 1366 Paul Guthrie said that he thought seeing the examples would be a good idea. 1367 1368 Tony Blake noted a typo in Condition H with feet. Michael Harvey made a note of it and said that it was correct in the 1369 developer’s application. 1370 Approved 11/01/2017 27 1371 Michael Harvey said that Mr. Parker offered that onsite wells in Condition H, subprim 1, be eliminated, to address 1372 concerns over the depletion of wells if irrigation is necessary. Mr. Harvey suggested that this portion be reworded as 1373 follows: “Landscaping shall be watered by reclaimed water or water from the site.” He said that the department is 1374 open to rain barrels or other systems of catching rainwater. The other modification would be to Staff’s 1375 recommendation to table action on District 3 with a recommendation that the request for this area come back to the 1376 Planning Board for discussion and edits at the April 2018 regular meeting, which seems like a sufficient amount of 1377 time for this to move through the process. This date should be set even if this part of the project does not come back 1378 through the process. Next, the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6) relating to Districts 1 and 2 only – the 1379 motion needs to include that Staff needs to remove all references to parcels connected to District 3 from the 1380 Statement of Consistency as currently contained in Attachment 6. Finally, there should be an amendment that calls 1381 for approving the ordinance to revise Attachment 7 to include all modifications discussed this evening, with a 1382 recommendation to approve to the BOCC as the Planning Board sees fit. 1383 1384 Lydia Wegman asked if there is anything else to discuss. 1385 1386 Paul Guthrie counseled that when they are working close to a jurisdiction like the Town of Hillsborough that there 1387 might have been more presence in the notes regarding where issues were in progress, based on recent 1388 conversations. 1389 1390 Michael Harvey replied that he thinks that this was done but that the main issues is District 3 and the Town’s concern 1391 about serving a project this far south of the interstate. Ms. Hauth’s comments are also included in the packet outlining 1392 other concerns. The service issue and District 3 issue were discussed. 1393 1394 Paul Guthrie said he was talking about the utility issue. He said that based on his experience, it is important to be 1395 upfront when working on such a project with another jurisdiction for certain services as to who is responsible and for 1396 what. 1397 1398 Michael Harvey said that he does not disagree with this counsel but that he does think that Staff has discussed this 1399 issue in many of the conditions with the project and the addition of the requirement of any project with expanded 1400 services needs to go through the Town of Hillsborough for approval. As Craig as alluded, there is already a gallon 1401 limitation for water-sewer as part of this expansion. 1402 1403 Paul Guthrie and Michael Harvey thanked each other. 1404 1405 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any additional questions. Hearing none, she asked if Randy Marshall would like to 1406 make the motion. 1407 1408 Randy Marshall said that he would make the following 3 recommendations to the BOCC. 1409 1410 MOTION by Randy Marshall made a motion to table action on District 3 with a recommendation to request this area to 1411 come back to the Planning Board for review and discussion at the April 2018 regular meeting. Seconded by Buddy 1412 Hartley. 1413 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1414 1415 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Statements of Consistency in Attachment 6 relating to Districts 1 and 2 of 1416 the project only with Staff to assure remove to all references of District 3 in Attachment 6. Seconded by Buddy 1417 Hartley. 1418 VOTE: 8-YES, 1-ABSTAIN (KIM PIRACCI) 1419 1420 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the ordinance in Attachment 7 as amended and further amended, amending 1421 the zoning atlas relating to Districts 1 and 2 of the project only. Seconded by Patricia Roberts. 1422 VOTE: 8-YES, 1-ABSTAIN (KIM PIRACCI) 1423 Approved 11/01/2017 28 1424 AGENDA ITEM 10: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – PUBLIC HEARING 1425 REVISIONS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 1426 to the UDO pertaining to public hearings. This item is scheduled for the November 2017 1427 quarterly public hearing. 1428 PRESENTER: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 1429 1430 Craig Benedict reviewed the abstract. He said that this amendment covers revisions to the public hearing process. In 1431 conversations with the BOCC on September 7, 2017, members thought that there could be a better way to streamline 1432 the process for development proposals to be heard and for additional public input that would move away from the 1433 structure of quarterly public hearings. They recommended that the quarterly public hearing dates be removed from 1434 future calendars and that land use related items be placed on regular meeting agenda. This new process has the 1435 potential for 12 to 15 meetings a year where items could be heard. The BOCC instructed the Planning Department to 1436 remove references in the UDO of “quarterly public hearing” and change the text to “public hearing.” As Michael 1437 Harvey was saying earlier, if someone was not able to meet the requirements for a quarterly public hearing, the 1438 applicant will have another opportunity at the next public hearing. This will streamline and make the process quicker. 1439 Staff has gone through the UDO and removed the word “quarterly” from “quarterly public hearing.” This text 1440 amendment item is up for a vote tonight. Additionally, Mr. Benedict went over updated Rules of Procedure for the 1441 Planning Board. In the Rules of Procedure outline, there is reference to quarterly public hearings and attendance at 1442 quarterly public hearings. He asked for the Board’s input into this topic tonight and that the issue be considered for a 1443 vote at the Planning Board’s meeting next month. He reiterated that the primary topic of the discussion tonight is still 1444 the proposed ordinance change. In regards to quarterly public hearings in the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure, 1445 Staff recommends that Planning Board members now be expected to attend BOCC meetings that related to Planning 1446 Board responsibilities. Does that mean that members need to attend all of the meetings? No, it does not. There is 1447 also a line in this section that says failure to attend quarterly public hearings could result in removal from the Board, 1448 but since there will be more meetings, what would be the recommended change here, since there are more public 1449 hearings than before? He looked to members for guidance. How many minimum BOCC meetings would members 1450 like attend a year? There does not have to be as much language emphasizing mandatory attendance. The point is 1451 that there be some mechanism so that members do not divest themselves of ever attending a public hearing with the 1452 BOCC. 1453 1454 Lydia Wegman asked if this only references government-initiated amendments to the UDO. For example, Board 1455 members would not have to attend a meeting on Settler’s Point. 1456 1457 Craig Benedict responded that Settler’s Point would be included (a so-called “developer-initiated” application) along 1458 with government-initiated amendments. 1459 1460 Lydia Wegman replied that the language in agenda item talks only about government-initiated amendments to the 1461 UDO. 1462 1463 Tony Blake said that he read the language to mean that every topic was government-initiated. 1464 1465 Lydia Wegman said that she does not read it that way. To her, government-initiated means items coming from the 1466 BOCC or the Planning Department. 1467 1468 Ashley Moncado said that the Planning Board could make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated 1469 text amendments. This is a government-initiated text amendment. The agenda item is geared towards the Board 1470 making a recommendation on the government-initiated amendment but it will relate to public hearings for all items 1471 that normally come to you at a quarterly public hearing. 1472 1473 Lydia Wegman said that she wants to think further about numbers at meetings to attend. She said that she would like 1474 to discuss the topic at the November Planning Board meeting. 1475 1476 Approved 11/01/2017 29 Ashley Moncado said that a preliminary discussion tonight would help this item stay on track so that it can go along 1477 with the discussions at the November quarterly public hearing. She asked what members would recommend. For 1478 example, is 50 percent attendance at public meetings acceptable to members? Staff is looking for a better 1479 understanding of what the Board would recommend. 1480 1481 Craig Benedict reiterated that this item will not be voted on tonight. 1482 1483 Paul Guthrie commented that he understands the intent of the proposal but the language is troubling to him. He said 1484 that he has had to be absent from many meetings over the years, not because he did not want to be present, but 1485 because of medical issues which made it physically impossible for him to attend. He suggested that if a requirement 1486 is made for attendance, it needs to be flexible or it will have a negative effect on certain members. 1487 1488 Craig Benedict said that the measure would certainly be flexible. He said that the way the system is set-up now is 1489 that there is a mini-public hearing, like tonight. Staff expects community input at this meeting, at the BOCC meeting, 1490 at neighborhood meetings, all of which the Planning Board can attend. He thinks that the new process of tonight’s 1491 meeting is giving more opportunities for input, especially with the separation of legislative items and members of the 1492 public can talk at multiple times, which was not part of the process before. The point is to provide flexibility to the 1493 Board and to citizens. Does anyone else have feedback? Staff will wrap the comments together and bring it back to 1494 November. 1495 1496 Tony Blake said that the Planning Board already meets roughly 12 times a year. He said that his problem is running 1497 from meeting to meeting that start at 7:00pm. This balance is starting to push the boundaries for him. He likes his role 1498 in public service but he needs to take care of his basic needs too. 1499 1500 Kim Piracci said that it took about 2 years from when she applied to be on the Planning Board to secure her eventual 1501 position that she serves in now. It seems like it is not difficult to find Planning Board members. 1502 1503 Craig Benedict replied that sometimes seats from specific townships can be hard to fill. 1504 1505 Kim Piracci said that she feels like it is a privilege to serve on the Planning Board and that she does not mind being 1506 held to reasonable requirements, and 50 percent of the quarterly public hearings does not seem like too much to her. 1507 She said that she would like more training from Staff on how to better understand planning items. 1508 1509 Craig Benedict said that Staff could arrange more training. He acknowledged that many people learn in-process. He 1510 noted that the MPD-CZ process has only been reviewed by the Planning Board one other time. The Board, over the 1511 years, learns by experience. Staff will open-up more training opportunities to the whole Board to go over 1512 subdivisions, quasi-judicial hearings and legislative items, and other types of processes. 1513 1514 Tony Blake commented that the UNC School of Government comments on issues that affect the Planning Board. 1515 While everyone may not agree on the conclusions in the online forums, it provides good discussion. This is a 1516 resource that he would recommend that he has used. 1517 1518 Randy Marshall asked how many quarterly public hearings are held a year. 1519 1520 Craig Benedict said that some years there may not even be 4 and sometimes there are only 3 or 4 items on the 1521 agenda. 1522 1523 Ashley Moncado noted that this year there were only 2 quarterly public hearings (May and September were 1524 cancelled). 1525 1526 Craig Benedict said that there may be 10-15 items in one year. Staff will not recommend hearing 2 land use items in 1527 a month because they are also trying to keep a schedule open to applicants. He estimates that there will be 8-9 1528 meetings with the potential for Planning Board-related items. 1529 Approved 11/01/2017 30 1530 Tony Blake said that to know in advance is important. 1531 1532 Craig Benedict said that Staff sees the challenges with meetings being scheduled close together or at a variety of 1533 locations. The BOCC just approved next year’s calendar and Staff will take a look at how meetings are laid out. 1534 1535 Randy Marshall asked if public hearings could be grouped. 1536 1537 Craig Benedict said that if the items on the public hearing agenda are simple items, they could be done the same 1538 night. However, if there was a cell tower being considered, Staff worries about being dominating with just Planning’s 1539 agenda in consideration of what other departments need to present. Clustering these meetings could be helpful. 1540 BOCC members understand that if they are considering more items more frequently, their review also has to be 1541 timely. 1542 1543 Tony Blake said that if members of the public come out and there is a line of 200 people to provide input, the meeting 1544 will take a long time. 1545 1546 Randy Marshall suggested that the first meeting of the month be reserved for bigger items. 1547 1548 Ashley Moncado said that this could not be guaranteed as dates are set way in advance for applications to be due, 1549 dates important in guiding the applicant’s process. 1550 1551 Craig Benedict said that Staff will try to target 4 meetings a year but that an applicant will still have more opportunities 1552 to present at upcoming meetings, if necessary. He said that Staff will review the 2018 calendar and see if there is a 1553 cadence to meetings, and will provide more feedback on scheduling and how Staff could target major meetings in the 1554 year. 1555 1556 Randy Marshall asked if Mr. Benedict felt like he got good feedback. 1557 1558 Craig Benedict said that he did. 1559 1560 Lydia Wegman said that there is clearly concern from Planning Board members about attendance requirements to 1561 other public meetings and the weight of demands on people serving in a volunteer position on the Planning Board. 1562 1563 David Blankfard asked what will be asked of Planning Board members at public meetings. 1564 1565 Some Planning Board members commented that they are there for moral support. 1566 1567 Lydia Wegman said that based on her experience, the BOCC may ask why the Planning Board voted as it did (i.e. 1568 Why did the Planning Board vote as it did on Settler’s Point?). The BOCC asks the members present so that they can 1569 get the background. Sometimes BOCC members have questions about the minutes or related matters. 1570 1571 Craig Benedict returned to the item for a vote, which he said again does not have to do with attendance. He asked 1572 the Planning Board to make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the UDO 1573 pertaining to public hearings. He read aloud the recommendation on page 332 in the packet. 1574 1575 Tony Blake asked if this is to remove the “quarterly” from the public hearing verbiage, will it mean that Staff may have 1576 up to 40 some potential target meetings. 1577 1578 Ashley Moncado replied that there would be more like 20 public meetings. There are 20 regular BOCC meetings 1579 scheduled for next year. 1580 1581 Tony Blake said that he understood. 1582 Approved 11/01/2017 31 1583 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve amendments to the UDO. Seconded by Dave Blankfard. 1584 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1585 1586 AGENDA ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT 1587 1588 Planning Board meeting was adjourned by consensus. 1589 1590 1591 ____________________________________ Lydia Wegman, Chair