The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCPB minutes 030718Approved 4/4/18 Minutes1 Orange County Planning Board2 March 7, 20183 Regular Meeting4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT:Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative;Patricia Roberts, Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Township; Alexander 8 Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Randy 9 Marshall, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large;Buddy Hartley, Little River 10 Township Representative;Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative;11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT:Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative;13 14 STAFF PRESENT:Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, CurrentPlanning Supervisor;Patrick Mallett, 15 Planner II; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant;16 17 OTHERS PRESENT:Warren Mitchell; Wesley Boyd; Peter Bellantoni; Danny Jones; Rebecca Ryan18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1:CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL20 21 Vice Chair Randy Marshallcalled the meeting to orderat 7:00p.m.22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2:INFORMATIONAL ITEMS24 a.Planning Calendar for March and April25 26 AGENDA ITEM 3:APPROVAL OF MINUTES27 February 7, 2018,Training Session Notes28 February 7, 2018,Regular Meeting Notes29 30 MOTION by AlexanderGregoryto approve theFebruary 7, 2018,Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by David 31 Blankfard.32 VOTE:Unanimous33 34 AGENDA ITEM 4.CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA35 36 Michael Harvey informed the board that he will have an addition to the agenda which will be reviewed at the end.37 38 AGENDA ITEM 5:PUBLIC CHARGE39 40 Introduction to the Public Charge41 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 42 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws 43 of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 44 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 45 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 46 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 47 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 48 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.49 50 51 Public Charge52 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 53 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 54 fellow citizens. At any time, should anymember of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 55 Approved 4/4/18 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 56 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until57 such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.58 59 AGENDA ITEM 6:CHAIR COMMENTS60 There were no comments.61 62 AGENDA ITEM 7:MAJOR SUBDIVISION –MORGAN RIDGE -To review an application involving a major subdivision 63 located in Bingham Township on the Chatham/Orange county line. The only activity within Orange County is 64 dedication of public right of way for a public road.65 PRESENTER:Patrick Mallett,Planner II.66 67 Patrick Mallett presented the item, which involved 0.65 acres. He reviewed the vicinity map, plan overview, and site 68 photographs. The subdivision includes 16 lots, all within Chatham County.The average lot size isclose to 3 acres. 69 He reviewed there is an old barn on the property that will be dismantled. This item is scheduled to go before the 70 Orange County Board of Commissioners next month and the Chatham County Board of Commissioners the following71 month.72 73 Paul Guthrie said hegrew up near this property and has reviewed the topography.He wonderedwhether the74 developers thought there would be any problem getting well water in that location. He wondered whether there is 75 going to be a problem maintaining stream flow into Lake Jordan by the time the developersdraw down the wells. He 76 acknowledged that his questions were outside the purview of this board for this development.77 78 Patrick Mallett noted Orange County does not have jurisdiction over those aspects of the project. As a general 79 statement, he added that Chatham County has a similar process of approving subdivisions and similar permits. He 80 noted WarrenMitchellis the site civil engineer and the developer. 81 82 Warren Mitchell, project engineer and one of the developers, introduced himself to the board and introduced Wesley 83 Lloyd, sitting in the audience with him, asthe other developer on the project. Warren Mitchell said the streams have 84 been evaluated by the Army Core ofEngineers. Regarding the wells, others nearby have not had a problem getting 85 water from their wells.He did not anticipate a problem. 86 87 MOTION by Adam Beemanmoved to recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the 88 dedication of the public right of way and continuation of that public road, provided that Chatham County approves.89 Seconded by Paul Guthrie.90 VOTE:Unanimous91 92 AGENDA ITEM 8:MAJORSUBDIVISION–TRIPLECROWNFARMS-To review an application involving revisions to 93 an approved major subdivision located in Chapel Hill Township. Revisions include a change in the road standards 94 from public to private.95 PRESENTER:Patrick Mallett, Planner II.96 97 Patrick Mallett reviewed that Triple Crown Estates is located to the north and is a separate development. He 98 indicated the location of thisdevelopmenton the vicinity map, as well as the location of the planned Triple Crown 99 Farms. Hereviewed that Triple Crown Farms is a major subdivisionthat wasapproved in 2014. He shared the 100 preliminary plat and noted there are now 19 lots instead of 20. The developer ran into a problem with building to 101 NCDOT standards. To comply with 401 and 404 permitting, the developer tried to minimize disturbance along 102 streams by building a paved metal arc roadway that spans the creek. It will be 18 feet wide instead of the planned 20 103 feet. It will not meet NCDOT standards, so the developer is proposing to make it a private road.The layout and open 104 space of the subdivision has not changed. Patrick Mallett reviewed the plan overview and shared site photographs. 105 He reviewed the staff recommendation to approve the roadway with conditions that the developersubmit and record 106 a road maintenance agreement, a disclosure statement, and evidence that sufficient access to off-site water and fire 107 suppression devices have been obtained.He notedthe project engineer has submitted draft copies of these 108 requirements.109 110 Approved 4/4/18 111 Peter Bellantoni, an engineerwith Pennoni, answered questions about the culvert. Hesaid the road itself is 112 constructed to NCDOT standardsbut the keystone blocksdid not meet the standards for state roadways. The 113 construction and design of those meet industry standards but NCDOT requires they be reinforced concretewhich are 114 notaesthetically pleasing and are significantlymore expensive. Also, NCDOT staff wanted the developers to grade 115 an area off the traffic circle and the developers chose to instead install a retaining wall becausethat area was already 116 someone’s backyard with a swimming pool. The roads have same pavement width and stone depth as NCDOT 117 requires.It also bears the amount of weight that NCDOT requires. 118 119 Rebecca Ryan, a member of the audience,said she is concerned about water quality with lawns that require fertilizer 120 and she is concerned that this development is not appropriate in the rural buffer.Patrick Mallett told her that is a 121 completely separatediscussion.Also, this subdivision is already approved. The discussion this evening was only 122 about allowingthe roadtobe private.123 124 Kim Piracciasked if any lots are sold and whether the homeowners would understand the financial responsibility of 125 this road falls to them and whether the homeowners association would collect feeds to pay for the maintenance of 126 this road. 127 128 Michael Harvey said Orange County requires a meeting when a homeowners associationtakes over so that 129 homeownersare fully aware. 130 131 Board members asked how much money would be put away. That was not answered.132 133 Alexander Gregory asked what could happen to the bridge. Bellantoni said the lifespan of the bridge is 75 years. If 134 the homeownersmaintain and seal the road, it will last. 135 136 Kim Piracci and David Blankfard are concerned that the cost will be surprisingly astronomical to the homeowners. 137 Bellantoni said he doesn't know what the cost will be but it will be collected and grow over time. 138 139 Patrick Mallett said there will be costs for resurfacing, paving and street trees in addition to the bridge maintenance.140 141 Randy Marshall said the distinction is no taxpayer money will go into repairing the bridge. It is up to the homeowners 142 to make sure they can handle paying for this.143 144 Tony Blakeaskedwho is responsibleif logs or debris block the huge culvert. Bellantoni answered thehomeowners 145 association would be responsible. 146 147 Hunter Spitzer asked about the school boundary. Peter Bellantoni answered thatfour lots will be in the Orange 148 County Schools district and the rest will be in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district. 149 150 Hunter Spitzer asked Peter Bellantoni whether the developer knowingly used material for the keystonesthat would 151 not meet NCDOT standards. Peter Bellantoni answeredother regions around the state have used the same materials 152 and those materials werethe most economical that the developercould use.153 154 MOTION by Kim Piraccito accept the recommendation to have these roads changed from public to private with the 155 conditions recommended by staff. Seconded by Adam Beeman.156 VOTE:10 in favor -1 opposed (Hunter Spitzer)157 158 ADDED AGENDA ITEM –FLAG REGULATIONS159 Michael Harvey said passed out draft language that was under internal review.He explained that flagsare not 160 regulated by Orange County; however, planning staffislooking at tweaking the countyordinance to establish size 161 standards for flags erected in Orange County.162 163 David Blankfard askedwho is reviewingthis draft.Michael Harvey answered planning staff, the county attorney, and 164 the county manager. 165 Approved 4/4/18 166 Planning Director Craig Benedict said the Board of Commissioners had asked a month ago for the attorney's office to167 research whatwould be involved in a flag or flagpole ordinance. Planning staff planned to present an outline to the 168 Board of Commissioners March 20. 169 170 Michael Harvey reminded the Planning Board that froma legal standpoint, staff and the boardsare not concerned 171 with the message on the flag.172 173 Paul Guthrie suggested the composition material for the flagpolecould be regulated.174 175 DavidBlankfard noted many jurisdictions setarchitectural standards.176 177 Michael Harvey reviewed the two draft options. 178 179 Paul Guthrie suggested requiring owners of larger flagpolesto maintainliability insurance.180 181 Craig Benedict notedin Option 1, flagpoles could not be larger than50 feetpole and have to be set back 50 feet so 182 that the pole would land on the property if it were to fall. 183 184 Paul Guthrie said there are options that would fall under public safety.185 186 Kim Piracci asked Michael Harveywho had asked himtoprepare this draft amendment. Craig Benedict answered 187 thathe did because commissioners had asked the attorney's office to look into what regulations couldlook like. So,188 he and the attorney had discussed options.189 190 Michael Harvey welcomed feedback this evening or in an email. 191 192 Laura Nicholson said Option 2, which limits the height of a flagpole to 54 feet and the flag size to 96 square feet,is193 easier for a homeowner to read and understand.194 195 David Blankfard suggesteda structural analysisand wind study could be required for a largeflag and pole structure. 196 197 Hunter Spitzer asked how many flagpoles in the county now would become nonconforming with the amendment. 198 MichaelHarvey answered that he does not know.199 200 Marshall asked for any other questions or comments.201 202 Kim Piracci asked for the status of largeflagpoleto be erectedon U.S. 70in Orange County.Michael Harvey 203 answeredplanning staff made a determination 3 or 4 weeks ago that it could be erected and issued a permit. 204 205 AGENDA ITEM 9:ADJOURNMENT206 207 The meeting was adjourned by consensusat 8:36 p.m.208 ____________________________________209 Lydia N. Wegman, Chair210 211