HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 040418Approved 5/2/2018
MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 APRIL 4, 2018 3
REGULAR MEETING 4 5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy 7
Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 8
Township; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township 9
Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, 10
Bingham Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River 13
Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; 14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, 16
Planner II; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 17
18 OTHERS PRESENT: Ryan Barnett; Katherine Walker; Heather Redding; Latarndva Strong; Nan Fulcher; 19
20
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 22
Vice Chair Randy Marshall called the meeting to order and welcomed new board member Carrie Fletcher. 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 25
a. Planning Calendar for April and May 26
27 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 28 March 7, 2018, Training Session Notes 29
March 7, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes 30
31 MOTION by Adam Beeman to approve the March 7, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. 32 VOTE: Unanimous 33 34 AGENDA ITEM 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 35
There were no changes. 36
37 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 38 39 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 40
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 41
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws 42
of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 43
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 44
needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 45
and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 46
effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 47
deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 48
49
50 PUBLIC CHARGE 51
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 52
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 53
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 54
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 55
Approved 5/2/2018
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 56
such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 57
58
AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 59
There were no comments. 60
61 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FLAGPOLE AND FLAG 62 REGULATIONS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 63
to the text of the UDO that will add regulations pertaining to flagpoles and flags. This item is 64
scheduled for public hearing on May 1, 2018 65
66 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 67
68
Michael Harvey: Tonight I am going to review with you a proposed text amendment to the Unified Development 69
Ordinance designed to clarify standards governing the height, number, and location of flagpoles as well as the size of 70
flags erected on property within the County's planning jurisdiction. The amendment is contained within Attachment 3 71
of your packet. Attachment 2 contains the statement of consistency outlining how the proposal is consistent with the 72
provisions of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 73
74
The overall purpose and intent of the amendment is to ensure uniformity with respect to the display of flags and 75
the allowable height of flagpoles within Orange County. Although there are regulations contained within the UDO 76
regulating flags, there is a concern said regulations are unclear. 77
78
As you are already aware concerns have been expressed to the elected officials over the lack of clear, definitive 79
standards, governing the erection of flagpoles and size of flags that can be erected/flown. 80
81
The Board of County Commissioners directed the County's Attorney office to review potential language designed to 82
clarify existing regulation(s) with respect to the overall allowable height of flagpoles as well as the allowable size of 83
flags in an effort to ensure the display of flag(s) does not dominate local skylines. 84
85
Planning staff, consistent with established protocols, sought approval of an Amendment Outline Form (AOF) by the 86
Board of County Commissioners establishing the parameters of such an amendment as well as anticipated 87
timeline(s) for review and action. At its March 20, 2018 regular meeting the Board approved the Form scheduling a 88
public hearing to review the amendment at its May 1, 2018 regular meeting. 89
90
The County's Attorney office provided language deemed to meet legal sufficiency requirements, which again is 91
contained within Attachment 3 of your package. 92
93
As part of the review of this item, staff has supplied the Board members with an e-mail from Mr. John 94
Roberts concerning the review of this item, which I would like to read into the minutes: 95
96
“Michael- 97
98
Although it does regulate flags, the current UDO is not clear that it regulates flags. The Board of Commissioners 99
directed us to amend the UDO to clarify this and to draft content neutral restrictions on flag size and height to address 100
resident concerns of individuals or groups erecting enormous flags in residentially zoned areas. With that in mind the 101
proposed language was drafted to be content-neutral so that if challenged it may survive judicial scrutiny: 102
103
Regarding content-neutrality: The U.S. Supreme Court held government may impose reasonable restrictions on the 104
time, place, and manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant 105
government interest, are without reference to content, and leave open sufficient alternate means of communicating 106
the message. There is ample case law applying this principle to signs, flags, etc. The proposed language solely 107
focuses on these categories and does not contemplate what message may be communicated. Further the proposed 108
language regarding the number of flags allowed, dimensions, and height leaves open a property owner’s ability to fly 109
reasonably flags conveying whatever message they choose. 110
Approved 5/2/2018
111
With regard to the proposed dimensions these numbers are, as you previously noted, /{an amalgamation of all 112
previous drafts" and are proposed merely as reasonable suggestions. Size limitations may not be so restrictive that 113
they do not allow sufficient means of expression and I believe the proposed numbers allow full expression of the 114
message without allowing a property owner to negatively impact her or his neighbor. 115
116
Let me know if this is responsive of you need more information.” 117 118 As I have indicated during the ORC committee meeting, the proposed regulation(s) are necessary to ensure 119
uniformity with respect to the size and number of flags that can be displayed on property as well as clarify the 120
measurable standard that will be employed relating to the allowable height any erected flagpole. As written, the 121
amendment would clarify existing regulations to ensure adherence to the following specific standards: 122
123
1. Within a residential general use zoning district (including Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, and 124
Rural Residential) the amendment allows for the erection of a single flagpole with a maximum height 125
limit of 24ft. A maximum of 3 flags could be displayed, with each flag being a maximum of 24 sq. in area 126
(or 4ft. by 6ft. in size) on a residentially zoned parcel; 127
128
2. Within all other general use zoning districts, the amendment allows up to 3 flags and 3 individual 129
flagpoles. Each flag can be a maximum of 96 sq.ft. in area (or 8ft. by 12ft. in size). Flagpoles shall be 130
a maximum of 54 ft. in height; 131
132
3. In all general use zoning districts a flagpole shall be required to observe a 50 ft. setback from all property 133
lines; 134
135
4. As written Section 6.12.12 of the UDO would contain an amortization provision requiring nonconforming 136
flags and flagpoles, legally erected prior to the adoption of this amendment, to be brought into 137
compliance within 1year from the Ordinance being adopted. 138
139
5. As written Section 6.12.13 of the UDO contains language exempting flags, no greater than 12 inches 140
in height, displayed on individual grave sites within a cemetery from the provisions of the Ordinance. 141
142
As previously indicated the proposed language is content neutral and does not establish a ban on any specific 143
flag. I will refer you back to the e-mail authored by John Roberts for additional detail on this matter, which I have 144
previously read into the minutes of this meeting. 145
146
As part of making a recommendation on this text amendment, the Board is being asked to approve a Statement of 147
Consistency for this project, making the following findings: 148
149
Michael Harvey reviewed the Consistency Statement, Attachment 2 in the board packet, and then continued his 150
presentation: 151
152
The Planning Director's recommendation on this item is to: 153
154
1. Review the proposed amendments to the UDO, 155
156
2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 157
158
3. Consider the Planning Director's and County's Attorney recommendation(s), and 159
160
4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on: 161
162
The Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 2), and Proposed UDO Text 163
Amendment(s) (Attachment 3) in time for the May 1, 2018 Public Hearing. 164 165 Randy Marshall asked the board if they had any questions. 166
Approved 5/2/2018
167
Alex Gregory said that content neutral means the board is not discussing or regulating what appears on a flag. 168
169
Randy Marshall invited the public to comment. 170
171
Ryan Barnett addressed the board. He said he lives in Sanford, North Carolina, and he thinks that this proposed 172
ordinance is a great mistake. He is a veteran and he believes that this is an attempt to constrict people’s 173
constitutional rights. This is about the Confederate flag, he said. People are not really educated on this flag, he said. 174
He said the flag is not about hate. He said he is from New York and was brainwashed in school to think the 175
Confederate flag was about hate. He said restricting the Confederate flag is part of a historical purge. He urged the 176
Planning Board to defeat the ordinance amendment and he said there will be lawsuits filed if the county passes this 177
ordinance, and he said the county will see more Confederate flags if the county passes this ordinance. 178
179
Katherine Walker addressed the board. She said she was born and raised in Orange County and lives in 180
Hillsborough and is in full support of this revision. She asked some questions. After one year, will flagpoles out of 181
compliance be required to comply? Also, if the house covers the area that is 50 feet back, can the flagpole be placed 182
on the house and how tall can it be? And her third question is if a tree is used as a flagpole, does the flag flying have 183
to comply with these standards? Katherine Walker also said there are others in the audience this evening in support 184
of the proposed amendment. 185
186
Michael Harvey answered Katherine Walker’s questions. He re-read the proposed clause about those flagpoles that 187
would be considered nonconforming. Effectively, there would be one year to bring the flagpole into compliance. If the 188
property owner cannot, there is a process whereby a property owner could seek a variance on the location of the 189
flagpole. Michael Harvey said the ordinance does not specify that the flags have to flown on a flagpole and all flags 190
have to meet the requirements of the applicable zone in which it is located, both for size and number of flags. 191
192
Randy Marshall asked for clarification that the height of a house would count as part of the height of the flagpole if 193
the flagpole were located on a house. 194
195
Michael Harvey read from Section 6.12.12 for residential districts which state not only the height limitation of a 196
flagpole but that the flagpole cannot be higher than the principal building’s roof. 197
198
Adam Beeman asked what the enforcement mechanism would be for those property owners who do not bring 199
flagpoles or flags into compliance within one year of the adoption of this ordinance. 200
201
Michael Harvey answered that the county can seek judicial action. 202
203
David Blankfard asked what a property owner has to provide to obtain a permit to erect a flagpole. 204
205
Michael Harvey said the property owner would have to provide a plat plan to show the location on the property to 206
determine setback from the property line, schematics so that staff can determine the height, and a rendering of the 207
flag’s size. County staff would then issue a zoning compliance permit. 208
209
David Blankfard asked if the property owner would have to get a civil engineer to draw the plans. 210
211
Michael Harvey answered no. And, when asked another question by David Blankfard, Michael Harvey said Orange 212
County Building Inspections would be concerned with the actual building of the structure. The Planning Department 213
would just be concerned with the height and setback of the flagpole and size-of-flag requirements. 214
215
Heather Redding addressed the board. She said she is a member of the Hillsborough Progressives Taking Action 216
group and she thanked the board for taking public comment and taking this matter seriously. She voiced her support 217
for the amendment. She said a 1,500-square-foot flag was erected outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, recently on a 218
flagpole that is 125 feet tall. This flag has a symbol on it that has been flown alongside swastikas and other hate 219
symbols in Charlottesville, Virginia. It has been flown as a symbol of retaliation, intimidation and threat. Once a flag 220
gets to be a certain size, it is not a private statement, she said. It is a public message. A public message can be 221
Approved 5/2/2018
wonderful but it can be hateful and divisive. She urged the board not to be concerned that this is a slippery slope that 222
will lead to other regulations. 223
224
Latarndra Strong addressed the board. She said she is with Hate-Free Schools Coalition, which worked to remove 225
symbols of hate from the Orange County Public Schools. The coalition was started because a huge flag was flown on 226
the back of a truck and driven into a school parking lot. When the size became so large that a normal person could 227
not ignore it, she felt like it was important to do something for the students who did not want to see it as their school. 228
The issue for her was she felt that large flags should be regulated on public property until these large flags started to 229
be erected alongside roads on private property. She said she would be opposed to a large flag if it held different 230
content such as a huge retail symbol. She said the regulation is about keeping our community neutral and safe. She 231
supports the amendment. 232
233
Nan Fulcher addressed the board. She said planners restrict outdoor advertising and other signage and banners. 234
She thinks this proposed amendment is logical and preserves freedom of speech. 235
236
Randy Marshall asked if there was anyone else who did not sign up who would like to speak. There was no one. He 237
invited planning board comments. 238
239
Laura Nicholson said as a representative of the Eno Township and as a member of the Nicholson family, she would 240
like to speak. She has family members of multiple races and viewpoints and her vote is going to be content neutral 241
but reflect how we feel about multiple flags hanging on one property. 242
243
Paul Guthrie said he supported the previous statement. He is distressed that this is a divisive issue. He has family 244
members who have served in the armed forces going back to the American Revolution. He was educated in several 245
states and he is distressed that there are people stirring up divisiveness on this issue and he advised that the 246
gentleman who came from Sanford to speak would be better off speaking to the board of commissioners in Sanford. 247
Paul Guthrie said he will vote in support of this ordinance amendment. 248
249
Adam Beeman said he did some research today and found these proposed regulations are not out of the ordinary for 250
other jurisdictions. 251
252
Michael Harvey said that this will only be applicable within Orange County’s planning jurisdiction and not within the 253
town or city jurisdictions. 254
255 MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the UDO text 256
amendment. Seconded by David Blankfard. 257 VOTE: Unanimous 258
259 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 260 261
MOTION by Paul Guthrie to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. after reconvening the ORC and addressing the rest of 262
the items on that agenda. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 263 VOTE: Unanimous 264 ____________________________________ 265
Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 266
267