Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 100213Approved 11/6/13 1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 2, 2013 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 8 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James 9 Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 10 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 14 Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 15 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 18 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 21 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO regarding Telecommunication Facilities. 22 This amendment is in response to Session Law 2013-185. 23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 24 25 Michael Harvey: Reviewed the abstract. The State of North Carolina, in passing this Session Law, has put additional 26 limitations on local governing bodies, municipalities and counties with respect to how they are processing applications for 27 telecommunications facilities. Specifically, they limited the amount of time devoted to a co-locating application to 45 days, 28 limited the total amount of outside consultant fees we can charge. This is an amendment to bring us compliance with State 29 law. 30 31 Paul Guthrie: Local government cannot require that doesn’t mean that you can’t ask for it. You just can’t require it, correct? 32 33 Michael Harvey: That is a correct statement, we also can’t utilize it if they say no as a reason to deny or recommend denial. 34 We can’t use it a basis for any other reason to say they didn’t comply or they don’t comply with the law. 35 36 Michael Harvey: We are going to be presenting this at the November quarterly public hearing. 37 38 Pete Hallenbeck: First off, raising a tower above 199 feet means you suddenly have to add lighting to it. It is a big 39 undertaking for a tower company. 40 41 Paul Guthrie: Over 200 feet requires FAA consideration. 42 43 Michael Harvey: Yes, and we have standards if you are proposing a 200 foot tall tower it is part of the submittal that the FAA 44 has given initial clearance. 45 46 Pete Hallenbeck: So, between the FAA and the ordinances, there are a lot of good reasons for the companies to put in towers 47 that are less than 200 feet tall. The second thing is that raising a tower is not trivial. You can’t just nail a 2 x 4 and make it 48 higher. 49 50 51 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OPERATION 52 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO related to Board of Adjustment operation. 53 This amendment is in response to Session Law 2013-126. 54 Approved 11/6/13 2 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 55 56 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. The General Assembly has modernized and provided uniformity of the Board of 57 Adjustment. We are updating our code to be consistent with State Law. 58 59 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions? Ok, it makes sense to me. Thank you. 60 61 62 AGENDA ITEM 4: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – HOME OCCUPATION 63 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO regarding Home Occupation standards. 64 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 65 66 Paul Guthrie: For the record, we have a home business in my house. 67 68 Lisa Stuckey: I have a home business in my house too. 69 70 Pete Hallenbeck: I work out of my home too. 71 72 Ashley Moncado: (Reviewed abstract). 73 74 Paul Guthrie: Have you been able to identify what the traffic work load it going to be to the planning department as a result of 75 these regulations? 76 77 Michael Harvey: I have no concerns based on the provisions. I believe the regulations proposed are reasonable. I don’t 78 believe it will increase the workload tremendously. 79 80 Paul Guthrie: You don’t know how many applications you will get. I think technically the provision with regard to the number 81 of special events is still going to exclude the art tour because the number of 30 will breach that. We have a very strong arts 82 community and I need to think through how you do not become an impediment to that. 83 84 Ashley Moncado: Other counties don’t have limits on people but limitations on parking and other things. They are more 85 restrictive. 86 87 Paul Guthrie: You want to look at that dynamic. 88 89 Pete Hallenbeck: You can get a special permit for that event. 90 91 Paul Guthrie: The arts community is already buzzing about this. My other concern is the parking requirement could be 92 difficult for some folks. The other comment is regarding the maintenance; you may want to clarify that and be prepared that 93 may be a problem. 94 95 Pete Hallenbeck: On page 86 regarding parking, parking shall be met off the street and not required yard area, so when 96 people come to these events, they can’t park on the street. 97 98 Ashley Moncado: They would have to be in your area and not in the setback. 99 100 Pete Hallenbeck: Could you put setback instead of yard area? 101 102 Perdita Holtz: No, because of the way yard is defined and used in the UDO and other places. 103 104 Michael Harvey: There is an opportunity for you to go through a process to seek regress. We don’t want to have a commercial 105 impact on a private road. 106 107 Approved 11/6/13 3 Pete Hallenbeck: On the outside storage space, there is 500 square feet, for the major home occupations that is part of the 108 application. In the minor home occupation application, where is that? 109 110 Ashley Moncado: It should be indicated on the plot plan. 111 112 Michael Harvey: We are not regulating the UPS truck for home delivery. If your home occupation needs a vehicle to support 113 operations there is a limit. Also, there are specific land uses prohibited as home occupations. 114 115 Paul Guthrie: Zoning ordinance cannot prohibit a small business homeowner from owning a bigger truck, which I question. 116 117 Michael Harvey: By using it as part of the business parked on the property, it can become regulated. 118 119 Ashley Moncado: We will look into it again. 120 121 Maxecine Mitchell: Can they load the equipment and leave? 122 123 Ashley Moncado: That it still be used in connections with home occupations. 124 125 Maxecine Mitchell: It would not be permitted? 126 127 Ashley Moncado: No. 128 129 Maxecine Mitchell: If someone is already using his or her vehicle? 130 131 Ashley Moncado: That standard is already in place. 132 133 James Lea: If I decide to start a tree service and had a two or three ton truck, I could not park that at my house? 134 135 Ashley Moncado: No. 136 137 Tony Blake: If it fit in a garage, could you keep it there? 138 139 Ashley Moncado: No. 140 141 Pete Hallenbeck: Let us see what people feel is a good size. 142 143 Paul Guthrie: I am not too upset with the one ton. This is a thicket and reality is it going to be very controversial when you hit 144 someone that has been grandfathered in. 145 146 Herman Staats: I think if you consider, I have dually which is more than one ton. One ton may be too low. 147 148 James Lea: I would agree. Some of the language suggests that you could not have dually there. 149 150 Maxecine Mitchell: I don’t know what a one-ton truck is. If you have a landscaping business, they have trucks and long 151 trailers. 152 153 Ashley Moncado: There is language already in the UDO. 154 155 Tony Blake: Any language that is not a split axle truck. 156 157 Pete Hallenbeck: Rather than a ton limit, an axle limit. 158 159 Lisa Stuckey: Delivery trucks, UPS or FedEx are okay with me. 160 161 Approved 11/6/13 4 Pete Hallenbeck: If you had a small business, would this be something you could apply for a variance on. 162 163 Michael Harvey: I am hesitating to say yes because there may not be hardship. This is not to promote small business use for 164 a property but home occupation. Anybody can apply for anything. I don’t see the limitation that is providing such a limit on 165 your use of property as warranting a variance. 166 167 Pete Hallenbeck: I would say one or two ton. 168 169 Paul Guthrie: The five-acre provision worries me because of the entrepreneur starting out. 170 171 Pete Hallenbeck: I think part of the five acres is that we are applying the same rules whether you had a one acre lot or 100 172 acre farm. 173 174 Ashley Moncado: We’ll look into all the suggestions and changes and get back to you at the November Planning Board 175 Meeting. 176 177 178 AGENDA ITEM 5: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT ENTERPRISES 179 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO implement a program commonly referred 180 to “Agricultural Support Enterprises”. 181 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 182 183 ITEM WAS POSTPONED UNTIL END OF REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING DUE TO LACK OF TIME 184 185 AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 186 187 Meeting was adjourned. 188 189 190 THE MEETING RECONVENED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING BOARD MEET ING 191 FOR THE LAST ITEM ON THE ORC AGENDA 192 193 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 194 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, 195 Bingham Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 196 197 198 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 199 Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 200 201 202 AGENDA ITEM 5: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT ENTERPRISES 203 To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO implement a program commonly referred 204 to “Agricultural Support Enterprises”. 205 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 206 207 Perdita Holtz: (Reviewed Abstract) DEAPR is working on a manual and hopefully it will be available as part of the quarterly 208 public hearing in February 2014. 209 210 Tony Blake: I thought there was an acreage requirement as well. 211 212 Perdita Holtz: No, there is no acreage requirement, there may have been at one time. 213 214 Approved 11/6/13 5 Michael Harvey: The acreage requirement was only based on complying with the bona fide farm tax program. 215 216 Paul Guthrie: If the actual crop, what the central farm managed, planted, and prepared the soil for the crop on is on 217 somebody else’s land, could they use it under the definition? 218 219 Perdita Holtz: That noncontiguous parcel is normally considered part of the bona fide farm. Where it comes into play about 220 being off the farm is if you have another bona fide farm that wants to come back and sell products like in a farm store. 221 222 Perdita Holtz: (Continued review of item) 223 224 Pete Hallenbeck: What does the metal fabrication shop fit in under? 225 226 Perdita Holtz: That’s one of the more interesting things that was part of the previous work, metal fabrication shop would 227 normally fit under the Light Industrial zoning use category and a lot of these uses would have fit under umbrella uses that 228 appear in our zoning ordinance. Part of the problem is that people were saying we want to see these uses exactly in the 229 zoning code and so we went ahead and put them in the zoning code because there is no harm in doing so other than you 230 might end up with a whole bunch of pages in your table of permitted uses if you were to list every single possible use ever. 231 There is an effort to help the farmers and so we are doing that. There was apparently one farmer that does metal fabrication 232 on the side and so I think that is one of the reasons that ended up as we do to have this defined. 233 234 Pete Hallenbeck: So this is metal fabrication shop as in blacksmithing, making rod iron, and fixing large tractor things that 235 need lots of welding because of those two. 236 237 Perdita Holtz: Metal fabrication shop is the facility that is engaged in the shaping of metal or similar materials for wholesale or 238 retail trade. One of the standards for metal fabrication shop is that if it is located in an AR zoning district is that it has to be 239 located on a bona fide farm so the standard gets very important because some of these uses would only be allowed in those 240 zoning districts if they are located on a bona fide farm. 241 242 Pete Hallenbeck: There are things that require not a site plan but a plot plan and there may some interesting discussion about 243 exactly that the terms are. 244 245 Lisa Stuckey: What’s a nonfarm use of farm equipment, like tractor ride? 246 247 Perdita Holtz: That’s like a farmer using his tractor to grading work during the off season. 248 249 Lisa Stuckey: So what is the plot plan going to show? 250 251 Perdita Holtz: It is actually on page the page beforehand, of all the specifications of a plot plan. It is going to show pr operty 252 lines. This is more for someone doing landscaping or grading type of activities off the farm. 253 254 Michael Harvey: To give you an example, we were dealing with a farmer that actually rented out equipment to be used either 255 in landscaping, grading, and also did septic tank work on the side and he had equipment. As all the equipment had a farm 256 application, legally as I interpret the statute there wasn’t much we could do. We required him to give us a plot plan showing 257 where it was parked, where any activity that was not farm related occurred and that there was any necessary infrastructure to 258 support this ancillary business. This project has gone back to 2001, this is one of the genesis for this nonfarm use of farm 259 equipment was this particular farmer and others who had similar relationships with people. 260 261 Perdita Holtz: On the plot plan, there are standards they have to meet. One of them is that they have to screen the 262 equipment from adjacent property and roads and outdoor storage of material such as gravel, dirt, plants shall be limited in 263 growth, area, and duration. There are a couple of others so they would have to show on the plot plan where equipment is 264 being stored and how they are going to achieve the screening and where their outdoor storage and materials is going to take 265 place. 266 267 Approved 11/6/13 6 Andrea Rohrbacher: On equipment, I haven’t heard the word that the equipment must be operable. What if it is non-operable 268 and it just sits there for a decade? 269 270 Perdita Holtz: If it is sitting on a bona fide farm, we really can’t do anything about it. 271 272 Tony Blake: Do you have sawmills in here? We have some folks that have sawmills out where I am and they mill their own 273 trees and such. 274 275 Perdita Holtz: That would probably be a bona fide farm and that is not regulated. Only if you are bring in lumber from other 276 places would it be regulated. 277 278 Perdita Holtz: The BOCC has requested specific input from advisory boards, the Planning Board and also the Agricultural 279 Preservation Board on this project. They would like to have input on whether more intensive uses should be removed from 280 consideration. 281 282 The consensus of the group was that this item should be considered further at a November ORC meeting. 283 284 AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 285 286 Meeting was adjourned 287 288 289 _________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair