The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutORC minutes 070115Approved 8/5/15 1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 1, 2015 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; Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel 8 Hill Township (Vice Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 9 Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; 10 11 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 12 Planning Systems Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Patrick Mallett, Planner II ; 13 14 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 15 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS 16 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 17 To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the UDO to modify the existing 18 regulations pertaining to recreational facilities. 19 20 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 21 22 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 23 24 Paul Guthrie: Could a resident sponsor a club in his name and finance play on that field? 25 26 Michael Harvey: No sir. Not the way it is written. 27 28 Tony Blake: I can create my own non-profit and put in a putting green. 29 30 Michael Harvey: Not the way it is written, but part of this process is requesting the need for different wording. I am 31 asking for your questions and comments. This (amendment) is designed to adopt the land use regulations and 32 standards (of recreational land uses) where we don’t have them and define what we would like to see in residential 33 settings. Also, to eliminate what staff believes is unnecessary rezoning and permitting requirements. 34 35 Tony Blake: If I am a farmer and I want to donate land to a non-profit for a recreational sport (facility), would that be 36 permitted? 37 38 Michael Harvey: It would have to go through the SUP process. There are certain facilities we don’t want in 39 residential settings due to their impacts. This also does not stop a county park. 40 41 Tony Blake: Is the intent to control the gun range use specifically? 42 43 Michael Harvey: No, not that use specifically but we will be adopting development standards associated with them. 44 45 Tony Blake: If you want to control that specifically, it would probably be a noise ordinance. 46 47 Michael Harvey: This amendment process was not started simply to regulate gun ranges. It was started because 48 the County shouldn’t be regulating a land use, or assigning or ascribing permitting processes, based on the 49 ownership status of the property owner. 50 Approved 8/5/15 2 51 Lisa Stuckey: What about the HOA in a subdivision that wants to put a ball field on an open space? 52 53 Michael Harvey: Perfectly legal because it is technically approved as part of the subdivision process. 54 55 Tony Blake: What if they want to do it retroactively? 56 57 Michael Harvey: The same thing as long as they comply with the ordinance with respect to compliance of Article 7 58 which is subdivision standards. Again, County parks would not be affected by this. 59 60 Lydia Wegman: Regarding Section 5.7.2, shooting ranges, no outdoor range shall be closer than 30 feet to the 61 property range? 62 63 Michael Harvey: That is reference to commercial shooting ranges, like an archery range. In these instances 64 shooting would only be allowed indoors. Private, residential shooting areas, the required setback is 300 feet. 65 66 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS 67 PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS REVISIONS 68 To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the DUO to revise the public 69 hearing process. 70 71 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 72 73 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract and began presentation. 74 75 Tony Blake: This is where I was confused. I see the notes regarding the public meeting on page 43, but where is the 76 neighborhood information meeting described? 77 78 Perdita Holtz: It is in the neighborhood information meeting section, Section 2.9. 79 80 Tony Blake: Are any changes being made to that? 81 82 Perdita Holtz: No 83 84 Tony Blake: I was going to suggest that the Planning Board member representing that township should be invited into 85 the neighborhood information meeting and that’s an important change. 86 87 Perdita Holtz: If it’s a matter of inviting someone, that can be done administratively and not have to be written into the 88 UDO. If it’s something that you want to require then that’s something that can be written into the UDO or into the 89 Planning Board Rules of Procedure. 90 91 Lisa Stuckey: That wouldn’t be appropriate in a quasi-judicial situation? 92 93 Perdita Holtz: The Neighborhood Information meeting isn’t a quasi-judicial meeting, but to explain how the process 94 works to neighbors. 95 96 Lisa Stuckey: I would touch base with a lawyer because it seems unlikely that you wouldn’t get information n ot 97 available to BOCC and other Planning Board members upon which you would base your votes. 98 99 Tony Blake: The only thing you would get is information would be the neighbor’s comments. 100 101 Pete Hallenbeck: In the quasi-judicial world, if those neighbors are not experts, you can’t take it into consideration. 102 Approved 8/5/15 3 103 Lydia Wegman: To me, this is an information meeting. 104 105 Pete Hallenbeck: When the neighborhood meeting happens, it quasi-judicial in play? 106 107 Perdita Holtz: The Planning Board meeting is not quasi-judicial. From an ideal legal standpoint, the attorneys would 108 like the Planning Board to not be involved. 109 110 Tony Blake: The neighbors are looking to us and if we don’t have any information, what is the point of us at all. 111 112 Craig Benedict: We are trying to make that meeting more process oriented with information about the process. 113 114 Pete Hallenbeck: When does the quasi-judicial process start? 115 116 Michael Harvey: I would argue it starts the day the application is accepted to review by the Planning Department and 117 all subsequent meetings that occur as a result are part of the quasi-judicial process. 118 119 Paul Guthrie: I agree with all that has been said, but be careful because you are about to go past an advisory board 120 and cut off input that can make wiser decisions. At what point, what do I stop thinking about what I know and have to 121 stop and say what I hear. You need to be careful about how you define that if you want true, good, long term advisory 122 committee members. 123 124 Lydia Wegman: If the neighborhood information doesn’t include a presentation by the applicant then it would not be 125 helpful. 126 127 Craig Benedict: It includes a review of the project. 128 129 Lydia Wegman: There will be time for questions? 130 131 Craig Benedict: There may be. The information will be available. This is a dry run so everyone will know what is 132 proposed. 133 134 Perdita Holtz: Continued presentation. 135 136 Paul Guthrie: How long after the hearing do we have a record so there is a good reference to what is acceptable as 137 evidence and what isn’t? 138 139 Perdita Holtz: All evidence is going to have to be made at the hearing. 140 141 Paul Guthrie: How long does it take to get that record and will the 60 days be adequate? 142 143 Perdita Holtz: You generally make a recommendation in less than 60 days. 144 145 Paul Guthrie: Be sure that works within your process. 146 147 Perdita Holtz: Continued presentation. 148 149 Paul Guthrie: Question on specific language, Section 1B(c) on page 71. 150 151 Perdita Holtz: That is not the part being changed. 152 153 Paul Guthrie: May need to think about the language in the policy saying basically this document overrules the 154 advisory committee structure set up by the BOCC. 155 156 Approved 8/5/15 4 Perdita Holtz: Only the BOCC approves the specific advisory board policies. 157 158 AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT 159