HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 020117
1
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 1, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4
5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), 8
Bingham Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 9
Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul 10
Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 11 12 Members Absent: Kim Piracci, At-Large; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 15
Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 16
17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20
Lydia Wegman called meeting to order. 21
22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 24 PERMITTED USES 25
To continue review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of 26
Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision. As work progresses on this 27
item, which is expected for the September 2017 quarterly public hearing, the ORC will have additional 28
opportunities for review and comment. 29 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 30 31
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. 32
33
Craig Benedict: So we got something after 5 o’ clock today. I sent something back, so did Michael. And I used the analogy 34
Google Maps, there’s a few different ways to get there and I said, “Let’s make sure it doesn’t create toll on our sanity”. What 35
we hope at one point, and we’re not sure this is going to work, but this would collapse things that if sector 32, I’m not sure if 36
that’s manufacturing, but if we say sector 32 excluding asphalt, everything in here would be allowed, except for that and then 37
we don’t put any X’s there. That’d be a great collapsing of everything. And then, of course, we have the book that says what’s 38
in sector 32 but then everybody doesn’t have… So the important thing that Byrd was saying is you have to list what’s excluded 39
otherwise everything’s approved in there except that one. So maybe we can focus on a bridge version of this. But I think what 40
we need to do whether it’s this item or any other items, this roadmap on how to accomplish something. If there is two ways to 41
do it we’ll present that to the Commissioners, we’ll get advice from our attorney’s on which one they’re more comfortable with 42
before Michael and company go to this level of trying to figure out. You asked at one of the previous meetings so I’m sure 43
other Counties and cities are trying to do, and to varying degrees. Some of them are not at all and some of them say well sue 44
me when you get there. So instead of burdening you tonight with trying to figure out we’re going to get with the attorney’s and 45
try to keep some sort of compact solution to addressing the Byrd case. 46
47
Paul Guthrie: I’m one of the weirdo’s that read the case. And while the case is projected in a way that says what you’ve been 48
telling us it affirmed by that. The fact of the matter, the opinion is one of the most naïve opinions I’ve ever seen, in terms of the 49
case it was working with. Because it was working with a very simple project that a land owner next door didn’t like and so the 50
judge took it upon himself to rewrite the law, in language that was very difficult to overturn. So I agree. I think what you’re 51
going to do is terrific. I think, on a broader scale, you ought to talk to the Commissioners about talking to some of their 52
colleagues and get a little stir going on which way the state is going upon the ability to zone. And that will be a legislative 53
2
action. For what you have to do now, you’re going right down the right road. But I think there’s a bigger issue out there that 54
needs to be portrayed. And frankly, if it had embarrassed the judge a little bit it might be a good idea. 55
56
Michael Harvey: One other observation I feel compelled to make, I don’t think that there’s any staff person in this room that 57
didn’t feel that we had a road path to success when we started this. I think we’re a little concerned we no longer have that path 58
and we need to kind of refocus and figure out where we’re going it. It’s one of those, “Well, I thought we were all on the same 59
page” and I personally believe that if we get a better product out it, great. We don’t need to waste your time. Our time’s not 60
wasted doing this work because hat’s what we’re here for. But our goal isn’t to make this unnecessarily complicated. But as 61
you all know, in the last two years, things can get over necessarily complicated for reasons that defy explanation. So we will 62
continue to work to weather that storm and thank you all for your patience for that. 63
64
Lydia Wegman: How are you going to identify all the new exclusions? 65
66
Craig Benedict: We have to list them. 67
68
Lydia Wegman: I know, but inaudible. 69
70
Tony Blake: But since things are changing then new ones might be invented. And that’s the one that concerns me, is things 71
that you haven’t even thought of… 72
73
Michael Harvey: Well, and that’s a good point. But I will remind you of what you and I have both said, on several occasions. 74
The UDO is a living, breathing document. And it is designed to have to be modified. And it is designed to have things taken 75
from it, added to it. You know, there’s a land use now sweeping the nation that it’s an entertainment facility where you pay a 76
lot of money and you’re going into separate rooms and it’s a puzzle you’re solving. Well, we don’t have that listed in the table 77
of permitted uses anywhere. I think that the attorneys’ point, which is valid, is that we don’t necessarily believe that as we may 78
have six months ago that Byrd requires you to list this use specifically. Maybe we can get away with. Inaudible. Well, this or… 79
And to not put too fine of a point on it, because this is again part of what we’re going to be re-engaging the attorneys with. 80
Remember Health Services? It just goes from 0-10,000 and over 10,000. Well, one of the comments that we’re going to be 81
making to the attorneys office is, ok if you’re comfort level is you ensure that the definition of health services is fairly detailed in 82
terms of what it means and the current definition talks about physicians, medical care, whatnot, and say health services 0-10, 83
10,001-19,999, and then 20,000 and over and these are the districts they can go in. And you’ve got a definition that says here 84
are the examples. It’s much the same vein with rec that we just did. If that serves as legal sufficiency and then yes may be 85
under there, you’ve got two or three that you just know there’s just now way on… I’m just throwing out an example, you list 86
podiatry nowhere. If that’s where we’re headed with this, as long as you’re comfortable, we had sort of started down that path 87
originally and then we’re led to believe that that may not be necessarily sufficient. We’re happy to go back to it. But whatever 88
path we take, our table of permitted uses is going to have to be tweaked, it’s going to have to be updated, it is woefully out of 89
date. One example that I’ve heard several of you mention to me, both in meetings and privately, how do handle assisted 90
living? How do you handle nursing homes? How do you do this, how do you do that? Well it’s kind of all fallen under the whole 91
guise of health services. Well, no it doesn’t. And yeah, these are the kind of things we are going to have to be a little more 92
specific on and I think that’s James’ ultimate point. So we look forward to re-engaging with the attorney’s office. We look 93
forward to getting you all back additional information, and I think that this is purposeful. I think this document at least provides 94
you the linkage you were looking for from the last meeting, how does NAKES fit with some of our existing land uses, and how 95
do other lists work, and really there’s only two lists. And my concern with one of the lists is it’s incredibly nebulous. And my 96
concern with the other list is it is too verbose. 97
98
Tony Blake: So my concrete example, and this is from my… I was born before automatic teller machines. And the banking use 99
probably went into these land uses, but now you can plop an ATM in the middle of a parking lot. What in this process, and 100
somewhere in the process there has to be a change control or something like that built in so that you can adapt to these sorts 101
of technological changes or social changes, and allow for these things but maybe not a full service bank? There’s more and 102
more fragmentation going on in certain areas and there’s more and more consolidation going on in other areas. It’s very hard 103
to keep up with. It’s such a dynamic thing. 104
105
Michael Harvey: I don’t disagree with that at all. 106
107
3
Lydia Wegman: You’re going to have to be nimble. 108
109
Tony Blake: Right. And that’s sort of my thing is that whatever you do here, you have to be thinking, “Ok, how can I change 110
this thing as simply as possible?” and make the process more nimble as well. And that’s what concerns me about listing 111
everything because after a certain point it’s so easy to find multiple definitions in the list that you go. 112
113
Michael Harvey: And we point that out, we’ve actually given several examples where that’s the case. But the direct answer to 114
your question is how to handle ATM’s now, because that was part of your question. 115
116
Tony Blake: Well I understand how they’re handled now but what I’m saying is… Take us back to the 50s or 60s; we weren’t 117
thinking that such a thing would exist. Right? And all of a sudden, poof, the technology pops out and banks can roll out a 118
mobile bank machine. 119
120
Michael Harvey: You know the other funny part, this has nothing to do with land use and then I’ll be quiet. When you look at 121
totality of changes in what is acceptable from even 10 years ago. Local governments, quite bluntly, are having a hard time 122
keeping up. And one example I’ll give you is, how many people here realize that there will be no individual mailboxes at 123
residences any longer? You are never going to have an individual mailbox at your house any longer at new subdivisions. 124
125
Lydia Wegman closed the meeting. 126
127
128
129
___________________________________ 130
Lydia Wegman, Chair 131