Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 070517 1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 5, 2017 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tony Blake (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township 8 Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; 9 Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 Members Absent: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 12 Representative; Donna Coffey, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 13 Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; 16 Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Rachel McCook, Minutes Preparer 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 Tony Blake called meeting to order. 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT - SUBDIVISIONS - To review government-26 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that makes corrections to the amendments adopted on 27 January 24, 2017 regarding subdivisions. 28 Presenter: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 29 30 Patrick Mallett reviewed the abstract. He said that the UDO subdivision flexible development text change is the item that we 31 spent the majority of last year working on. The synopsis of where we are is that there were over 90 pages of changes out of 32 the UDO, a substantial effort. The document was edited, at a minimum, 14 times. During the Board of County Commissioner’s 33 (BOCC) Quarterly Public Hearing in November 2016, Commissioners Price and Jacobs had specific parts they wanted to add 34 into the text change. Planning Staff accommodated this request. The BOCC voted and approved the text change on January 35 2017 and it became part of the Ordinance. Unfortunately, there were different versions in the mix, and the version that was 36 approved by the BOCC was slightly different than the version the Planning Board saw. So, the ORC is reviewing this item 37 tonight with Planning Staff in an effort to resolve and clarify any inconsistencies with the two versions regarding references 38 (i.e. “UDO Section” vs. “Section”), terminology, grammar, syntax, and the way the item is presented. Mr. Mallett gave an 39 apology for the time and effort to re-review this, but stressed that it is important. The Planning Board will see this item next 40 month. In the meantime, Planning Staff will sit down with the County Attorney’s office to ensure this version has legal 41 sufficiency. Most of these changes are regarding references or a change that directly tracks to a comment that the County 42 Attorney made at the end of the review process that did not get included the January version. While most of the changes are 43 syntax and grammatical, there is one change to point out specifically: Section 3 on page 3-2 of the UDO, the Rural Buffer 44 Section. As previously written, in a subdivision within this zoning district, you would have one option: the minimum lot size was 45 87,120 square feet. In the proposed Flexible Development Option, this was broken out into one acre (43,560 square feet). 46 Unfortunately, the version of the UDO that now exists lists minimum lot size within this zoning district as 40,000 square feet 47 (sq. ft.). This is an issue because there are numerous Joint Planning documents and numerous references throughout Section 48 7 and elsewhere in the UDO that are very specific; the minimum lot size has to be an acre, 43,560 sq. ft. We need to make 49 this change. Mr. Mallett concluded his presentation and offered to review other pages with the Committee or answer any 50 questions, or if they think of something after the meeting, he asked that they email him. The goal is to make this version 51 consistent and whole, to deal with all the omissions, clarifications, and get it back as close to the version that existed at the 52 November Quarterly Public Hearing, with the addition of the aforementioned comments by Commissioners Price and Jacobs. 53 2 Tony Blake asked for confirmation that the Village Option and the Flexible Development Option - the clustering - is not the 54 same thing. 55 56 Patrick Mallett answered that they are not the same thing. 57 58 Tony Blake said that the two sections, in application to the Rural Buffer area, are confusing. 59 60 Patrick Mallett replied that Staff did not address the Village Option, but rather the focused on the text change, mostly in take 61 Sections 7.12 and 7.13 of the UDO and combined them into something called Flexible Development, in order to give two 62 minor subdivision options that encourage open space. He said that you could either do a traditional, Plain Jane subdivision 63 with large lots, or you could cluster them down to have smaller lot sizes with proportional amounts open space. A Village 64 Option has some of those elements, but the two options are like an apple and an orange. 65 66 Tony Blake said that he understood the difference between the two options. 67 68 Michael Harvey gave a brief background of the Village Option. He explained that the Village Option is a classification of 69 Flexible Development. This classification allows for a multitude of housing development options from single to duplex to multi-70 family. The Flexible Development option also can allow for non-residential activity, as part of the project, to be developed. The 71 Ordinance provides very specific examples of what those non-residential land uses are as part of this whole process. Mr. 72 Harvey said that it was his considered opinion that the reason that the Village Option is expressly prohibited from the Rural 73 Buffer is because the development, as currently is allowed, is inconsistent with the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and 74 Agreement because the proposed uses do not fit in with the Rural Buffer Zoning District concept as embodied within that Joint 75 Land Use Plan and Agreement. So, it was easier to recommend prohibition than to tailor. Further, there are specific 76 requirements in the Joint Land Use Plan and Agreement, which dates back to the late ‘80s. The Joint Land Use Plan and 77 Agreement is an agreement between Chapel Hill, Orange County, and Carrboro for the physical development of the General 78 Zoning land use category known as the Rural Buffer, which surrounds Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Agreement specifies 79 acreage minimum for lots; two acre minimum lot size that can only be clustered down to one acre. The Village Option allows 80 for the further clustering as an entity and as such, would violate the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. This is why the prohibition 81 has existed for as many years as it has. As a general note, Mr. Harvey reminded the Committe that Planning Staff was 82 authorized to create what can best be described as a Rural Master Plan District. Some may be familiar with the Master Plan 83 District we have in urban areas, Hart’s Mill as the prime example. A developer can come to the County to petition for the 84 development of a site-specific project imposing conditions, land uses, and whatnot, and the BOCC has latitude as embodied in 85 the UDO, to work with that developer to permit the project, but also to impose reasonable conditions designed to enforce 86 provisions of the UDO. Planning Staff were coming up with a Rural Master Plan Concept and it was suggested by two BOCC 87 members that Staff look at the Village as the model. Mr. Harvey thinks that within the next calendar year, Staff will be looking 88 at an Ordinance amendment to come before ORC and Planning Board for recommendation that will take the Village concept 89 as it currently exists and make it a Rural Master Plan project. Subsequently, this would have to be reviewed with the BOCC to 90 get authorization as part of the standard operating procedure, but the last time this came-up, there was a recommendation of 91 some BOCC members to create Rural Master Plan District, and Planning Staff supports that. The possible benefit, from 92 Planning Staff’s standpoint, is to help accentuate development in certain nodes within the County where we want a more 93 centralized non-residential option for development alongside residential. 94 95 Randy Marshall asked for a clarification on the example of the Rural Master Plan District Michael Harvey provided. 96 97 Michael Harvey answered that the example he gave is a Master Plan called Hart’s Mill. Hart’s Mill is a single family residential 98 development off of Frazier Road on a110+ acre parcel where they proposed 36 individual residences on lots ranging from 99 15,000 – 25,000 square feet with one dwelling unit every three to four acres, with 80 acres of protected open space (inclusive 100 of several acres of flood zone), some of which was intended to be used as farmland. It is an intentional community where the 101 developer wanted to establish “small homes” all geared towards farm activities. If you purchase one of these lots, part of the 102 requirement is to be involved in the farm. 103 104 Randy Marshall asked if Hart’s Mill has a community septic system. 105 106 Michael Harvey replied that yes, they do. 107 3 108 Tony Blake added that he thought there is a septic or water line running by the community. 109 Michael Harvey confirmed that there is a water line, and they are hooked-up to this line, but there is no sewer line that goes all 110 the way to the community. 111 112 Randy Marshall noted that in the Rural Buffer, water and sewer are prohibited. 113 114 Michael Harvey agreed with this statement. He also noted that Hart’s Mill off of Frazier Road in the Cheeks Township, not 115 within the Rural Buffer. Michael clarified that the parcel of property was once zoned Rural Residential (R-1) but is now zoned 116 Master Planning Zoning District (MPZD). Michael turned the floor back over to Patrick Mallett. 117 118 Patrick Mallett responded that he was finished with his presentation. 119 120 Tony Blake asked for confirmation that Planning Staff’s concept of clustering would still include a shared septic area and could 121 exist in the Rural Buffer. 122 123 Patrick Mallett clarified that the concept of a shared area for septic, as long as they are individual septic systems, is still in the 124 UDO as a viable option and can exist in the Rural Buffer. 125 126 Michael Harvey added further clarification that within the Rural Buffer, the minimum lot size would be 1 acre. 127 128 Patrick Mallett went on to say that the acre is definitive, and that perhaps that an acre lot size may not be the best model for 129 clustering, but the other residential zoning districts included amendment allow for clustering to go down to as little as 130 10,000 sq. ft. per lot size. In Rural Buffer, because of the Joint Planning Agreement, minimum lot sizes can be no smaller than 131 43,560 square feet (1 acre). 132 133 Tony Blake agreed with the perimeters of the clustering options laid out in the amendment. 134 135 Patrick Mallett concluded that since this is an ORC item, no action needs to be taken tonight, but that he wanted to give the 136 Committee time to think about it and raise any questions before it comes back to the Planning Board next month. 137 138 Tony Blake asked if there has been any movement on non-traditional septic systems in rural activity nodes. Has there been 139 any further discussion? 140 141 Patrick Mallett responded that there had not been any significant movement on this topic. 142 143 Michael Harvey added that there have been recent changes to state law as it relates to what the Environmental Health 144 Department (referred to hereafter as Health Department) can and cannot approve, and the practical answer to the question is 145 that it is in the hands of the Orange County Health Department. Planning Staff is in a reactionary mode to review septic 146 systems as a part of the development plan. 147 148 Tony Blake acknowledged the point, and noted that the Fiesta Grill is still restricted by the Health Department with the number 149 of tables they can have. He thinks that the business could be more robust if they could solve the septic problem. 150 151 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – REORGANIZATION OF TABLES OF 152 PERMITTED USES 153 To continue review and discuss proposed amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of 154 Permitted Uses in response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision. 155 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 156 157 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract. He reported that the Table of Permitted Uses and corresponding text amendments 158 have just been revised for the ninth time and that Staff has made significant progress. James Bryan, County Attorney’s Office, 159 has provided Planning Staff with comments, the majority of which are easily addressable. Michael reminded members of the 160 Committee that Planning Staff is collapsing all three tables into one Table of Permitted Uses, which is a commonsense move 161 4 from when the Table was created in 2011. Additionally, in previous discussions, the problem of calling a category such as 162 Retail by three different names in three different tables could expose the County to a lawsuit. The aim is to fix this problem 163 overall. Michael pointed to the first land use category to be reviewed in the Table of Permitted Uses: Agricultural Use (see 164 exclamation point symbol next to the category in the Table of Permitted Uses in ORC meeting materials). The proposed 165 change is a nomenclature change to identify or provide addition identification for land uses that have to abide by specific land 166 use criteria. Article 5 in the UDO has buffers, setbacks and other requirements and limitations, so Planning Staff is coming up 167 with a methodology that helps readers understand that there is further reading they have to do. The County Attorney’s Office 168 has not provided comments on that point, but they have asked Planning Staff to review the use of special symbology and 169 recommended that it be collapsed. Even though Staff may be using a different symbol than an exclamation point, there is 170 going to be a symbol in the Table of Permitted Uses to identify those categories that have special regulatory standards 171 associated with their development. The next area to review is definitions for land use categories. See the 172 Automotive/Transportation category. Planning Staff was identifying uses that were not specifically listed that could be allowed 173 in certain districts with a Special Use Permit (i.e. Automotive/Transportation Uses Not Listed Herein !). The County Attorney’s 174 most recent opinion on this category is that it will not withstand legal challenge, even with appropriate standards, and has 175 asked that it be deleted. So, there will no longer be a “catchall” category for any land use category. Planning Staff is working 176 with the County Attorney to ensure definitions pass legal sufficiency muster and capture activities that are encouraged in 177 association with the category. 178 179 Paul Guthrie remarked that Planning Staff is essentially creating a defacto “other” category. 180 181 Michael Harvey responded that based on James Bryan’s opinion as of a week ago, they are prohibited from having an “other” 182 or “catchall” category. 183 184 Tony Blake asked if that premise applies to all the land use categories. 185 186 Michael Harvey confirmed that yes; this applies to all land use categories. He then moved on to address the Adult, Child Care 187 and Educational categories. Michael reported that James Bryan, County Attorney, expressed concern that Adult Daycare 188 Home was too similar to Family or Group Care Homes, but after reviewing definitions and state licensing requirements, Mr. 189 Bryan determined his concern was not founded. Thus, the Adult Daycare Home category will remain. Much like a daycare for 190 children, the Adult Daycare Home land use category is designed to provide an opportunity for adults, elderly folks and others 191 to engage in social activities in somebody’s home. 192 193 Tony Blake asked if an Adult Daycare Home is similar to the program Visiting Angels? 194 195 Michael Harvey responded that the programming is similar, but it is not from the standpoint that the person bringing meals to 196 someone’s house is not being regulated, as it is not a land use activity. Using Tony Blake as an example, Michael said that 197 Tony delivering a meal to someone’s house or volunteering to spend some time in someone’s home is not, in his opinion, a 198 regulated activity. Tony would have a private agreement with the person living in the house or the organization. 199 200 Tony Blake asked if that the distinguishing point in this scenario is having a place of business or physical location for the 201 business. This question was followed-up with a question on mobile veterinary clinics. How is a mobile veterinary clinic 202 regulated? Why are mobile veterinary clinics not allowed in the Rural Buffer? 203 204 Michael Harvey responded that a mobile veterinary clinic is not allowed in the Rural Buffer from a staging standpoint. A 205 mobile veterinary clinic could come to someone’s house within the Rural Buffer to provide a service, but the mobile veterinary 206 clinic could not open the business and stage the business in the Rural Buffer. A property owner in the Rural Buffer cannot 207 engage cannot stage the business on his/her property. 208 209 Michael Harvey continued the presentation. The land use category Non Profit Educational Cooperative is being eliminated due 210 to its ambiguous definition. Planning Staff suspects that this category was originally created to provide opportunities for people 211 to have administrative offices providing multiple services and services to schools. However, this type of office is already 212 captured in the “Professional Office” category, so there is no need for this specific category. Furthermore, in regards to land 213 use, the County Attorney’s Office does not see a significant difference between a non-profit or for-profit status of the 214 organization. Regardless of that non-profit or for-profit, the impact will be the same. In review of the land use category of 215 5 Schools, Planning Staff has had a request to review the term “preparatory.” Is there a better term? Staff is working on this, but 216 elementary, middle and secondary are being combined into this centralized category. 217 218 Paul Guthrie asked how Planning Staff is defining preparatory. 219 220 Michael Harvey referenced and read aloud Attachment 3. 221 222 David Blankfard asked if preparatory schools included boarding schools. 223 224 Michael Harvey responded that boarding schools would also fall into this category, as long as the school is providing 225 education-based on a curriculum designed to satisfy the state of North Carolina’s Department of Education requirements. 226 227 Tony Blake asked if The Grange or a 4-H club or something similar would fit into the previously discussed category, Non Profit 228 Educational Cooperative. 229 230 Michael Harvey said no. Those types of clubs would be categorized as a lodge, club or social, fraternal, or other organization, 231 or even a camp. 232 233 Tony Blake noted that the primary goal of those clubs is education. 234 235 Paul Guthrie asked about how a home-based individual or organization that does counseling and training for kids in the 236 summer would be categorized. 237 238 Michael Harvey said that from his standpoint, this person would likely need a Home Occupation Permit. 239 240 Paul Guthrie followed-up by asking that if someone was engaging in online classes but also had a tutor or educator come to 241 her or his home, would these activities fall under a Home Occupation Permit? He also expressed some concern about the 242 grouping of all educational activities together without considering licensing requirements and other such qualifications that 243 someone might need, inclusive of graduate students who provide home-based tutoring. 244 245 Michael Harvey replied that he thought it was best that he and Paul meet together to discuss the category of Schools: 246 Preparatory in greater detail. He also provided clarification that tutoring services are covered in other land use categories, like 247 Schools: Technical, Trade, and Skill Training. There is another category detailing services that includes tutoring as well. 248 Michael concluded that he would put together an email on where tutoring is captured in Table of Permitted Uses and would 249 review the information with Paul and present it to the group to ensure the matter is addressed to the Board’s satisfaction. 250 251 Tony Blake asked if there was a new school being built off of Mount Carmel Church Road. 252 253 Michael Harvey explained this new building houses a daycare and that it is located within Chapel Hill’s jurisdiction. He 254 continued his presentation, noting that another big change Planning Staff is recommending is in regards to how schools are 255 permitted. Currently, schools are permitted with a Class A Special Use Permit, yet universities, colleges and institutes are 256 permitted by right in residential districts. Planning Staff does not understand the distinction. 257 258 Tony Blake noted that the distinction may have been made for government institutions. 259 260 Michael Harvey said that James Bryan, County Attorney, and Planning agree that since they are all educational institutions, 261 there is inherently no difference. The Emerson Waldorf School, as an example, has a Class A Special Use Permit. Using this 262 logic, there is no reason not to compel a university, college or institute to get a Special Use Permit and Planning Staff has 263 some standards they have compiled to do so. A concern that has come is about Duke Forest. Planning Staff believes that 264 Duke Forest is considered a research facility and institute. Staff has included new language in the Table of Permitted Uses 265 and revised Article 5 to give Duke University’s Duke Forest legitimacy as an institute under this construct. Duke Forest is a 266 teaching area, a research area and an open space preservation area. Planning Staff wants to encourage and promote that. 267 Mr. Harvey continued his presentation, moving on to Construction in the Table of Permitted Uses. He said that Staff went to a 268 level of detail here to address concerns, but upon review, the County Attorney is now suggesting that instead of having the 269 6 details in the Table, it is better to have Construction Offices as a category, and then spell-out storage in the actual Article 5 270 provisions and district standards. So, what is listed in the Table, as the Committee sees it, will be moved to Article 5. The next 271 category for review is Extractive Uses, a topic of much discussion over the years. Michael defined Extractive Uses as taking 272 anything out of the ground, mining anything out of the ground, including gas, rock, ore, whatever. Planning is likely pre-empted 273 from state law from engaging in a lot of regulatory detail with this. It is Mr. Harvey’s considered opinion that after proposing 274 this organizational layout where we listed “no on-site processing,” (not permitted) and “on-site processing” that a better way to 275 lay this out will be for Extracted Uses to be the category, and then Article 5 will state a prohibition of on-site processing, which 276 is what we currently have and will leave as is. 277 278 Tony Blake noticed that under the category of Construction, grading, earth-moving and the like are not included. 279 280 Michael Harvey responded that while those activities are not specifically listed – 281 282 Paul Guthrie asked about Chapel Hill Gravel and Cape Granite gravel pits. 283 284 Michael Harvey asked if he meant American Stone off of Highway 54 kind-of-example. 285 286 Paul Guthrie responded that no, he was thinking about the one off of Damascus Church Road (Merritt’s Gravel Pit, Inc). 287 288 Michael Harvey replied that that is in Carrboro’s zoning jurisdiction, but that it is a good example for this discussion. The best 289 example of what has been permitted in the County is American Stone off of Highway 54, which is allowed to do incidental 290 processing (i.e. the breaking up of rock into smaller rock). The Ordinance does not allow for - and what we want to avoid is - 291 putting in an asphalt plant to take the rock and mix it with chemicals to turn it into asphalt. If you are allowed to get gas, the 292 only option is converting it or using it for some other purpose on-site, other than the gas being mined and then being directly 293 removed. 294 295 Paul Guthrie said that this aspect is also regulated in effect, because when the pits are empty, they could become a water 296 supply. He said that we do not want contamination while they are doing their stone work. 297 298 Michael Harvey agreed that the goal is that there is no contamination. He pointed to the quarry off of NC Highway 57 which 299 has been there many, many years. He recalled that there was a movement when he first started with the County in 2005 to 300 develop an asphalt plant at the facility. Planning Staff wrote a very long, in-depth letter to not only the applicant but also to the 301 state to say that the Ordinance did not allow for this activity. 302 303 Tony Blake asked if the County was sued after this letter was sent. 304 305 Michael Harvey responded that no, they were anticipating that they may get sued, but the project never materialized. He 306 thinks that the ultimate goal in this category is to be consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the existing regulation. 307 He acknowledged that there will still be extraction of earth products, but the first condition under Article 5 is going to be no on-308 site processing, with appropriate language to address Paul’s observation that Planning is not trying to prohibit incidental 309 manufacturing of mined product. However, this incidental product will not be allowed to be further processed it into asphalt or 310 another product. Mr. Harvey continued his presentation and discussed the category of Financial Institutions. He said that the 311 following question came-up: Are we really going to prohibit pawn shops, currency exchange, and payday loan? Planning Staff 312 is recommending that these land uses be prohibited. He reminded the Committee that per recent court decision, Planning 313 Staff is obligated to list uses that are prohibited. If a land use category is not listed or somehow not captured within the land 314 use category as Staff defines them, it is viewed and deemed to be permitted by law. 315 316 Paul Guthrie asked about currency exchange. What is Staff’s definition? 317 318 Michael Harvey defined currency exchange as the conversion of cash by a place that is not a bank. 319 320 Paul Guthrie noted that there are several of these places in Orange County, most of which are in city jurisdictions. He said 321 there is a place off of Mount Carmel Church Road, a little old gas station that is now a store. It also advertises the sending of 322 money to various places. He asked if this place of business is what Mr. Harvey was referring. 323 7 324 Michael Harvey replied that no, the current exchange refers to the changing of money from one currency to another (e.g. I 325 bring you 100 pounds of English money and you change it to $100 of American money). Someone wiring money through 326 Western Union is not currency exchange. That is a wire service. 327 328 Paul Guthrie asked if it would be different if the exchange was for reverse currency. 329 330 Michael Harvey responded with the example that if he wired Paul Guthrie money and it goes through Western Union and the 331 money then comes to Tienda Market off of Mount Carmel Church Road, zoned EC-5 (Existing Commercial), then all the 332 business is doing is giving you the cash that was wired to them, completing a wire service. Mr. Harvey continued with the 333 presentation. He said that the land uses of Credit Agencies and Institutions are broken-out. Planning Staff may collapse these 334 categories since they can be defined within Professional Office, versus having 15 uses. It is probably easier to have in the 335 definitional framework than try to come-up with a listing for every possible professional office. 336 337 Tony Blake asked why ATMs are so restricted. He made the point that the public may want an ATM at any place where a bank 338 could be located, even a standalone ATM at a convenience store or other place. 339 340 Michael Harvey answered that while he does not think that the category is too restrictive, he does realize that currently, 341 standalone ATMs are only allowed in a few districts. He made the point that when you start looking at the other uses allowed 342 in those districts, it is a question of ensuring that Planning Staff is also consistent with the land use categories as defined 343 within the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan. He reflected that it sounded like Staff should review where standalone ATMs 344 should be located again, which Staff will do during the next review. Staff may consider treating standalone ATMs as an 345 accessory use to a retail operation as a prevision of retail. One of the reasons Staff is providing a difference between banks 346 with and without ATMs is so that there are existing regulations in UDO that deal with prohibition of drive thru lanes, which can 347 affect the impact of ATMs. Staff was trying to ensure that if a bank was moving into an area where drive thrus are prohibited 348 that the bank was not excluding, especially since drive thrus are just one facet of the bank. This was a compromise for a bank 349 to have reasonable use that may be located in the Hillsborough Economic Development District, for example, wherein drive 350 thrus are prohibited. 351 352 Kim Piracci asked why there cannot be pawn shops or currency exchange or payday loan establishments? 353 354 Michael Harvey answered that from his standpoint and from the standpoint of a couple of County Commissioners, payday loan 355 businesses can be viewed as predatory lending agencies, and that they, along with pawn shops, are not acceptable in Orange 356 County. He believes that we can encourage other land uses that are more productive. 357 358 Kim Piracci asked if there was a certain judgment going on with pawn shops, payday loans and currency exchanging. 359 360 Michael Harvey replied in the affirmative. 361 362 Paul Guthrie asked about currency exchange being allowed in a bona fide bank, not as a separate use. 363 364 Michael Harvey answered that currency exchange is part of a bank and part of the bank’s operation. The change in the Table 365 limits currency exchange or a pawn shop as a standalone use. 366 367 Randy Marshall reviewed the Table of Permitted Uses to confirm that there is no zoning district where these aforementioned 368 uses are permitted. 369 370 Michael Harvey responded that the land use has to be listed even though it is prohibited in all zoning districts. 371 372 Paul Guthrie asked if the County Attorney believes that pawn shops can be barred in this manner. 373 374 Michael Harvey replied that yes, and the Table is now in its third iteration of review, so there has been time to mull over this 375 matter. 376 377 8 Committee members talked amongst themselves. 378 379 Michael Harvey continued the presentation. The next category for review is Government Services. Planning Staff aims to 380 simplify the uses in the Definitions section (e.g. Government Facilities and Other Buildings (i.e. Administrative, Health 381 Education, etc.), will be listed out in Definitions). 382 383 Tony Blake asked that if the Table of Permitted Uses is a blacklist, why not just eliminate these uses. 384 385 Michael Harvey answered that currently, Government Facilities and Office Buildings are permitted everywhere along with 386 Government Protective Services. There may be some districts wherein the County Commissioners want to discourage these 387 uses. For example, Government Facilities and Office Buildings are not allowed in Existing Commercial, Existing Industrial, 388 Agricultural Services, and certain Economic Development Districts. 389 390 Kim Piracci asked for clarification that these said government facilities only includes county facilities. 391 392 Michael Harvey answered that the Table may not be able to refer to county government only as the reference may be 393 inconsistent with the law. This is being reviewed with the County Attorney. 394 395 Kim Piracci raised the example of a mini police station in University Mall, a County entity within a non-government facility. 396 397 Michael said that the County would not discourage the Sheriff’s office from having a County Sheriff’s substation somewhere. 398 399 Kim Piracci asked if there used to be a DMV in the same area. 400 401 Michael Harvey confirmed this and added that DMVs are private contractors that get a licensing agreement with the state to 402 run the office. They are independently owned. 403 404 Kim Piracci said that DMVs are still a state office with no County jurisdiction. 405 406 Michael Harvey acknowledged this point and said that yes, unfortunately state entities are limited - 407 408 Tony Blake asked if as state contractors they are limited. 409 410 Michael Harvey answered that it does not matter if DMV services are independently provided by a contractor or not; they are 411 an operative with the state of North Carolina until their license is revoked. 412 413 Tony Blake said that he was asking this question from a firefighter’s perspective because they are governed under state 414 statutes, not County statute, although their budget is approved by the BOCC. 415 416 Randy Marshall asked for confirmation that there are correctional and detention centers in Orange County but that they are 417 located in municipalities. 418 419 Michael Harvey confirmed this. There is the jail at the county courthouse and there is the detention center on Highway 86 near 420 the State Employees Credit Union. He believes that the County Attorney’s Office may say that this categorization may not 421 work. They may argue that if you say detention center, you have to allow it in certain sections of the UDO, and you may not 422 have a choice as the state can put a center in no matter what, per eminent domain. Mr. Harvey continued with his 423 presentation. The next category to be discussed is Manufacturing, Assembly, and Processing. The takeaway from this 424 category is that the County Attorney’s office would prefer that we collapse these uses and use definitions for details. The 425 Planning Director and Economic Development Director have identified a need for specificity; as you are marketing property to 426 support development, companies like to see the use specifically listed so that they have some assurance that a land use is 427 permitted. Michael said that he is going to have to figure out a way to make this work, and as Planning Staff makes decisions, 428 they will keep the Committee up to speed on any modifications. 429 430 9 Craig Benedict spoke about this dynamic. He said that listing “like manufacturing” within categories is too broad. Different 431 businesses have asked for more specificity. He said that Planning Staff is trying to find a balance between listing everything 432 and being too vague. For example, we had three different levels of retail, but they were not listed or defined. 433 434 Michael Harvey replied that the retail and certain office land uses were based on the anticipated daily number of traffic trips 435 generated by a proposed use from low intensity (0 to 210 trips) to medium (over 200 trips-400 trips) to high intensity (over 400 436 trips). The County Attorney and Planning Staff were concerned that an individual will not know the daily traffic impact. An 437 individual going through an arduous development design process will have to identify what the traffic impact and will then have 438 to determine if the use is permitted. It is better to say retail will work outright and then come-up with square footage limitations 439 to provide specificity. In Neighborhood Commercial and Local Commercial zoning districts, low intensity non-residential 440 districts, it will be possible to do retail development up to 12,000 square feet, which would equate to a low traffic volume while 441 allowing for retail of reasonable size to serve the needs of the community. The idea is to accomplish the same result that a 442 traffic study could do with square footage limitations. This seems to be more reasonable than an individual having to hire an 443 engineer to spend thousands of dollars on a traffic study to determine that they may not even be able to be in that location. 444 This was the County Attorney’s original concern, and Planning Staff seems to have addressed it. 445 446 Randy Marshall provided the example of Southern States as a business that may sell a pesticide but does not manufacture it. 447 448 Michael Harvey responded that there is whole sale trade in retail. If the question is if Southern States could combine two 449 products to sell, there is a provision in Manufacturing that may allow for that. However, the primary business of Southern 450 States is retail and the square footage limitation will limit some of the intensity of the activity. 451 452 Randy Marshall referred to a custodial supply company on Highway 54 that made cleaning products. 453 454 Michael Harvey said that there are land use categories that allow for that type of manufacturing but not in the Neighborhood 455 and Local Commercial zoning districts that are established on Highway 54. Instead, this type of manufacturing will be in 456 Economic Development Districts where the idea is to encourage and promote higher intensity land uses like manufacturing 457 where there are typically the services there to satisfy their needs. 458 459 Randy Marshall said that manufacturing of cleaning compounds is not listed in the Table of Permitted Uses. Would the 460 business to which he was referring be non-compliant? 461 462 Michael Harvey responded that not all uses are noted in the Table and that there are some businesses that are non-compliant. 463 He thanked Mr. Marshall for his bringing this category to his attention. He will look into it. 464 465 David Blankfard asked about pharmaceutical manufacturing in greenhouses or grow-houses. Is this a permitted use under 466 Manufacturing? 467 468 Michael Harvey answered that this example sounded like a permitted use under Agricultural Uses - Greenhouses with On-469 Premise Sales. 470 471 David Blankfard said that he was thinking of the company Medicago which is growing tobacco plants to make vaccines and do 472 research. 473 474 Michael Harvey said that this type of activity is captured within Manufacturing under Pharmaceutical and Medicine 475 Manufacturing. Mr. Harvey continued his presentation. The next category is Medical Uses. Health Services includes doctor’s 476 offices or specialists. These offices are allowed in numerous locations; the qualifier is that they are limited by square footage, 477 now detailed in Article 5. Staff added the category Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories which may have to be broadened 478 since Medical Uses – Uses Not Listed Herein is being eliminated. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers were also 479 added. Next, in the land use category of Recreation, the main addition is Theaters. Theaters can be both indoor and outdoor, 480 and Staff has proposed standards in Article 5 spelling out where indoor and outdoor theaters can be located and able to show 481 a motion picture and performance, the activity being the same. In review of the category Residential, Planning Staff has added 482 Health and Personal Care Facilities per a February discussion with the Boards. These facilities, by definition, are designed to 483 capture assisted living, nursing homes, and institutionalized housing for people who need it. They essential have the same 484 10 impact and all provide essentially the same service. Staff does not want to distinguish between an assisted and a Medicare 485 facility as they are both providing a necessary service. In response to this, a County Commissioner has asked if Planning is 486 trying to encourage this type of service in rural areas of the County. Mr. Harvey’s recommendation is no; it needs to be 487 encouraged in areas of the County that have the facilities to support it, specifically water and sewer services. It can be 488 problematic to have a Carolina Meadows-style facility in a rural area where there are no facilities (Carolina Meadows has its 489 own water and sewer) and where there may not be water and sewer for a very long time, especially in consideration of areas 490 in the Rural Buffer. 491 492 Kim Piracci asked about recreation activities such as live music, which she noticed is not specifically listed. She worried that if 493 something like live music is not listed, it is prohibited. 494 495 Michael Harvey answered that live music is detailed in the Article 5 and that he will email her the provisions. Regulatory 496 standards deal with hours of operation, setbacks and other standards. The Sheriff’s Office deals with noise complaints. 497 498 Randy Marshall asked if Recreational Uses Not Listed Herein is a catchall. 499 500 Michael Harvey answered that the land use will be going away. In response to general comments from Committee members 501 on various recreational activities like rollerblading, motorcross, race track and such, Mr. Harvey responded that with the global 502 category Recreational Facilities spells out a myriad of activities. If someone straps on a pair of rollerblades and skates in a 503 park, this is not a regulated activity, whereas proposing to build a skating rink is a regulated activity. The Recreational Facility 504 is the ultimate catchall and it was recently revised two years ago. 505 506 Paul Guthrie brought-up the example of the cricket field off of Old Greensboro Road on someone’s property, holding games 507 on the weekend. 508 509 Michael Harvey said that the issue that the neighbors of the cricket field are upset about is in regards to waste and bathroom 510 facilities - how is that being addressed during cricket games? Planning Staff is aware that there is a league that is advertising 511 the field for games on the property and is taking money from players that are joining the league’s membership. This is a 512 pending enforcement matter. He went on to say that the goal of the County is not to say that you cannot hold a pick-up 513 basketball game, a cricket game, or the like on your property, but when there is more of an organization component to the 514 activity, it has ancillary impacts, and people may need to go through a process. People coming over to play poker or pool at 515 someone’s house does not make the house a pool hall. There is a limit to which regulation should play. Mr. Harvey continued 516 his presentation. The next topic of discussion is Services and he read aloud the categories within. He highlighted the addition 517 of Religious Facility. This category is meant to be a catchall for all places of worship. Currently, “church” is the only category 518 defined, and over the years, members of the public and applicants have raised issue with not fitting into this category. What 519 about a synagogue or a mosque or an ashram? This is new category is an attempt to convey that the County does not 520 discriminate against religious facilities. Mr. Harvey focused next on Telecommunications. While this category has existing 521 language, there will be a wholesale modification of these standards next year. The next category of discussion was Temporary 522 Uses. He said that there has been some debate on the need for this category based on questions around legal sufficiency. 523 Planning Staff has been working with the County Attorney to address these questions. 524 525 David Blankfard asked about what constitutes “temporary.” 526 527 Michael Harvey answered that “temporary” is defined by standards in the UDO and in the Definitions section. For example, 528 you could have a yard sale once a month. The category of Buildings – Portable is usually in reference to initial storage for 529 construction. It is possible that Planning Staff may have to add another category to the Table referring to a temporary 530 residential unit (e.g. temporary mobile home or recreational vehicle) that can be stationed temporarily on your property while 531 you are doing construction on your house, though it must be removed within 90 days. The Temporary Fund Raising Activity is 532 permitted, providing that these activities do not exceed two days per month, though there is no definition of this in Definitions. 533 534 Paul Guthrie asked about an activity such as fundraising during the holiday season outside of the grocery store where 535 someone puts money into a basket. 536 537 11 Michael Harvey responded that that activity would count in this category, as would selling Christmas Trees if it is a fundraising 538 activity versus retail. In Mr. Harvey’s opinion, the Girl Scouts selling cookies is retail not fund raising. Mr. Harvey moved on 539 with the presentation and addressed the land use category of Utilities in the Table. He said that Planning Staff is not proposing 540 any major changes in this category or in Waste Management that the UDO has not already covered. In regards to the 541 category of Wholesale Trade, Staff thinks that this category captures everything already listed. In Miscellaneous, uses that 542 have been deleted have been moved to the appropriate category within the Table. He noted that Staff is still not touching 543 airports but that Staff is reviewing Rural Special Events. 544 545 Paul Guthrie asked about the significance of the exclamation point symbol noted after the land use in the Table of Permitted 546 Uses, as shown after S.T.O.L. within the Airport land use category. 547 548 Michael Harvey answered that the exclamation point is meant to inform the reader of development criteria associated with the 549 land use. 550 551 Tony Blake asked about how much affect Planning Staff has over research, development and manufacturing of firearms. Can 552 Staff prohibit that? 553 554 Michael Harvey answered that missiles manufacturing is prohibited. 555 556 Tony Blake gave the example of two of his neighbors making large fireworks. They also have A.T.F. Class III magazines on 557 their property. 558 559 Michael Harvey asked if this activity happens on their residence. 560 561 Tony Blake answered yes. 562 563 Michael Harvey suggested that they should have a Home Occupation Permit, which under some circumstances, may give 564 them authority to do some of these activities. However, this specific use will not lead to – on a larger scale - gun or 565 ammunition manufacturing in the Economic Development Districts as this is currently written. 566 567 Michael Harvey concluded his presentation and made note that he owes Paul Guthrie feedback on schools, tutoring and a few 568 other things. He will spell-out for Kim Piracci the outdoor performance hours and standards for an outdoor theater. He asked 569 what else he could check on? 570 571 Kim Piracci asked if there would be any discussion in the Table on Airbnbs? 572 573 Michael Harvey replied that some County residents have complained about purported Airbnbs, so the topic will have to be 574 addressed. His general take on the matter is that if you are renting out your house, he legally cannot tell you if you can do that 575 for a weekend, week or month. An Airbnb is still a single family residence; it is being used for a truncated period of time. If you 576 rent your house and are not there and are providing an amenity or service to your guests, it becomes more like a bed and 577 breakfast or something else and a permit may be needed. There are different grades of a bed and breakfast that existing 578 regulations would handle. 579 580 Kim Piracci followed-up that she asked the question with some California counties in mind that are trying to recoup lost taxes 581 from Airbnbs. 582 583 Michael Harvey made the comment that it is not the responsibility of the Land Use Enforcement Officer to ensure the tax 584 viability of the County. Planning Staff gets similar complaints on non-registered motor vehicles as well. While we do inform the 585 tax office, Staff is charged with determining if the vehicle is “junked” and if it is junked, compelling compliance with the Code. If 586 it is not an operational vehicle, then it may need to be removed. 587 588 Craig said there have been mixed reviews on Airbnbs in that they provide a service and bring in tourism dollars. 589 590 12 Paul Guthrie said that in the university community, there are a large number of rentals of university faculty’s homes while 591 faculty is on sabbatical or and other such cases. 592 593 Tony Blake said that an Airbnb in the County is likely not competing with a hotel in town. There could be an issue with noise. 594 595 Michael Harvey answered that there is the perceived issue and the real issue; the real issue is noise or traffic or whatnot . The 596 perceived issue is “I don’t like it.” Mr. Harvey then summarized the follow-up work he would be doing for the Committee and 597 since revised drafts will be coming out soon, he encouraged members to contact him with any additional questions. The 598 Planning Board will be looking at this in August to make a recommendation to the elected officials. 599 600 Tony Blake asked if the hours would be the same and consistent for Rural Special Events. 601 602 Michael Harvey replied that hours would not necessarily be the same. Some theaters are only allowed in commercial districts. 603 Planning Staff bases hours of operation for an event on whether it will be adjacent to residential land uses or residential 604 zoning. If an event is going to be in the middle of an Economic Development District, is there a reason to have a 10 o’clock 605 curfew? 606 607 Tony Blake called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Kim Piracci made the motion. Paul Guthrie seconded the motion. 608 ORC meeting was adjourned by consensus 609 610 611 612 ___________________________________ 613 Lydia Wegman, Chair 614