HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 040418Approved 5/2/2018
SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 APRIL 4, 2018 3
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5
NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 6 7
MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Randy 8
Marshall, At-Large; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill 9
Township; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township 10
Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, 11
Bingham Township Representative; 12
13
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River 14
Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; 15
16
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Patrick Mallett, 17
Planner II; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II. 18
19
AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call 20
21
Randy Marshall called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 22
23
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FLAGPOLE AND FLAG 24 REGULATIONS - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the Unified Development Ordinance that 25
will add regulations pertaining to flagpoles and flags. 26
27
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 28
29
Michael Harvey: The Ordinance Review Committee (or ORC) is a subcommittee of the Planning Board responsible 30
for offering initial comment(s)/observation(s) on proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance 31
(or UDO). The ORC meets on an as needed basis, typically before the convening of the monthly regular Planning 32
Board meeting to review proposed text amendments in an informal, unofficial, setting. 33
34
As indicated this is a subcommittee. No decisions are made during this portion of the meeting. 35
36
Tonight I am going to review with you a proposed text amendment to the UDO designed to clarify standards 37
governing the height, number, and location of flagpoles as well as the size of flags erected on property within the 38
County's planning jurisdiction. 39
40
The overall purpose and intent of the amendment is to ensure uniformity with respect to the display of flags and the 41
allowable height of flagpoles within Orange County. Although there are regulations contained within the UDO 42
regulating flags, there is a concern said regulations are unclear. 43
44
Recently concerns have been expressed to the elected officials over the lack of clear, definitive standards, governing 45
the erection of flagpoles and size of flags that can be erected/flown. 46
47
The Board of County Commissioners directed the County's Attorney office to review potential language designed to 48
clarify existing regulation(s) with respect to the overall allowable height of flagpoles as well as the allowable size of 49
flags in an effort to ensure the display of flag(s) does not dominate local skylines. 50
Approved 5/2/2018
51
Planning staff, consistent with established protocols, sought approval of an Amendment Outline Form (AOF) by the 52
Board of County Commissioners establishing the parameters of such an amendment as well as anticipated 53
timeline(s) for review and action. At its March 20, 2018 regular meeting the Board approved the Form scheduling a 54
public hearing to review the amendment at its May 1, 2018 regular meeting. 55
56
The County's Attorney office provided language deemed to meet legal sufficiency requirements, which is contained 57
within Attachment 2 of your package. 58
59
The proposed regulation(s) are necessary to ensure uniformity with respect to the size and number of flags that can 60
be displayed on property as well as clarify the measurable standard that will be employed relating to the allowable 61
height any erected flagpole. 62
63
The proposed language, however, is content-neutral. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously held local 64
governments may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of what is viewed as protected 65
speech, provided the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, are without 66
reference to content, and leave open sufficient alternate means of communicating the message. 67
The proposed language solely focuses on these categories and does not contemplate what message may or may not 68
be communicated on any erected flag. 69
70
As written, the amendment would clarify existing regulations to ensure adherence to the following specific standards: 71
72
1. Within a residential general use zoning district (including Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, and Rural 73
Residential) the amendment allows for the erection of a single flagpole with a maximum height limit of 24ft. A 74
maximum of 3 flags could be displayed, with each flag being a maximum of 24 sq.ft. in area (or 4ft. by 6ft. in size) on 75
a residentially zoned parcel; 76
77
2. Within all other general use zoning districts, the amendment allows up to 3 flags and 3 individual flagpoles. Each 78
flag can be a maximum of 96 sq.ft. in area (or 8ft. by 12ft. in size). Flagpoles shall be a maximum of 54 ft. in height; 79
80
3. In all general use zoning districts a flagpole shall be required to observe a 50 ft. setback from all property lines 81
82
4. As written Section 6.12.12 of the UDO would contain an amortization provision requiring nonconforming flags and 83
flagpoles, legally erected prior to the adoption of this amendment, to be brought into compliance within 1year from 84
the Ordinance being adopted. 85
86
5. As written Section 6.12.13 of the UDO contains language exempting flags, no greater than 12 inches in height, 87
displayed on individual grave sites within a cemetery from the provisions of the Ordinance. 88
89
As previously indicated the proposed language is content neutral and does not establish a ban on any flag. 90
91
Staff has no additional comments on the proposal, which has already received approval from the County's Attorney 92
office as meeting legal sufficiency. 93
94
David Blankfard asked for clarification that any flags flying now that do not meet this ordinance would have one year 95
to come into compliance. 96
97
Michael Harvey confirmed that. 98
99
Meeting was adjourned and was to reconvene after Planning Board Item 7 on Flagpole/ Flag regulations. 100
101
Approved 5/2/2018
AGENDA ITEM 4: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – HP-CZ (HOME PARK – CONDITIONAL 102 ZONING) DISTRICT - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that will clean up items that 103
were inadvertently omitted from amendments that were adopted in 2017. 104
105 PRESENTER: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 106
107
Patrick Mallett presented the item. He explained that the word “mobile” is being removed from the UDO because the 108
legal term now is a manufactured home and the intent is to allow for flexibility such as for home park operators to use 109
recreational vehicles temporarily. Also, there is a reference to existing mobile home parks and he will consult the 110
county attorney’s office on that because there is a taxation difference for mobile home parks. 111
112
113
AGENDA ITEM 5: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – ADD USES TO HP-CZ 114 DISTRICT - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that will add allowable potential uses 115
in the HP-CZ District 116
117
PRESENTER: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 118
119
Patrick Mallett said there is piece of property on which the county is considering creating a home park district. That 120
property would also include some governmental and recreational uses. These amendments would increase the cap 121
to 100 acres and allow for the governmental and recreational uses. 122
123
Kim Piracci said in Emerald Isle, North Carolina, there are parks that have both mobile homes and tiny homes. Is this 124
the intent? 125
126
Patrick Mallett said legally speaking, there is no such thing as a tiny home. Tiny homes have to fall in a variety of 127
categories. Most commonly, tiny homes are on wheels. They either have to be built to a stick-built standard, modular 128
home standard, or manufactured home standard or recreational vehicle model. The greatest difficulty to overcome is 129
that the framing dimensions do not meet any code. 130
131
Patrick Mallett said these amendments address home parks, manufactured homes or temporary residential units. 132
The temporary residential units have to meet the building code after being in place for 180 days. Temporary 133
residential units have a water and sewer hook-up like a recreational vehicle. 134
135
Planning Director Craig Benedict said North Carolina is addressing standards for smaller homes. 136
137
AGENDA ITEM 6: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – SUBDIVISION REVIEW 138 PROCESS - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that will modify subdivision review 139
processes, in accordance with Session Law 2017-10. 140
141
PRESENTER: Patrick Mallett, Planner II 142
143
Patrick Mallett said this amendment will mirror state legislation. This language created an expedited subdivision. If 144
the property is five acres and the property owner is creating no more than three lots, than the subdivision would be 145
expedited in that only a plat would be required. He thinks the intent for this regulation is for families to be able to 146
subdivide some property for family members. 147
148
149
Approved 5/2/2018
AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – SUBDIVISION REVIEW 150 PROCESS - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that will modify subdivision review 151
processes, in accordance with Session Law 2017-10. 152
153
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 154
155
Michael Harvey presented this item, which is on Page 54 of the agenda packet. He said neighborhood meetings give 156
the public an opportunity to ask questions. It also gives staff an opportunity to review and discuss at length the review 157
and approval process (for a given project). There are different requirements for neighborhood meetings in Orange 158
County. Staff is recommending keeping the neighborhood meeting for Major Telecommunications Tower Class A 159
(Special Use) Permits at 77 days before the public hearing. Staff is recommending bringing the other neighborhood 160
meetings into uniformity at 45 days before any meeting (public hearing). For conditional use districts, conditional 161
zoning districts and certain subdivisions, the date for the meeting will now be measured from the date of the 162
anticipated Planning Board meeting (where the project is slated for review) so that residents have time to prepare for 163
the Planning Board meeting. This creates a longer time period, separating the meeting dates out, so that residents 164
can articulate concerns. It also eliminates inconsistencies in the code. Staff is recommending that Class B 165
Telecommunications Tower Permits also be 45 days before the Board of Adjustment public hearing for uniformity. It 166
is now 42 days. 167
168
Hunter Spitzer asked why staff recommends keeping the 77-day requirement for the Class A Major 169
Telecommunications Tower Permits. 170
171
Michael Harvey answered those applications tend to be more controversial and require more information as well as 172
FCC approval and lighting of the tower, so it makes sense to require that neighborhood meeting be held further out. 173
174
Craig Benedict asked Michael Harvey to explain the difference between conditional use and conditional zoning, for 175
the benefit of new members who may not know. 176
177
Michael Harvey explained a conditional use district in the county’s code and under state law is a situation where 178
someone wants to build a gas station on property zoned residential and the county may like the gas station use (on 179
that property) but may not want the other land uses that could be allowed if the property was rezoned (to a new non-180
residential general use zoning district). The property owner could request that the property be rezoned for that 181
specific use (development of a gas station). In a quasi-judicial setting, the property owner would show that he or she 182
complies with the code. Through the conditional use district process, only expert testimony is considered and 183
decisions are made on said expert testimony. Under conditional zoning, the threshold for competent testimony is not 184
as high in that it does not require expert testimony. 185
186
Michael Harvey said for conditional zoning, the applicants seek approval for exactly how they plan to use the 187
property, including setting the setbacks, etc. And the board then votes to approve or deny the proposal. 188
189
190
191
192
193
Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 194