HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board agenda 020619 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
t
17 'i2
Fz
Y
�arr`' QdY tl"�Q
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
NOTE CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION!!
WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
131 W. MARGARET LANE, 2ND FLOOR
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
3 - 4 a. Planning Calendar for February and March
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5 - 5 January 2, 2019 Training Notes
6 - 13 January 2, 2019 Regular Meeting
14 - 18 January 2, 2019 Ordinance Review Committee Notes
4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
5. PUBLIC CHARGE
Introduction to the Public Charge
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development
laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and
future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that
contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB
will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services
during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
Public Charge
The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this
meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County
staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to
observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it
become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the
Page( Agenda Item
meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and
computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate.
Please be kind to everyone.
6. CHAIR COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE
MAIL FOR PERDITA HOLTZ(919-245-2578).
3
Sunday7 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
Notes:
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required or
Encouraged
WCOB=West Campus Office Building(131 W.
Margaret Lane, Hillsborough)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Regular BOCC Planning Board
Meeting Meeting
7:00 pm 7:00 pm*
Whitted WCOB 204
Building
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
BOCC Work Joint
Session 7:00 BOCC/Town Of
pm Southern Hillsborough
Human @7:00 pm
Services Whitted
Building
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Regular BOCC OUTBoard
Meeting meeting @
7:00 pm 6:30 pm
Southern WCOB 204
Human
Services
24 25 26 27 28
4
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2
Notes:
*Planning Board Member Attendance Required or
Encouraged
WCOB=West Campus Office Building(131 W.
Margaret Lane, Hillsborough)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Planning Board Regular BOCC
Meeting Meeting
7:00 pm* 7:00 pm
WCOB 204 Whitted
Building
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Legislative BOCC Work
Breakfast Session 7:00
8:30am @ pm Southern
Solid Waste Human
Services
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Regular BOCC OUTBoard Joint
Meeting meeting @ BOCC/Town Of
7:00 pm 6:30 pm Chapel Hill
Southern WCOB 204 @7:00 pm
Human Southern
Services Human
Services
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
� 31
5
1 SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 2,2019
4 TRAINING SESSION
5
6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions.
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexander Gregory(Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large;
9 Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; David
10 Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative;
11
12 STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant III
13
14
15 AGENDA ITEM 1: PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION — Staff will lead training on the Special Use Permit (SUP)
16 process for subdivisions.
17 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisory
18
19
20 Michael Harvey conducted a training session on the Special Use Permit(SUP) process for subdivisions.
1
6
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 2,2019
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair),At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative;Alexander Gregory
8 (Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative;
9 Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci,At-Large;Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township
10 Representative; Hunter Spitzer,At-Large; Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard,
11 Hillsborough Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts,
12 Cheeks Township Representative;
13
14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative.
15
16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor;
17 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina Love,Administrative
18 Assistant III
19
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
22 Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order
23
24
25 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2019
26
27 MOTION by Kim Piracci to nominate Lydia Wegman as Chair. Seconded by Paul Guthrie
28 VOTE: Unanimous
29
30 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any nominations for Vice-Chair.
31
32 Alex Gregory replied he would stick his name in the hat.
33
34 Hunter Spritzer commented that he desired to be Vice-Chair.
35
36 Lydia Wegman asked Randy if he had an interest in Vice-Chair.
37
38 Randy Marshall replied I'm good.
39
40 Lydia Wegman stated okay and asked for any other nominations. She remarked that there had been nominations
41 for both Alex and Hunter and asked all in favor of Alex Gregory.
42 VOTE:8
43
44 Lydia Wegman commented okay and then asked all in favor of Hunter Spritzer.
45 VOTE:3
46
47 Lydia Wegman acknowledged that Alex won and extended a congratulations.
48
49 Alex Gregory elected as Vice-Chair.
50
51
52 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
53 a. Planning Calendar for January and February 2019
54 - Planning Board meeting scheduled for February 6, 2019.
55
7
56 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
57 November 7, 2018 Training Notes
58 November 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
59 November 7, 2018 Ordinance Review Committee Notes
60
61 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the November 7, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes and the November 7, 2018
62 Ordinance Review Committee Notes. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer.
63 VOTE: Unanimous
64
65
66 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
67
68
69 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE
70 Chair Lydia Wegman waived the reading of the Public Charge.
71
72 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE
73
74 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute,
75 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development law of
76 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and
77 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner,which considers the present and future
78 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to
79 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every
80 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our
81 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
82
83 PUBLIC CHARGE
84 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its
85 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with
86 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this
87 public charge,the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual
88 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting
89 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
90
91 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS
92 There were none
93
94 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS-To make a recommendation to the
95 BOCC on proposed amendments to the LIDO regarding stormwater regulations, in response to changes in State
96 laws.
97
98 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
99
100 Michael Harvey presented the abstract beginning on page 13, the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) Text
101 Amendments to address the Enforcement of Nutrient Standards within the Jordan Lake Watershed. Mr. Harvey
102 summarized that erosion sedimentation control is regulated on non-farm activities through two processes;one
103 through the enforcement of erosion control standards, and the other through enforcement of stormwater standards.
104 These regulations deal with both water quantity and water quality. These standards have been implemented in
105 accordance with applicable state law, which are enforced throughout the County. A couple years back the state
106 eliminated the ability of the local government to enforce nutrient standards in the Cape Fear River Basin otherwise
107 known as the Jordan Lake Watershed, so they could continue to study the most effective stormwater management
108 strategy to address nutrient issues in that particular river basin. Mr. Harvey stated that the standards had already
109 been adopted, and yet the state has eliminated our authority to adopt/implement/enforce those standards. This text
110 amendment is designed to do a couple of different things. It first brings our ordinance into compliance with state law,
8
111 and second, updates outdated terminology. There have been changes in the names of state departments that
112 regulate this and there has been a change in nomenclature referring to stormwater features. These were formerly
113 known as Best Management Practices or(BMPs). They are now referred to as Stormwater Control Measures or
114 (SCMs). In the(UDO), all(BMPs)have been changed to (SCMs). Mr. Harvey advised that the text amendment has
115 been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and by the Development Advisory Committee with no issues and the
116 staffs recommendation is to approve the Statement of Consistency as attached in Attachment(1) and to approve the
117 actual amendment itself as contained in Attachment(2).
118
119 Mr. Harvey welcomed any questions.
120
121 Paul Guthrie questioned who had the ultimate final jurisdiction on Lake Jordan.
122
123 Michael Harvey replied that the state and the Army Corp of Engineers.
124
125 Paul Guthrie asked whether or not it was still a possession of the Army Corp of Engineers.
126
127 Michael Harvey responded that it is a water body of the U.S. meaning the Army Corp has jurisdiction, but the state is
128 addressing nutrient issues through the adoption of stormwater rules. This process means the state is working with
129 multiple entities.
130
131 Paul Guthrie commented as long as the Clean Water Act keeps that definition.
132
133 Michael Harvey confirmed to his knowledge the answer is yes.
134
135 Alex Gregory questioned whether the standards were being released as a best practice as they are currently being
136 studied and decided.
137
138 Michael Harvey stated,the state was re-evaluating the standards and attempting to develop new best practices with
139 respect to nutrient reduction. Mr. Harvey said he believed there is supposed to be an update to the General
140 Assembly in 2020. He added there is no estimated completion on the study or its submittable rules, and what we
141 know right now is that there are standards in the UDO that are unenforceable and need to be removed.
142
143 Kim Piracci mentioned that she had read something that said these rules are supposed to be passed, but aren't
144 passed and asked whether this is a regulation that is going to be passed or is passed.
145
146 Michael Harvey clarified that the General Assembly has eliminated local government's authority to enforce the
147 nutrient standards relating to water quality issues into a river basin. He reiterated that these are unenforceable
148 standards that will need to be removed from the UDO as the enforcement of same cause litigation concerns.
149
150 Lydia Wegman questioned whether the rules still apply in the Neuse River Basin.
151
152 Michael Harvey confirmed that enforcement of nutrient reduction standards within the Neuse has not been altered by
153 the state. He reminded the board that there are still stormwater regulations in the Cape Fear River Basin,just not
154 water-quality standards, but reasserted that there are water-quantity standards local development is still required to
155 abide by. He stated,for a lot of you that does not address the nutrient concerns you have, but hopefully, it is
156 resolved in the next year or two. Once the state adopts a final nutrient reduction strategy, the county will be able to
157 amend the UDP incorporating these new standards and enforce them.
158
159 Alex Gregory expressed that it seemed as though the current regulation was more about keeping water from flowing.
160 Water level like previously mentioned versus silt runoff,or something from disturbing the land.
161
162 Michael Harvey confirmed.
163
164 Alex Gregory commented that we would usually require a regulation on that, but now it's just don't block the water.
165
9
166 Michael Harvey explained that erosion control standards are not being impacted by this ordinance amendment.
167 What is being impacted is the quality of the water leaving the site.
168
169 Lydia Wegman asserted the total amount of water leaving the site is still regulated.
170
171 Michael Harvey agreed.
172
173 Lydia Wegman responded with but not the quality of that water.
174
175 Michael Harvey confirmed.
176
177 Carrie Fletcher sought clarification on whether the quality issue would be addressed within one to two years.
178
179 Michael Harvey advised that that's the hope but it was up to state officials to complete work on this before local
180 governments could take action to implement and enforce new nutrient reduction standards.
181
182 Carrie Fletcher responded with is there any teeth to get it sooner.
183
184 Michael Harvey replied, no. We are at the whim of the General Assembly and the entities that are studying the issue
185 and trying to come up with a solution to address the concerns which forced the descending of the Jordan Lake rules.
186
187 Carrie Fletcher commented so, it could be nudged with popularity from citizens.
188
189 Michael Harvey acknowledged that it could be nudged, but stated you are also relying on several different entities
190 studying the matter to respond to nudging.
191
192 Paul Guthrie mentioned that the water quality issue,what is in the water, is on the public mind. In the long term,the
193 erosion and fill-in is the biggest threat because over time that will reduce the capacity of Jordan Lake. Mr. Guthrie
194 reminded the Board the lake was originally developed and intended to serve as a flood control project. He
195 questioned if anybody had looked at that context at both of those at the same time.
196
197 Michael Harvey responded that he did not have an answer. He said the county still enforces erosion control
198 standards and reminded the Board this amendment did not impact that program.
199
200 Paul Guthrie questioned whether the Army Corp of Engineers under federal law have the ability to look into it.
201
202 Michael Harvey informed that ultimately, they do, but whether or not it is their priority is a different question.
203
204 Kim Piracci sought clarification and asked Mr. Harvey to reiterate the downside of not amending the ordinance.
205
206 Michael Harvey explained that we are unable to enforce nutrient reduction standards within the Cape Fear river
207 basin. If we attempted to enforce these standards we subject ourselves to possible litigation,which staff and the
208 Attorney's office believe we would lose. He suggested it is cleaner to remove something that has no legal basis in
209 the law to have in the ordinance anymore rather than to potentially subject yourself to possible legal action for
210 attempting to, or not attempting to, enforce your ordinance. He reminded the board that property owners cannot
211 currently be held to this standard. He explained that there have been attempts to remove these provisions when
212 state law was modified approximately a year-and-a-half ago. Unfortunately the current Engineering and Erosion
213 Control supervisor was unable to complete the assignment as mandated by the Director. He said Mr. Benedict
214 assigned him the task to complete the project approximately six months ago and it is now coming to a conclusion.
215
216 Hunter Spitzer stated there is a reason why we can't recommend a developer voluntarily adhere or adopt the
217 standard, is that correct.
218
10
219 Michael Harvey replied, no. If a developer wants to do it,that is their personal decision. We cannot hold them to it.
220 The county cannot mandate they abide by it. There is no longer any legal basis allowing for the enforcement of
221 nutrient reduction standards in the basin. He reiterated the standards need to come out of the LIDO.
222
223 Lydia Wegman questioned whether that could be something that the public and neighbors might ask of the
224 developer, and the developer could look into it on their own.
225
226 Kim Piracci asked if farming practices was the bigger problem with this particular issue.
227
228 Michael Harvey replied I think the totality of development activity, meaning the disturbance of land, is responsible for
229 these issues. He reminded the Board farming is not regulated by these standards as such operations are exempt
230 from zoning.
231
232 Lydia Wegman asked for any other questions or comments.
233
234 Hunter Spritzer remarked that it seemed like this is the county's only recourse.
235
236 Michael Harvey commented regrettably, but it is necessary.
237
238 MOTION by Hunter Spritzer to recommend the Statement of Consistency and approve the UDO Text Amendments.
239 Seconded by Alex Gregory.
240 VOTE: Passed 9-2(Guthrie, Piracci opposed)
241
242 Kim Piracci remarked if this isn't my drinking water than it is other people's drinking water. It is getting polluted,and 1
243 am on the on the planning board and feel we need to take a stand and address the issue head on.
244
245 Paul Guthrie explained that this encourages something that has been going on at Lake Jordan since the day it was
246 first considered, it's a big federal project or it's a big state action and we can't act right now on this particular problem,
247 you can't get anywhere with that over the long haul. He asserted that what this is doing aside from water quality is
248 reducing the ability of the lake to protect the downstream and quantity of water that goes in heavy rainfall. He stated
249 that he thinks it goes beyond Orange County and therefore votes, no.
250
251 Lydia Wegman commented that she wanted clarification that there were still water quantity regulations.
252
253 Michael Harvey replied,yes. We enforce water quantity standards through erosion control and through stormwater
254 permitting, but we can't require compliance with water quality standards which are the removal of nitrogen and
255 phosphorus.
256
257 Craig Benedict explained that since all of the comments were out, he wanted to give a post log to the discussion. He
258 reported that in North Carolina many of the regulations are setting limits about what can be enforced. In the past,
259 there was no problem in exceeding what was being asked to be more restrictive or cleaner. He explained that we are
260 in a modified Dillion Rule State, and we only have the authority to enforce things that the state gives the authority to
261 enforce,so we are not independent. Until we get back to mode with some of the creativity and progressiveness we
262 have tried to do in the past,we are having to roll back some of our regulations that we had intact for 20 plus years.
263
264 Lydia Wegman contributed that she felt the same indignation that Kim had expressed but understood the legalities of
265 why this route was being taken. She explained that she voted in favor because she thinks it is the best process to
266 keep us out of litigation.
267
268 Craig Benedict agreed and recommended that the amendment be passed.
269
270 Lydia Wegman questioned whether as citizens they could voice their indignation to the other leaders in an effort to
271 make the North Carolina policy different and exclude Orange County from this position.
272
273 Hunter Spitzer asked if they could defer recommendation on the amendment until 2020.
11
274
275 Craig Benedict responded that this had already been on the books for too long and that is why they are proceeding to
276 remove it from the UDO.
277
278 Kim Piracci asked how long we had been a Dillion State.
279
280 Craig Benedict replied since Day 1. We only have the authority to regulate as the legislator gives us the power.
281
282 Kim Piracci questioned whether Dillion's Law just not being implemented or whether it is something that was recently
283 invented.
284
285 Craig Benedict explained that in the past the policy had been set with minimum standards and that it had been
286 acceptable to perform beyond those standards.
287
288 Kim Piracci asked even though we were a Dillion State.
289
290 Craig Benedict replied, yes. He informed that there are now maximum standards and that it is not acceptable to
291 perform below or above the standard threshold.
292
293 Kim Piracci questioned whether the Dillion's Law was in the constitution.
294
295 Craig Benedict explained that the Dillion Rule originated from a previous legislator.
296
297 Lydia Wegman remarked that she did not believe it was in the constitution.
298
299 Craig Benedict said that it was just the way the process had been set to establish powers. He advised the board that
300 they would receive a handout to view the information.
301
302 Lydia Wegman informed that the Planning Board, in light of the situation that the county finds it in, it has been
303 approved, but there are still concerns. She stated that the Planning Board continues to support nutrient controls and
304 hopes that there can be acceleration on the part of the state in developing nutrient requirements, so the county can
305 propose them.
306
307
308 AGENDA ITEM 9: EF LAN D-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN-To receive an update on updates to the
309 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan.
310
311 PRESENTER: Nish Trivedi,Transportation Planner
312
313 Nish Trivedi mentioned to the board that the Public Hearing scheduled on November 1st of last year had been
314 continued and rescheduled to February 51h. He mentioned that the updates would also be presented to the
315 OUTBoard on the 161h of January and to Economic Development on the 81h of January. He stated that the Planning
316 Board provided recommendations to approve the plan with two conditions. The first condition was to provide the plan
317 with more clarity on what the plan is and is not. The second condition was how the plan would meet specific goals
318 and objectives in the plan. Additional content has been added to the plan which addresses the two conditions. The
319 plan will be released no later than January 31.
320
321 Lydia Wegman questioned when the plan would be posted to the web.
322
323 Nish Trivedi responded no later than January 31 before the public hearing.
324
325 Alex Gregory asked if he thought that would give the public a better idea of what the plan is and is not.
326
327 Nish Trivedi confirmed that he did.
328
12
329 Lydia Wegman questioned and that is then the planning board will be able to see it as well on the 31 s�
330
331 Nish Trivedi stated, yes.
332
333 Lydia Wegman asked if there was a Board of Commissioners meeting on the 16th
334
335 Nish Trivedi informed her that there is an OUTBoard meeting on the 16tn
336
337 Nish Trivedi continued his updates.
338
339 Lydia Wegman asked whether the board would have a chance to see the comments from the Economic
340 Development meeting.
341
342 Nish Trivedi advised that the comments would be provided.
343
344 Nish Trivedi continued his updates and stated that a lot of content on the public involvement process had been added
345 to the planning update. Nish reminded the board that the document would be released and online January 31st with
346 track changes showing where additional content had been added since the last time it was reviewed. He stated that
347 the Public Hearing would take place February 51h at the Whitted Building at 7:00 p.m.
348
349 Craig Benedict added that in addition to the importance of an Access Management Plan there are also four additional
350 criteria involved with new development that assist with the economic development potential of properties and the
351 development restrictions.
352
353 Lydia Wegman stated that there had been a lot of confusion on the part of the public of why it was being performed
354 and the overall Access Management Plan. She asked if Craig thought the concerns of the public had been
355 addressed in the plan's updates and if he thought the members of the public with concerns had a clearer
356 understanding.
357
358 Craig Benedict replied,yes. He explained that the Access Management Plan makes sense and that the plan would
359 not directly affect the person possibly farming the land but would affect the neighbor who buys the land from them for
360 future development. He mentioned meeting with people individually to explain development on a case-by-case basis
361 and mentioned that information could be found on the website should people have any concerns.
362
363 Lydia Wegman replied with a thank you and asked for further questions.
364
365 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT
366 The meeting was adjourned by consensus.
367
368
369
370 Lydia N. Wegman, Chair
13
1 SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JANUARY 2,2019
4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
5
6 NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair),At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative;Alexander Gregory
9 (Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Hunter
10 Spitzer,At-Large; Kim Piracci,At-Large;Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie,At-
11 Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham
12 Township Representative;
13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor;
15 Tina Love,Administrative Assistant III
16
17 AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call
18 Planning Board Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order.
19
20 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS-SIGNS-To review and discuss
21 proposed amendments to the LIDO regarding signs
22
23 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
24
25 Michael Harvey reviewed the proposed amendments to the UDO and provided background information. Mr. Harvey
26 reviewed pages 4-6 of the abstract packet and guided the board through various changes to the language of the
27 drafted ordinance.
28
29 Kim Piracci asked about the wording of 6.12.3(1)and asked if the wording meant five-feet setback for signs off a
30 road.
31
32 Michael Harvey responded, no, the sign setback was five feet of the edge of the right of way.
33
34 Kim Piracci asked for clarification.
35
36 Michael Harvey explained that with roadways you have a right of way in which a roadway is located. He clarified that
37 Ordinance in Section 6.12.3(1) requires signs to be a minimum of five feet from the edge of that right of way. It does
38 not matter where the road is, the setback is measured from the edge of the right of way.
39
40 Alex Gregory commented so the right of way is larger than the road.
41
42 Michael Harvey agreed.
43
44 Craig Benedict stated that the road might only be 24 foot of pavement.
45
46 Michael Harvey agreed, but stated that if you have a 100-foot right of way, your sign has to be 5 feet from the edge of
47 that right of way. He reminded the board that with public roads that is where your property line technically starts, at
48 the edge of that right of way.
49
50 Kim Piracci questioned the legality of signs placed within five feet of a busy corner near her home.
51
52 Michael Harvey responded that she was correct in her thinking that the signs are illegally placed, but informed her
53 that he had no legal authority to enforce regulatory standards in public rights of way. He advised that DOT had to
54 remove those signs. The only exception under state law would be political signs.
14
55
56 Kim Piracci mentioned that she was still seeing those as well.
57
58 Michael Harvey stated that the county was unable to base a decision to remove a sign based on the content. He
59 suggested that if he were to do that even with the currently ordinance language, litigation could arise and that they
60 would likely suffer a loss.
61
62 Kim Piracci mentioned that they were not under the law because of the content but their location.
63
64 Michael Harvey replied because they were located within the right of way he had no authority under the ordinance to
65 compel their removal.
66
67 Paul Guthrie asked what about non-public roads.
68
69 Michael Harvey acknowledged that that was actually covered by a different provision of the ordinance. He advised
70 that it has to be set back out of all rights of way.
71
72 Lydia Wegman questioned the timeline given in the section regarding flags 6.12.3 (G) (1).
73
74 Michael Harvey replied that the deadline would be May of this year.
75
76 Lydia Wegman asked if that would be made clear.
77
78 Michael Harvey assured that the clock would not be reset.
79
80 Lydia Wegman responded thank you, I just wanted to be sure.
81
82 David Blankfard questioned how many days house sales signs could be placed.
83
84 Michael Harvey stated that had not been determined yet. He replied that it was covered in page 8 of the draft text.
85 He stated that 30 days after the house is sold, it must be removed. Mr. Harvey reminded the board this was still a
86 work in process but he felt it important to ensure members were exposed to the proposed reorganization and
87 changes in standards to address content neutral sign regulations.
88
89 Lydia Wegman asked Mr. Harvey to clarify that subsection 4 was for garage sales.
90
91 Michael Harvey confirmed that the section addressed garage sales,yard sales, and anytime the home is open to the
92 public.
93
94 Lydia Wegman sought clarification on David's questions. She questioned whether temporary signs were defined
95 somewhere.
96
97 Michael Harvey asserted that they will be.
98
99 Lydia Wegman responded but not yet.
100
101 David Blankfard asked if a permit was required to place a temporary sign.
102
103 Michael Harvey replied, no, he stated that he was not interested in permitting these as they are already authorized by
104 the ordinance.
105
106 Lydia Wegman asked whether there would be a definition of what temporary consisted of.
107
108 Michael Harvey responded,yes.
15
109
110 Randy Marshall asked how to get the jurisdiction to tell someone that they can only put a sale sign for the house if
111 they get a real estate agent.
112
113 Michael Harvey responded with I don't and referred board members to review language in subsection (B).
114
115 Randy Marshall replied but he still has to do the same timeline.
116
117 Michael Harvey stated that the property has to be listed for sale and then 30 days after the sale has been contracted,
118 the sign has to be removed. It is laid out that way to provide some distinction about who has the authority to say a
119 property is or is not for sale instead of just saying real estate signs.
120
121 Lydia Wegman questioned (D)(5)on page 8 regarding temporary signs during holiday periods. Her question was
122 whether that related to holiday lights.
123
124 Michael Harvey answered that it could be displays of Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, or when lights are
125 associated.
126
127 Lydia Wegman replied but only five signs.
128
129 Michael Harvey confirmed yes, and stated that that may change.
130
131 Randy Marshall questioned if there had been any comment concerning the impact of this on houses of worship.
132
133 Michael Harvey responded, no, because they are all going to be held to standards contained in this ordinance.
134
135 Michael Harvey continued his presentation and resumed on prohibited signs,page 9.
136
137 David Blankfard questioned whether Mr. Harvey was defining a sign as a placard that has words on it.
138
139 Michael Harvey remarked that they have a current definitions that may have to be modified in order to ensure a
140 content neutral sign ordinance.
141
142 David Blankfard stated that they could use emojis now.
143
144 Michael Harvey agreed and replied that any graphic display could convey a message, but they are unable to regulate
145 what the message is. He stated that we are able to prohibit Jude, lascivious,or offensive language, but where that
146 particular fine line was drawn will be a topic hotly debated.
147
148 Randy Marshall asked where do"no hunting"and "fishing signs"play in this.
149
150 Michael Harvey replied temporary signs.
151
152 Randy Marshall commented that some put their signs up for years because they don't want their land --
153
154 Michael Harvey remarked that they could do that because there was not time limit for some of the temporary signs.
155
156 Randy Marshall asked so if somebody circled their property with"no hunting"signs every 25 feet, that is allowable.
157
158 Michael Harvey stated that there are actually state regulatory standards to establish how you are supposed to identify
159 no trespassing on your property and that there's a provision in the proposed revised sign ordinance that says you can
160 erect signage consistent with state law.
161
16
162 Carrie Fletcher asked about signage on vehicles and trailers. She questioned if there were any compliance issues
163 with it and if there was jurisdiction.
164
165 Michael Harvey questioned whether she meant a big motorized sign in the right of way being driven.
166
167 Carrie Fletcher replied with, yes. She mentioned seeing cars pulling trailers with big signs.
168
169 Michael Harvey said, no and then commented that he did not think that they had any authority over those because of
170 their mobility.
171
172 Carrie Fletcher asked and if it's parked at a property.
173
174 Michael Harvey stated that technically we would have to make an argument that it is by default a sign, but the next
175 question is when a restaurant has catering van with a advertising material, is it a sign or a vehicle.
176
177 Carrie Fletcher responded, exactly.
178
179 Michael Harvey continued his presentation of the abstract by referring to page 10 and continued his explanation on
180 prohibited signs. Mr. Harvey discussed the language regarding permit requirements and submittal requirements and
181 the reasons for their recommendations. He explained that the subjects of expiration of permits,permit revocation,
182 and maintenance had not been discussed as they are not believed to contain any content-based issues. Mr. Harvey
183 then touched on signs regulations by district. He then stated that page 12 identified the cadence of how regulations
184 would be established and listed it as;size, height, number, location, illumination.
185
186 Lydia Wegman questioned the location of what page Mr. Harvey was referring to.
187
188 Michael Harvey responded pages 11 and 12.
189
190 Michael Harvey continued his presentation of the abstract and referred the board to the bottom of page 11.
191
192 Lydia Wegman questioned the meaning of"face"in signs 16 sq. ft. in area per face.
193
194 Michael Harvey replied sign face, specifically the area of the sign containing an advertising message.
195
196 Lydia Wegman had a question regarding left out wording after setbacks located on page 12(d).
197
198 Michael Harvey responded that it was because he did not have anything proposed yet.
199
200 Michael Harvey continued his presentation on the abstract and referred the board to pages 14-16.
201
202 Michael Harvey asked whether there were any concerns regarding the cadence or the manner in which the sign code
203 would be revised.
204
205 Paul Guthrie questioned how it would be policed.
206
207 Michael Harvey replied that proceedings will be initiated as violations are found in accordance with provision 6.12
208 and Article 9 located in the enforcement provision of the (LIDO).
209
210 Paul Guthrie commented that he asked because in some situations the owner may refuse it and then remarked that
211 removal would probably take a warrant.
212
213 Michael Harvey stated that if there is an illegal sign on your property,you are issued a notice of violation and then
214 have a certain time to bring it to compliance. If you refuse to do so, or appeal the decision,fines begin at about$500
17
215 a day. If the first civil penalty is not paid in 10 days,the County Attorney's Office can take you to court and compel
216 compliance.
217
218 Paul Guthrie commented that he believed it not to be good policy to enact something that is not enforceable.
219
220 Michael Harvey stated that his belief is that this will be more enforceable than the current code.
221
222 Michael Harvey advised the board that they will not be asked to approve this within the next month or two. He
223 commented that the process would be long and stated that he envisioned at least one more ORC session with the
224 board for drafts to be reviewed and commented on in preparation for a Planning Board Meeting. He stated that he
225 envisioned at least six months before action would be taken.
226
227 Alex Gregory asked what issues Mr. Harvey thought the public might potentially have.
228
229 Michael Harvey replied that he didn't see any adverse reaction other than the number of signs.
230
231 Paul Guthrie recommending thinking about mail cart systems as they are federal property.
232
233 Michael Harvey mentioned that since that is technically in the right of way and since it is federal property that he did
234 not believe that he had any enforcement or authority to begin with.
235
236 Adam Beeman asked about electronic billboards.
237
238 Michael Harvey mentioned that there are currently provisions on billboards and regulatory standards on how many
239 times they can change in a given 24-hour period. He stated that they are currently existing and will still exist in this
240 new ordinance. He remarked that time and duration could be regulated but not messages.
241
242 Kim Piracci questioned why the signs were not under Dillion's Rule and why the state was not mandating what the
243 rules are.
244
245 Michael Harvey replied that the state has actually said that the local government is going to adopt the regulatory
246 standards to address these issues, but they don't have to establish the parameters in which they do them.
247
248 Michael Harvey asked if there were any other questions.
249
250 David Blankfard asked if the ordinance would curtail or allow residential signage on their homes.
251
252 Michael Harvey replied that if it is offensive language then we have the authority to address it, but stated that it would
253 be interesting to see how far the attorney's office goes in supporting what they consider to be non-content based
254 standards. He stated that turning the side of your house into a billboard would be a wall sign and is prohibited as
255 such.
256 Michael Harvey welcomed any further questions and then thanked the board.
257
258 ORC was adjourned through consensus