Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes 010219Approved 2.6.19 MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 2, 2019 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Alexander Gregory 7 (Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 8 Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township 9 Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard, 10 Hillsborough Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, 11 Cheeks Township Representative; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative. 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; 16 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, Administrative 17 Assistant III 18 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order 22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2019 25 26 MOTION by Kim Piracci to nominate Lydia Wegman as Chair. Seconded by Paul Guthrie 27 VOTE: Unanimous 28 29 Lydia Wegman asked if there were any nominations for Vice-Chair. 30 31 Alex Gregory replied he would stick his name in the hat. 32 33 Hunter Spritzer commented that he desired to be Vice-Chair. 34 35 Lydia Wegman asked Randy if he had an interest in Vice-Chair. 36 37 Randy Marshall replied I’m good. 38 39 Lydia Wegman stated okay and asked for any other nominations. She remarked that there had been nominations 40 for both Alex and Hunter and asked all in favor of Alex Gregory. 41 VOTE: 8 42 43 Lydia Wegman commented okay and then asked all in favor of Hunter Spritzer. 44 VOTE: 3 45 46 Lydia Wegman acknowledged that Alex won and extended a congratulations. 47 48 Alex Gregory elected as Vice-Chair. 49 50 51 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 52 a. Planning Calendar for January and February 2019 53 - Planning Board meeting scheduled for February 6, 2019. 54 55 Approved 2.6.19 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 56 November 7, 2018 Training Notes 57 November 7, 2018 Regular Meeting 58 November 7, 2018 Ordinance Review Committee Notes 59 60 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the November 7, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes and the November 7, 2018 61 Ordinance Review Committee Notes. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. 62 VOTE: Unanimous 63 64 65 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 66 67 68 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 69 Chair Lydia Wegman waived the reading of the Public Charge. 70 71 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 72 73 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 74 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 75 the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 76 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 77 needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 78 and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 79 effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 80 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 81 82 PUBLIC CHARGE 83 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 84 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 85 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 86 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 87 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 88 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 89 90 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 91 There were none 92 93 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS -To make a recommendation to the 94 BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO regarding stormwater regulations, in response to changes in State 95 laws. 96 97 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 98 99 Michael Harvey presented the abstract beginning on page 13, the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text 100 Amendments to address the Enforcement of Nutrient Standards within the Jordan Lake Watershed. Mr. Harvey 101 summarized that erosion sedimentation control is regulated on non-farm activities through two processes; one 102 through the enforcement of erosion control standards, and the other through enforcement of stormwater standards. 103 These regulations deal with both water quantity and water quality. These standards have been implemented in 104 accordance with applicable state law, which are enforced throughout the County. A couple years back the state 105 eliminated the ability of the local government to enforce nutrient standards in the Cape Fear River Basin otherwise 106 known as the Jordan Lake Watershed, so they could continue to study the most effective stormwater management 107 strategy to address nutrient issues in that particular river basin. Mr. Harvey stated that the standards had already 108 been adopted, and yet the state has eliminated our authority to adopt/implement/enforce those standards. This text 109 amendment is designed to do a couple of different things. It first brings our ordinance into compliance with state law, 110 Approved 2.6.19 and second, updates outdated terminology. There have been changes in the names of state departments that 111 regulate this and there has been a change in nomenclature referring to stormwater features. These were formerly 112 known as Best Management Practices or (BMPs). They are now referred to as Stormwater Control Measures or 113 (SCMs). In the (UDO), all (BMPs) have been changed to (SCMs). Mr. Harvey advised that the text amendment has 114 been reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and by the Development Advisory Committee with no issues and the 115 staff’s recommendation is to approve the Statement of Consistency as attached in Attachment (1) and to approve the 116 actual amendment itself as contained in Attachment (2). 117 118 Mr. Harvey welcomed any questions. 119 120 Paul Guthrie questioned who had the ultimate final jurisdiction on Lake Jordan. 121 122 Michael Harvey replied that the state and the Army Corp of Engineers. 123 124 Paul Guthrie asked whether or not it was still a possession of the Army Corp of Engineers. 125 126 Michael Harvey responded that it is a water body of the U.S. meaning the Army Corp has jurisdiction, but the state is 127 addressing nutrient issues through the adoption of stormwater rules. This process means the state is working with 128 multiple entities. 129 130 Paul Guthrie commented as long as the Clean Water Act keeps that definition. 131 132 Michael Harvey confirmed to his knowledge the answer is yes. 133 134 Alex Gregory questioned whether the standards were being released as a best practice as they are currently being 135 studied and decided. 136 137 Michael Harvey stated, the state was re-evaluating the standards and attempting to develop new best practices with 138 respect to nutrient reduction. Mr. Harvey said he believed there is supposed to be an update to the General 139 Assembly in 2020. He added there is no estimated completion on the study or its submittable rules, and what we 140 know right now is that there are standards in the UDO that are unenforceable and need to be removed. 141 142 Kim Piracci mentioned that she had read something that said these rules are supposed to be passed, but aren’t 143 passed and asked whether this is a regulation that is going to be passed or is passed. 144 145 Michael Harvey clarified that the General Assembly has eliminated local government’s authority to enforce the 146 nutrient standards relating to water quality issues into a river basin. He reiterated that these are unenforceable 147 standards that will need to be removed from the UDO as the enforcement of same cause litigation concerns. 148 149 Lydia Wegman questioned whether the rules still apply in the Neuse River Basin. 150 151 Michael Harvey confirmed that enforcement of nutrient reduction standards within the Neuse has not been altered by 152 the state. He reminded the board that there are still stormwater regulations in the Cape Fear River Basin, just not 153 water-quality standards, but reasserted that there are water-quantity standards local development is still required to 154 abide by. He stated, for a lot of you that does not address the nutrient concerns you have, but hopefully, it is 155 resolved in the next year or two. Once the state adopts a final nutrient reduction strategy, the county will be able to 156 amend the UDP incorporating these new standards and enforce them. 157 158 Alex Gregory expressed that it seemed as though the current regulation was more about keeping water from flowing. 159 Water level like previously mentioned versus silt runoff, or something from disturbing the land. 160 161 Michael Harvey confirmed. 162 163 Alex Gregory commented that we would usually require a regulation on that, but now it’s just don’t block the water. 164 165 Approved 2.6.19 Michael Harvey explained that erosion control standards are not being impacted by this ordinance amendment. 166 What is being impacted is the quality of the water leaving the site. 167 168 Lydia Wegman asserted the total amount of water leaving the site is still regulated. 169 170 Michael Harvey agreed. 171 172 Lydia Wegman responded with but not the quality of that water. 173 174 Michael Harvey confirmed. 175 176 Carrie Fletcher sought clarification on whether the quality issue would be addressed within one to two years. 177 178 Michael Harvey advised that that’s the hope but it was up to state officials to complete work on this before local 179 governments could take action to implement and enforce new nutrient reduction standards. 180 181 Carrie Fletcher responded with is there any teeth to get it sooner. 182 183 Michael Harvey replied, no. We are at the whim of the General Assembly and the entities that are studying the issue 184 and trying to come up with a solution to address the concerns which forced the descending of the Jordan Lake rules. 185 186 Carrie Fletcher commented so, it could be nudged with popularity from citizens. 187 188 Michael Harvey acknowledged that it could be nudged, but stated you are also relying on several different entities 189 studying the matter to respond to nudging. 190 191 Paul Guthrie mentioned that the water quality issue, what is in the water, is on the public mind. In the long term, the 192 erosion and fill-in is the biggest threat because over time that will reduce the capacity of Jordan Lake. Mr. Guthrie 193 reminded the Board the lake was originally developed and intended to serve as a flood control project. He 194 questioned if anybody had looked at that context at both of those at the same time. 195 196 Michael Harvey responded that he did not have an answer. He said the county still enforces erosion control 197 standards and reminded the Board this amendment did not impact that program. 198 199 Paul Guthrie questioned whether the Army Corp of Engineers under federal law have the ability to look into it. 200 201 Michael Harvey informed that ultimately, they do, but whether or not it is their priority is a different question. 202 203 Kim Piracci sought clarification and asked Mr. Harvey to reiterate the downside of not amending the ordinance. 204 205 Michael Harvey explained that we are unable to enforce nutrient reduction standards within the Cape Fear river 206 basin. If we attempted to enforce these standards we subject ourselves to possible litigation, which staff and the 207 Attorney’s office believe we would lose. He suggested it is cleaner to remove something that has no legal basis in 208 the law to have in the ordinance anymore rather than to potentially subject yourself to possible legal action for 209 attempting to, or not attempting to, enforce your ordinance. He reminded the board that property owners cannot 210 currently be held to this standard. He explained that there have been attempts to remove these provisions when 211 state law was modified approximately a year-and-a-half ago. Unfortunately the current Engineering and Erosion 212 Control supervisor was unable to complete the assignment as mandated by the Director. He said Mr. Benedict 213 assigned him the task to complete the project approximately six months ago and it is now coming to a conclusion. 214 215 Hunter Spitzer stated there is a reason why we can’t recommend a developer voluntarily adhere or adopt the 216 standard, is that correct. 217 218 Approved 2.6.19 Michael Harvey replied, no. If a developer wants to do it, that is their personal decision. We cannot hold them to it. 219 The county cannot mandate they abide by it. There is no longer any legal basis allowing for the enforcement of 220 nutrient reduction standards in the basin. He reiterated the standards need to come out of the UDO. 221 222 Lydia Wegman questioned whether that could be something that the public and neighbors might ask of the 223 developer, and the developer could look into it on their own. 224 225 Kim Piracci asked if farming practices was the bigger problem with this particular issue. 226 227 Michael Harvey replied I think the totality of development activity, meaning the disturbance of land, is responsible for 228 these issues. He reminded the Board farming is not regulated by these standards as such operations are exempt 229 from zoning. 230 231 Lydia Wegman asked for any other questions or comments. 232 233 Hunter Spritzer remarked that it seemed like this is the county’s only recourse. 234 235 Michael Harvey commented regrettably, but it is necessary. 236 237 MOTION by Hunter Spritzer to recommend the Statement of Consistency and approve the UDO Text Amendments. 238 Seconded by Alex Gregory. 239 VOTE: Passed 9-2 (Guthrie, Piracci opposed) 240 241 Kim Piracci remarked if this isn’t my drinking water than it is other people’s drinking water. It is getting polluted, and I 242 am on the on the planning board and feel we need to take a stand and address the issue head on. 243 244 Paul Guthrie explained that this encourages something that has been going on at Lake Jordan since the day it was 245 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, 246 you can’t get anywhere with that over the long haul. He asserted that what this is doing aside from water quality is 247 reducing the ability of the lake to protect the downstream and quantity of water that goes in heavy rainfall. He stated 248 that he thinks it goes beyond Orange County and therefore votes, no. 249 250 Lydia Wegman commented that she wanted clarification that there were still water quantity regulations. 251 252 Michael Harvey replied, yes. We enforce water quantity standards through erosion control and through stormwater 253 permitting, but we can’t require compliance with water quality standards which are the removal of nitrogen and 254 phosphorus. 255 256 Craig Benedict explained that since all of the comments were out, he wanted to give a post log to the discussion. He 257 reported that in North Carolina many of the regulations are setting limits about what can be enforced. In the past , 258 there was no problem in exceeding what was being asked to be more restrictive or cleaner. He explained that we are 259 in a modified Dillion Rule State, and we only have the authority to enforce things that the state gives the authority to 260 enforce, so we are not independent. Until we get back to mode with some of the creativity and progressiveness we 261 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. 262 263 Lydia Wegman contributed that she felt the same indignation that Kim had expressed but understood the legalities of 264 why this route was being taken. She explained that she voted in favor because she thinks it is the best process to 265 keep us out of litigation. 266 267 Craig Benedict agreed and recommended that the amendment be passed. 268 269 Lydia Wegman questioned whether as citizens they could voice their indignation to the other leaders in an effort to 270 make the North Carolina policy different and exclude Orange County from this position. 271 272 Hunter Spitzer asked if they could defer recommendation on the amendment until 2020. 273 Approved 2.6.19 274 Craig Benedict responded that this had already been on the books for too long and that is why they are proceeding to 275 remove it from the UDO. 276 277 Kim Piracci asked how long we had been a Dillion State. 278 279 Craig Benedict replied since Day 1. We only have the authority to regulate as the legislator gives us the power. 280 281 Kim Piracci questioned whether Dillion’s Law just not being implemented or whether it is something that was recently 282 invented. 283 284 Craig Benedict explained that in the past the policy had been set with minimum standards and that it had been 285 acceptable to perform beyond those standards. 286 287 Kim Piracci asked even though we were a Dillion State. 288 289 Craig Benedict replied, yes. He informed that there are now maximum standards and that it is not acceptable to 290 perform below or above the standard threshold. 291 292 Kim Piracci questioned whether the Dillion’s Law was in the constitution. 293 294 Craig Benedict explained that the Dillion Rule originated from a previous legislator. 295 296 Lydia Wegman remarked that she did not believe it was in the constitution. 297 298 Craig Benedict said that it was just the way the process had been set to establish powers. He advised the board that 299 they would receive a handout to view the information. 300 301 Lydia Wegman informed that the Planning Board, in light of the situation that the county finds it in, it has been 302 approved, but there are still concerns. She stated that the Planning Board continues to support nutrient controls and 303 hopes that there can be acceleration on the part of the state in developing nutrient requirements, so the county can 304 propose them. 305 306 307 AGENDA ITEM 9: EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN -To receive an update on updates to the 308 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan. 309 310 PRESENTER: Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner 311 312 Nish Trivedi mentioned to the board that the Public Hearing scheduled on November 1st of last year had been 313 continued and rescheduled to February 5th. He mentioned that the updates would also be presented to the 314 OUTBoard on the 16th of January and to Economic Development on the 8th of January. He stated that the Planning 315 Board provided recommendations to approve the plan with two conditions. The first condition was to provide the plan 316 with more clarity on what the plan is and is not. The second condition was how the plan would meet specific goals 317 and objectives in the plan. Additional content has been added to the plan which addresses the two conditions. The 318 plan will be released no later than January 31. 319 320 Lydia Wegman questioned when the plan would be posted to the web. 321 322 Nish Trivedi responded no later than January 31 before the public hearing. 323 324 Alex Gregory asked if he thought that would give the public a better idea of what the plan is and is not. 325 326 Nish Trivedi confirmed that he did. 327 328 Approved 2.6.19 Lydia Wegman questioned and that is then the planning board will be able to see it as well on the 31st. 329 330 Nish Trivedi stated, yes. 331 332 Lydia Wegman asked if there was a Board of Commissioners meeting on the 16th. 333 334 Nish Trivedi informed her that there is an OUTBoard meeting on the 16th. 335 336 Nish Trivedi continued his updates. 337 338 Lydia Wegman asked whether the board would have a chance to see the comments from the Economic 339 Development meeting. 340 341 Nish Trivedi advised that the comments would be provided. 342 343 Nish Trivedi continued his updates and stated that a lot of content on the public involvement process had been added 344 to the planning update. Nish reminded the board that the document would be released and online January 31st with 345 track changes showing where additional content had been added since the last time it was reviewed. He stated that 346 the Public Hearing would take place February 5th at the Whitted Building at 7:00 p.m. 347 348 Craig Benedict added that in addition to the importance of an Access Management Plan there are also four additional 349 criteria involved with new development that assist with the economic development potential of properties and the 350 development restrictions. 351 352 Lydia Wegman stated that there had been a lot of confusion on the part of the public of why it was being performed 353 and the overall Access Management Plan. She asked if Craig thought the concerns of the public had been 354 addressed in the plan’s updates and if he thought the members of the public with concerns had a clearer 355 understanding. 356 357 Craig Benedict replied, yes. He explained that the Access Management Plan makes sense and that the plan would 358 not directly affect the person possibly farming the land but would affect the neighbor who buys the land from them for 359 future development. He mentioned meeting with people individually to explain development on a case-by-case basis 360 and mentioned that information could be found on the website should people have any concerns. 361 362 Lydia Wegman replied with a thank you and asked for further questions. 363 364 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 365 The meeting was adjourned by consensus. 366 367 368 369 Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 370