HomeMy WebLinkAbout020520 Planning Board MinutesApproved 8/5/20
MEETING MINUTES 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2
FEBRUARY 5, 2020 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Representative; David Blankfard (Vice-Chair), Hillsborough 6
Township Representative; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township 7
Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township 8
Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Carrie Fletcher, 9
Bingham Township Representative 10
11
MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative; 12
Hathaway Pendergrass, At-Large Representative 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 15
16
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 17
Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order 18
19
AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 20
21
MOTION by Hunter Spitzer, seconded by Lydia Wegman and Randy Marshall, nominating David Blankfard to be 22
Chair. There were no other nominations and the motion was approved unanimously 23
24
MOTION by Adam Beeman, seconded Randy Marshall, nominating Adam Beeman to be Vice-Chair. There were no 25
other nominations and the motion was approved unanimously 26
27
AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 28
29
a. Planning Calendar for February and March 30
31
AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32
December 4, 2019 33
34
David Blankfard: Are there any changes or corrections? 35
36
MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to approve the December 4, 2019 Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 37
VOTE: Unanimous 38
39
AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 40
41
There were none 42
43
AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 44
45
INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 46
The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 47
appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of 48
the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 49
harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future 50
needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to 51
and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every 52
Approved 8/5/20
effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our 53
deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 54
55
PUBLIC CHARGE 56
The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 57
citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 58
fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 59
public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the mee ting until that individual 60
regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 61
until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 62
63
AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 64
65
There were none 66
67
AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – EROSION CONTROL PERMITS - To 68
make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to the West Fork on the Eno 69
reservoir to address concerns over reservoir setbacks. This item was introduced at the November 6, 2019 ORC 70
meeting and is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on March 10, 2020. 71
72
PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 73
74
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract and proposed changes to the UDO and provided the Board within an updated 75
Attachment 4, an updated copy of the proposed amendment package. 76
77
Lydia Wegman: Does this amendment allow someone to expand an existing septic system or residence closer to the 78
reservoir? 79
80
Michael Harvey: No. Under Section 4.2.2 (F) you can make repairs to existing residences and septic systems and 81
even expand same but you cannot, in my mind, go closer to the actual reservoir. We do, however, want to recognize 82
the legal viability of the development and not penalize property owners for abiding by applicable rules at the time they 83
located their residences or septic systems. 84
85
Adam Beeman: Is there a discrepancy in the maps provided in the package? It seems the reservoir actually 86
includes property north of Carr Store Road. 87
88
Michael Harvey: The reservoir does extend north of Carr Store Road correct. That is why we have the revised 89
map(s) in your packet. Sorry for the confusion. 90
91
Hunter Spitzer: Why is the Town of Hillsborough not required to own the required buffer area? 92
93
Michael Harvey: (If you are referring to the required 150 ft. and 300 ft. setbacks for buildings and septic systems) 94
State law does not mandate the Town own the area required to comply with the established setbacks. That is one 95
reason for the amendment. 96
97
Craig Benedict: There probably should have been an easement required to ensure the area was protected by the 98
Town. And the Town had to negotiate with these property owners to secure the property necessary to accommodate 99
the reservoir. 100
101
Michael Harvey: This is one reason the County has regulations governing what constitutes existing development and 102
existing parcels when addressing compliance with required reservoir setbacks. 103
104
Patricia Roberts: Can someone replace an existing manufactured home with a stick built or modular residence? 105
Approved 8/5/20
Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO that would prevent that. All the property owner would have to do is 106
comply with applicable setback standards. 107
108
Michael Harvey: What this amendment does is establish a key date as it relates to the enforcement of the reservoir 109
setback from the West Fork on the Eno. The amendment establishes the date for staff to ascertain what constitutes 110
an existing lot and existing development when enforcing the required structure and septic setbacks. The UDO 111
contains waiver provisions for an existing lot so that property owners who own a parcel established prior to the 112
development or designation of a reservoir site with respect to locating a structure and septic system. Unfortunately 113
this amendment will not address everyone’s issues along the Eno. For example we have a property owner who has 114
subdivided his lot several times from 1997 to today. His property will not qualify as an existing lot under this 115
provision. The County staff chose the proposed date that made sense as it relates to the enforcement of reservoir 116
setbacks. February 12, 1997 is the date the West Fork on the Eno reservoir was established as it relates to 117
identifying the point where the 150 ft. structure and 300 ft. septic setback are taken from. 118
119
I am asking the Board to approve the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 3 and recommend the adoption of the 120
revised Attachment 4, which establishes the key critical date with respect to what constitutes exis ting development 121
and an existing lot along the West Fork on the Eno of February 12, 1997. 122
123
Hunter Spitzer: Is there a way to amend the proposal to change the dates for what constitutes a legal lot and existing 124
development to a different date? I am concerned there may be some property owners who will not qualify with the 125
February 12, 1997 date and we will make more structures nonconforming. 126
127
Michael Harvey: I am not comfortable with that. The intent of the identified sections is to define what qualifies as 128
existing development and an existing lot as it relates to when a reservoir was established. From the date a reservoir 129
is established, people who subdivide their property are obligated to abide by applicable reservoir setbacks for 130
structures and septic systems. I will remind all parties there is nothing in this section preventing a property owner 131
from seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment if they believe the strict interpretation of the UDO infringes on 132
their development or redevelopment of their property. 133
134
Hunter Spitzer: That only covers regulated subdivisions correct? 135
136
Michael Harvey: All property, created through the regulated, expedited, exempt subdivision processes, are required 137
to abide by the established setbacks when they develop their property. This is handled as part of the zoning 138
compliance permit process, which is separate from the subdivision process, and would include compliance with the 139
150 ft. setback for all structures and the 300 ft. setback for all septic systems from a reservoir. You are correct, 140
however, it is likely a property owner engaging in an exempt subdivision will not be aware of the potential impacts of 141
their action as it relates to complying with applicable reservoir setbacks. Unfortunately that is not something staff can 142
address. We can continue to advise property owners of the issue but cannot require they take the consequences 143
into account when deciding to proceed with an exempt subdivision. 144
145
Craig Benedict: Some of these issues hit home for property owners when the Town began clearing property to allow 146
for the raising of the reservoir. It became clearer to those property owners just where the edge of the reservoir was 147
going to be and that led to questions of us on anticipated impacts. 148
149
Patricia Roberts: Will these people have to purchase flood insurance? 150
151
Michael Harvey: There is nothing in the UDO mandating property owner purchase flood insurance. There is existing 152
special flood hazard area along the reservoir. It is typically up to the lending inst itution if flood insurance will be 153
required. Again I want to clarify this amendment package, in and of itself, does not create the need for flood 154
insurance. I will not bore you with my 20 minute presentation on why you should purchase flood insurance 155
regardless of your property’s location within a special flood hazard area. 156
157
Randy Marshal: The aerial photo still shows trees along the reservoir area. Has clearing begun? 158
Approved 8/5/20
159
Michael Harvey: Yes clearing has already occurred and is nearly completed. My last conversation with the Town on 160
this matter led me to believe the majority of clearing activities had already occurred but that additional work may be 161
necessary. I am of the opinion work on the dam is being finalized and there is still roadwork that has to be completed 162
for the project. Unfortunately all I have access to is 2016/17 aerial photo data so it does not show the existing of 163
clearing activities that have already occurred. 164
165
MOTION by Randy Marshal to approve the statement of consistency, and the updated text amendment package 166
as provided by staff. Seconded by Lydia Wegman. 167
VOTE: Unanimous 168
169
AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 170
Meeting was adjourned by consensus 171
172
173
174
175
David Blankfard, Chair 176