HomeMy WebLinkAbout090220 Approved ORC-Training Session Notes 9.2.2020 Approved 10/7/20
1 SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 SEPTEMBER 2,2020
4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE/TRAINING SESSION
5
6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee meetings or Training Sessions.
7
8 Due to current public health concerns, the ORC meeting/training session was virtual. Members of the Planning
9 Board and staff participated in the meeting remotely.
10
11 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair),
12 Cedar Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill
13 Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large
14 Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large Representative; Alexandra Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa
15 Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey,
18 Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant III
19
20 OTHERS PRESENT: Daniel Arneman; Jon Lorusso; Janet Marks; 1 caller
21
22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
23
24 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS-"160D" LEGISLATION-To receive
25 an overview on upcoming amendments related to State legislation that is referred to as 160D
26 (a reference to the statute section). The expected timeline for the Planning Board
27 recommendation and BOCC public hearing has not yet been determined, but is expected this
28 fall.
29 PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
30
31 Perdita Holtz presented a PowerPoint Presentation on proposed amendments to the UDO due to new legislation
32 referred to as "160D"
33
34 There were concerns expressed regarding the sole use of print media for notification of large-scale map
35 amendments. Perdita explained that it would be an option in certain instances and that the word could get out via
36 other means, such as social media, rather than through mailed notices to potentially thousands of people. She
37 discussed times in the past when FEMA flood maps were updated, necessitating mailed notices to several
38 thousand people within 1,000 feet of affected parcels when the amendments were required to be made and had no
39 or limited impact on adjacent property owners.
40
41 The Planning Board members were asked if they would like to see the 300+ pages of changes come back to the
42 ORC review prior to going to a Regular Planning Board meeting with the understanding that there will be limited
43 ability to make changes required by the State. If it goes to a regular meeting it could be continued but if ok with the
44 300+ pages, a recommendation could be made that night.
45
46 Jon Lorusso addressed the Board about notifications of projects and pointed out that newspapers are not the best
47 way to advertise the legal ads as readerships are down two thirds. He would have liked to have heard about the
48 RTLP sooner, he did not receive a letter. He said the Planning Board site is not adequate, it's too much text, it's not
49 organized very well and he thinks the public needs to be engaged in a better way. He didn't want to say the
50 Planning Board or County is trying to hide information but thinks the County would want to keep the public informed
1
Approved 10/7/20
51 about everything that's going on and be fully transparent. He noted that social media is very cheap, engage the
52 public that way and make it clear how they can find out easily rather than finding out what is the cheapest and
53 hoping for the best.
54
55 Kim Piracci expressed the need to take as much planning technical language/jargon as possible out of the
56 information that is shared with the Board and information shared with the public in meetings and on the website.
57
58 Jon Lorusso agreed with Kim and indicated that he had difficulty with the language as well and it took him a while to
59 understand the process that the Planning Board makes the recommendation to the BOCC and they vote on it. He
60 said at the meetings the public is swimming in acronyms that make no sense and maybe there needs to be an
61 educational component or some way to involve the public in a more meaningful manner.
62
63 MOTION by Adam Beeman to take the upcoming UDO amendment directly to a Regular Planning Board meeting. Seconded
64 by Kim Piracci.
65
66 ROLLCALL VOTE:
67 Randy Marshall: Yes
68 Kim Piracci: Yes
69 Adam Beeman: Yes
70 Melissa Poole: Yes
71 Hunter Spitzer: No
72 Susan Hunter: Yes
73 Patricia Roberts: Yes
74 Carrie Fletcher: Yes
75 Alexandra Allman: Yes
76 David Blankfard: Yes
77 MOTION PASSED 9-1 (SPITZER)
78
79 Adam Beeman asked to have staff highlight the items that the Board will be able to have some discretion to modify.
80
81 AGENDA ITEM 3: MOTIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS — To receive training on making motions and voting on agenda
82 items.
83 PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator
84
85 Perdita Holtz presented a PowerPoint Presentation on making motions and voting
86
87 Melissa Poole asked to have a limit to the length of Planning Board meetings and the length of public comments
88 instituted for future meetings. Perdita indicated this topic would be brought back as a discussion item at an
89 upcoming Planning Board meeting.
90
91 AGENDA ITEM 4: ADJOURNMENT
92 The ORC/Training session was adjourned at approximately 8:20
93
94
2