Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board minutes - 010621 Approved 3.3.21 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JANUARY 6,2021 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 6 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 7 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar 10 Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township 11 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Alexandra 12 Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham 13 Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo,At-Large Representative(arrived at—7:35); 14 15 MEMBERS ABSENT:Vacant-At-Large Representatives (2) 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current 18 Planning Supervisor;Tina Love,Administrative Support 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Darrell Chandler, Chad Abbott 21 22 23 Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules for the virtual meeting 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 27 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 28 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2021. 31 a. Term Expiration Dates and Reappointment Eligibility by Member 32 33 MOTION by Melissa Poole to reappoint David Blankfard as Chair for 2021. Seconded by Patricia Roberts. 34 35 ROLLCALL VOTE: 36 Randy Marshall: Yes 37 Alexandra Allman Yes 38 Kim Piracci: Yes 39 Susan Hunter: Yes 40 Adam Beeman: Yes 41 Patricia Roberts: Yes 42 Carrie Fletcher Yes 43 Melissa Poole: Yes 44 David Blankfard: Yes 45 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 46 47 Adam Beeman: I'll put myself out there for Vice-Chair again. 48 49 MOTION by Patricia Roberts to reappoint Adam Beeman as Vice-Chair for 2021. Seconded by Carrie Fletcher 50 51 ROLLCALL VOTE: 52 Randy Marshall: Yes 53 Alexandra Allman Yes 54 Kim Piracci: Yes 55 Susan Hunter: Yes 56 Adam Beeman: Yes Approved 3.3.21 57 Patricia Roberts: Yes 58 Carrie Fletcher Yes 59 Melissa Poole: Yes 60 David Blankfard: Yes 61 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 62 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 65 b. Planning Calendar for January and February 66 c. Buckhorn Small Area Plan Study — At the February 3, 2021 Planning Board Meeting, the 67 Planning Board is expected to receive an overview of the Plan, update on Mebane's planning 68 process, and provide input to the Orange County BOCC for its consideration on any 69 subsequent County implementation actions. 70 71 72 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 73 November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 74 75 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approved the November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minute. Seconded by Susan Hunter. 76 77 ROLLCALL VOTE: 78 Randy Marshall: Yes 79 Alexandra Allman Yes 80 Kim Piracci: Yes 81 Susan Hunter: Yes 82 Adam Beeman: Yes 83 Patricia Roberts: Yes 84 Carrie Fletcher Yes 85 Melissa Poole: Yes 86 David Blankfard: Yes 87 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 88 89 90 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 91 92 93 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 94 95 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 96 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 97 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of the County. 98 The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. 99 OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and 100 businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, 101 and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive 102 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 103 104 PUBLIC CHARGE 105 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 106 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 107 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will 108 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 109 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 110 to this public charge is observed. 111 112 Approved 3.3.21 113 114 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 115 116 117 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(REDA—CZ-1) —ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE—To review and make a 118 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant initiated zoning atlas amendment to expand an existing 119 conditional zoning district called REDA-CZ-1 (NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic 120 Development Area Conditional Zoning). The proposed expansion is located at 8927 Mile Branch Road in 121 Little River Township on a 21.54 acre parcel of land. The parcel is currently zoned REDA-CZ- 1 and 122 Agricultural Residential. The applicant is seeking to rezone the Agricultural Residential acreage so that 123 the entire parcel is in the REDA-CZ-1 district allowing for an expansion of the existing self-storage 124 operation. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on February 2, 2021. 125 Presenter: Michael Harvey,Current Planning Supervisor 126 127 Michael Harvey Presented a PowerPoint Presentation to the Planning Board. 128 129 Chad Abbott: Good evening everyone, I'm Chad Abbott of C3 Design and Engineering and I represent Mr. Chandler,the 130 applicant, on this project. I also worked on the previous project. I feel like what you have before you is a pretty 131 straightforward project. It is an expansion of an existing use so the typical questions that come up about allowing a use in 132 a certain area have already been decided upon in the past and have had no negative impacts on the surrounding 133 properties and no negative input from any surrounding property owners either first-hand or at the Neighborhood 134 Information Meeting (NIM). We have adhered to all the previous conditions imposed on the original development and will 135 continue to adhere to those same conditions upon development on this property as proposed. We respectively request 136 your recommendation for approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. 137 138 David Blankfard: Did anyone show up from the neighborhood at the NIM? 139 140 Chad Abbott: No Sir. 141 142 Melissa Poole: If I may,this is in my district and I'm very familiar with this area and I am familiar with the storage facility 143 there. There are not a lot of homes that are sitting directly adjacent to this project. I am good with moving forward. 144 145 Kim Piracci: I have a question, it looks like there is a pond across the street,what is that. 146 147 Chad Abbott: It is a farm pond, it's across the road. It's agriculturally zoned land, I don't know what they use it for. 148 149 Michael Harvey pulled up the GIS system to view the area/pond in question and clarified it is believed to be an amenity or 150 recreation pond as available data does not indicate there is a stream or other water feature connecting the pond to the 151 Chandler property east of NC Highway 57. 152 153 Kim Piracci: That's not going to be affected by the septic system? 154 155 Michael Harvey: No, it shouldn't. As indicated on the map, there does not appear to be a water feature identified in 156 County GIS connecting the pond to Mr. Chandler's property east of NC Highway 57. The Environmental Assessment work 157 also did not indicate any water connectivity between the property and the aforementioned pond. We have some of the 158 existing stormwater control measures that were required for the first phase of the project when we began working with Mr. 159 Chandler, he has determined it would be in his best interest and would help with his stormwater as well as shielding his 160 property,to preserve this area of existing foliage. Pointed out other features, septic fields, residents, rock quarry. 161 162 Michael Harvey concluded his PowerPoint Presentation 163 164 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Statement of Consistency indicating that the Zoning Atlas Amendments are 165 reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 7 and recommend approval that the ordinance amending 166 the Zoning Atlas as well as the imposing development conditions for the identified parcel as contained in Attachment 8. 167 Seconded by Melissa Poole. 168 Approved 3.3.21 169 Randy Marshall: Yes 170 Kim Piracci: Yes 171 Patricia Roberts: Yes 172 Carrie Fletcher Yes 173 Adam Beeman: Yes 174 Melissa Poole: Yes 175 Susan Hunter: Yes 176 Alexandra Allman Yes 177 David Blankfard: Yes 178 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 179 180 David Blankfard: Craig when do you think we will get the vacant positons filled? 181 182 Craig Benedict: The BOCC is having a Work Session in February and will be discussing all of the Advisory Boards. 1 183 would say probably either late February or March we could get something on an agenda in front of them. One of the topics 184 of discussion is should the BOCC round out the various boards to have multiple interests so that boards do not get overly 185 weighed, to try to keep it diverse whether it's the Economic Development Advisory Board or Commission for the 186 Environment or Planning Board to try to round out the applicants. It will be a general discussion at that Work Session. 187 188 Alexandra Allman: How does that work? Do they go to you and then you give them to us and we choose or does the 189 BOCC choose them, how does it work? 190 191 Craig Benedict: They have never come to Planning Staff or the Planning Board. They have always been advertised by 192 the County Clerk's office and then decided by the BOCC. The Planning Board can,off line,take a look at the applications 193 that are always available through the Clerk's office and speak with one of your Commissioners if you think it viable. We 194 may formalize that. Some boards actually do review applications and make recommendations. 195 196 Gio Mollinedo Arrived 197 198 199 AGENDA ITEM 9: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To discuss annual input form which informs the 200 BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall County work 201 planning. 202 PRESENTER: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 203 204 Craig Benedict presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Board members 205 206 Kim Piracci: I'd like to go back to something you said. I don't see it written down but I think you said something about the 207 Board would have to agree on suggestions before we submit them to a developer? Can you tell me what that is and what 208 that means? 209 210 Craig Benedict:We have used this process already with the Planning Board,so when we review conditions that have been 211 suggested to be imposed on a conditional zoning proposal, if one of those modification or conditions is to be amended,we 212 look for the Board to deliberate amongst themselves on what the amendment may be and vote internally on it. We don't 213 want to go to the developer and ask for conditions until we know that the Board wants to collectively say they want that 214 condition. This is a process we have used to try to get some sort of concensus from the Board and then ask either at that 215 meeting or at the next meeting if that is a condition that is agreeable by the applicant. 216 217 Kim Piracci: Would that exclude one of us from making a suggestion on the spot? 218 219 Craig Benedict: No, if for example you said Buc-ee's should have 50 EV electric charging stations instead of 50 gas 220 pumps,we would want to see if the rest of the Board thought that was a viable condition/amendment before we ask the 221 applicant if they would agree to something like that. It's up to you to present your rationale for your amended condition or 222 new condition and then if there is consensus amongst the Board that it can be one of your recommendations. 223 224 Kim Piracci: Is that the sort of thing that happens before we meet with the developers or during? Approved 3.3.21 225 226 Craig Benedict: That can be during an open meeting in one of our virtual meetings. You can take a look at the conditions 227 that have been proposed in the application and proposed by staff and seek to make amendments if you think that it is 228 viable to you to think that would address the impacts of the project. 229 230 Kim Piracci: I'm not comfortable with that. That is a change in what we've been doing. Right? 231 232 Craig Benedict: No,this was what we used at both the RTLP meeting and at the Efland Station meeting. For example 233 during the RTLP meeting, a Board member made a suggestion and that suggestion was agreed to by the Board 234 collectively and was included in the conditions voted on by the Planning Board. It is not new and it is a process that the 235 Commissioners will probably use so that new suggestions will at least have some context that the whole Board is 236 collectively interested in pursuing. 237 238 Kim Piracci: I actually don't like this at all. What if everyone on this Board had a one-sided opinion? If the Board has to 239 agree on conditions before we ask the developers to do something then it might never happen. 240 241 Craig Benedict: All we are saying is that the member would propose to the Board a condition and the Board would then 242 decide if there was a consensus to move forward. It doesn't restrict suggestions. It just asks the Board to have consensus 243 and that goes into a request to the developer. 244 245 Kim Piracci: I still am not comfortable with that. To have to come to consensus as a Board. To have to get the whole 246 Board to agree before a suggestion can be made.... 247 248 Melissa Poole: When we put conditions on a project,we still have to vote on it in the overall package, so whether we 249 come to consensus prior to asking or you come to a consensus with the vote,the outcome is not going to change. 250 251 Kim Piracci: It's very different. It's really different. 252 253 David Blankfard: Ok, moving on. 254 255 Craig Benedict: What we are proposing in 2021, is something we had done in previous years in the development of our 256 Comprehensive Plan,we had some joint meetings with other advisory boards. In preparation for an update using our 2020 257 Census data,we are going to suggest that we use that process again. That will be one of the suggestions we will bring up 258 to the Commissioners and since the other advisory board chairs will be at this virtual meeting, there may be time to 259 discuss how that interaction will happen as we move forward. 260 261 Craig Benedict continued presentation of annual work plan/goals for 2021 262 263 Craig Benedict: We can either amend some things to the annual report or add to the plan to submit to the Clerk's Office. 264 265 David Blankfard: We probably need to circle back on how we deal with conditions,there's a lot of debate about that. 266 267 Craig Benedict: We'll add that to the work plan. The UDO does not state how that happens but the Board can have it's 268 own rules on how that is done so we'll add that the Board will be deliberating on a process or not a process. 269 270 Kim Piracci: I would like to add something to the actions/considerations for 2021. Just as there needs to be long-term 271 planning for potable water, I think that this spring there was some concern with COVID there about transportation,there 272 was only 2—3 days'worth of food in grocery stores. I think it would be worthwhile for Orange County to consider if there 273 was a breakdown in transportation, how would the County feed itself. Number 9 for me would be long-term planning for 274 feeding the County,for food and food distribution. 275 276 David Blankfard: Anyone want to second that? (no response) Sorry Kim. 277 278 Adam Beeman: What is number 7? 279 Approved 3.3.21 280 Craig Benedict: We have noticed that cities have the ability to ask to clean up areas that become eyesores. Counties do 281 not have that ability. We're going to take a look at 160D which takes Counties and Cities makes them more similar.This 282 something that Michael Harvey and I will take a look at and it would be implemented, if possible, in areas that are intended 283 to have urban or city-like activities. 284 285 Carrie Fletcher: I live out in the country and you talk about a nuisance ordinance,trailer parks and old cars and letting 286 properties fall apart is always an issue. I'm not against farmers not being able to keep up with property but still there are a 287 lot of people that don't want to have the neighbor that has 20 or 30 cars. Are you saying this won't come out to rural 288 Orange County? 289 290 Craig Benedict: We do have certain ordinances about cars,junk cars. There is an ordinance about that. This is more like 291 if the grass is too long or the storage of material becomes what is known as an eyesore. There could be some standards 292 that go to the rural areas but we have to be cautious with that for enforcement reasons. 293 294 Perdita Holtz: Just to be clear that 160D has to do with zoning, it does not have anything to do with the nuisance 295 ordinances. Nuisance ordinances are not going to be something that a county can necessarily do outright under 160D. 296 On the last two pages of the agenda materials,there are detailed explanations on these emerging issues and also the 297 work plan. This is just a list on the PowerPoint,the more detailed list is in the packet. 298 299 Carrie Fletcher: On the climate change issue,the collaboration between the Commission for the Environment(CFE)and 300 our Planning Board; I would love to see furtherance of those two agencies getting together. I think it could be a lot less 301 disagreement because there are a lot of people on CFE that would like a lot of things furthered in Orange County but I also 302 understand the roles of the commission and of the Planning Board. The Planning Board has a very specific role and 1 303 understand the distinction between the two. Maybe if there were more understanding and cohesion between the two it 304 would be something to entertain going forward. 305 306 Craig Benedict: We'll make note of that. 307 308 Kim Piracci: I would like to speak out in favor of the nuisance ordinance even though I have eight plus acres out here in 309 the county and I don't really want people telling me what I can do with it. However,there is a house down the road that 310 basically, uses their yard as a dump and it looks like a dump and it smells like a dump and there is not really anything that 311 can be done about it. While they have the freedom to use their place as a dump, it is affecting my property value. 312 313 Craig Benedict: It's an energized topic, it's a tricky issue especially for counties that have such a wide range of activities. 314 We'll keep it on the list. 315 316 Perdita Holtz: David,you mentioned something about post-COVID, it sounded like it was something about evaluating 317 changes that emerge post-COVID and respond appropriately. 318 319 David Blankfard: Right, based on changing how offices work, how people gather. 320 321 Randy Marshall: I'll second that. 322 323 Perdita Holtz: We probably need to get buy-in from the Planning Board on that and on Carrie's request to work jointly with 324 the CFE on climate change issues. 325 326 Carrie Fletcher: To clarify, it wouldn't be just for climate change issues it would be for collaborative issues regarding any 327 kind of expansion within the County itself. Maybe some kind of collaborative interaction that we could have that would find 328 out about watershed issues that maybe someone more educated in that matter would be good to know prior to voting on 329 things like this. That's where I was headed with it. 330 331 Craig Benedict: We could add it to the list. To talk about collaborative relationships with particular boards. We think there 332 is a need for that. We will move this topic about collaboration with other advisory boards as one of our applied topics. 333 334 David Blankfard: Can you put down, for example, the board that Carrie is referring, Commission for the Environment. 335 Approved 3.3.21 336 Carrie Fletcher: I think we have different roles so therefore our role here on the Planning Board is totally different than my 337 role on Commission for the Environment so even though they are intertwined,they are a different direction. 338 339 Craig Benedict: With the amendments suggested tonight,do you want to make a collective vote on the Board Plan as 340 amended? 341 342 Randy Marshal: I had one other thought; I am continually surprised by the number of people who live in economic 343 development areas that are surprised when any development projects occur. Can we reach out to neighborhood groups to 344 educate them on what is allowable within these economic development districts and talk about having a conversation 345 before something comes in so we can be more proactive. Is there a process that would allow us to invite neighborhood 346 groups adjacent to some of these economic development areas to have a conversation or forum? 347 348 Craig Benedict: I would say yes, I would agree to that. We could add that to the work plan if the Board wants. Call it 349 Planning 101 Outreach. 350 351 Alexandra Allman: You could solidify that with using Facebook to put all that information so anytime anyone is interested 352 they can go to Orange County Planning Department or Planning Board page and all that information is there so they know 353 what is going on up to date on each project. It demystifies what is going on. 354 355 Perdita Holtz: If I could address the Facebook issue,from a planning perspective,one of the reasons the Planning 356 Department has not embraced Facebook is because there are rules about what government needs to retain, record 357 retention. It has been some government's experience that when you start talking about development projects it devolves 358 very quickly. It becomes a question of what, if any posts,you can delete and retaining all the posts that were put there. 359 What happens when someone deletes their own posts? It sounds very simple to do a Facebook page but it isn't as simple 360 for a government agency that is involved in controversial things. We might be able to put something on our website that 361 people wouldn't be able to directly comment on but we have talked about Facebook in the past and there are some fairly 362 significant issues with the Planning Department having a Facebook account. 363 364 Craig Benedict: It could be that if we do a presentation about Planning 101 in the County,we could YouTube it and have it 365 available online. Let me work on a PowerPoint and bring it to this Board and then how to get that out to the general public. 366 367 Randy Marshall: I have one more, there was a lot of discussion about Mobile Home Parks being disrupted for 368 development which would displace large tracts of affordable housing and uproot communities in order to create areas for 369 development. Is that something that we want to look at in terms of affordable housing and affordable housing 370 communities? 371 372 Craig Benedict: That can be covered under working with the housing department—affordable and senior housing 373 including co-housing—we could add that under number 9. One of Perdita's staff has been working with the Housing 374 Department about possible amendments to some of the codes, including mobile homes that could promote their long-term 375 viability. 376 377 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Planning Board Annual Report and Work Plan as amended. Seconded by 378 Melissa Poole. 379 380 Randy Marshall: Yes 381 Alexandra Allman Yes 382 Kim Piracci: Yes 383 Patricia Roberts: Yes 384 Carrie Fletcher Yes 385 Gio Mollinedo Yes 386 Adam Beeman: Yes 387 Susan Hunter: Yes 388 Melissa Poole: Yes 389 David Blankfard: Yes 390 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 391 Approved 3.3.21 392 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 393 Meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:49 p.m. 394 395 396 397 398 David Blankfard, Chair