HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.7.22 Planning Board Minutes Approved 10.5.22
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 SEPTEMBER 7,2022
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township
7 Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative;; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall, At-
8 Large Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative;Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; Charity
9 Kirk, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township
12 Representative;
13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director;Chris Sandt, Staff Engineer; Tina Love,Administrative Support
15
16 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
17 Vice-Chair Lamar Proctor called the meeting to order.
18
19 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS
20 a. Planning Calendar for September and October
21
22 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
23 August 3, 2022 Training/Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Notes
24 August 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
25
26 MOTION BY Steve Kaufmann to approve the August 3,2022 Training/ORC Note and the August 3,2022 Regular Meeting Minutes.
27 Seconded by Charity Kirk.
28 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
29
30 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA.
31 There were none
32
33 Randy Marshall: Did the BOCC hear the White Cross rezoning item?
34
35 Cy Stober: It was withdrawn by the applicant after the Public Hearing was noticed; per the UDO that resulted in an automatic
36 denial of the request. We do understand that the applicant is interested in pursuing a Conditional Zoning request in the future.
37 The same or similar rezoning request cannot be made within one year of the denial. The rezoning request for the Efland area to
38 I-2 was considered by the Commissioners last night and was approved unanimously.
39
40 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
41
42 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE
43 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the
44 Orange County Planning Board(OCPB)to uphold the written land development law of the County. The general
45 purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in
46 a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and
47 responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety,and welfare of the overall County. The
48 OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our
49 deliberations, decisions, and recommendations.
50
51 PUBLIC CHARGE
52 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct
53 themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time,should
54 any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending
55 member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored,
56 the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.
Approved 10.5.22
57 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
58 There were none
59
60 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS—EROSION&SEDIMENTATION CONTROL,
61 STORMWATER AND PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE PROVISIONS—To make a recommendation to the BOCC on
62 proposed amendments to the LIDO pertaining to provisions for erosion &sedimentation control, stormwater,
63 and performance guarantees. This item was introduced at the August 4, 2021 ORC meeting, reviewed at the
64 May 4,2022 Planning Board meeting and is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on October 3,2022
65 PRESENTER: Chris Sandt, Staff Engineer
66
67 Chris Sandt reviewed the item and presented a short PowerPoint Presentation then answered questions.
68
69 Beth Bronson: So there is no easement over stormwater runoff on private property if it is included within the plan?
70
71 Chris Sandt: We do require easements and as part of the Stormwater Management Plan (SMP)approval,staff ensures the
72 developer has recorded an access easement to get to the Stormwater Control Measure (SCM). There is a difference between
73 us being able to access it to inspect it or going and actually making improvements on private property without the proper legal
74 instruments in place.
75
76 Cy Stober: Stormwater performance is arguably covered by a potential Notice of Violation (NOV)item that we could enforce
77 through the enforcement tools of Article 8 as an agreement because we will have an agreement with that device holder. We will
78 have legal enforcement tools to address it. They are more protracted and less immediate than what would be allowed under a
79 maintenance guarantee but the maintenance guarantees and the long-term holding of assurity of some form presents
80 challenges for the legal department,the planning department but also the finance department. We are pursuing that. It is
81 largely dealt with in general statute by watershed protection rules as opposed to the erosion and sediment control statutes and
82 the stormwater statutes. We also have to open a different can of worms to start addressing that but we can continue enforcing
83 them under Article 8 and we will.
84
85 Lamar Proctor: Where it says it will eliminate County requirements for Stormwater Control Measure maintenance guarantees, is
86 that eliminated from the UDO?
87
88 Chris Sandt: The existing LIDO has a reference to maintenance securities for SCMs but there isn't much meat to it and it was
89 causing a lot of confusion. It was put in the LIDO back in 2012, 1 believe, and was kind of a placeholder. It wasn't being
90 enforced as well as it should have been because of the logistics of managing that money,there isn't enough staff to do that.
91 We've essentially removed that reference to the SCM maintenance guarantee. It will no longer be in the UDO.
92
93 Lamar Proctor: I understand,that would be a complicated issue to hold money or bond.
94
95 Beth Bronson: If there were to be a change, in NC Statute Article 15 Section 4,since we have to follow the state guidelines, if
96 the state guideline were to be updated past the time your permit is given but construction is not completed, is there any
97 requirement they would have to update those plans based on new information?
98
99 Chris Sandt: One of the key things we've put into this LIDO text amendment because of that issue, because the state is
100 constantly updating,we have clarified language within Section 6.14 and 6.15 to defer to the most current general statute. It is
101 worded in a way we won't have to go in and update the LIDO every time the state changes terminology or issues a new rule.
102
103 Statler Gilfillen: If a developer has gotten through all the approvals and they start work and the state makes a major change to
104 the laws, is that developer grandfathered in with those approvals or he is bound be the new law that would upgrade it?
105
106 Chris Sandt: That happens a lot in planning. They are grandfathered,you are obligated to meet state rules and regs at the time
107 of submittal. If you want to expand a project then the new work is subject to current rules.
108
109 Whitney Watson: Is there something in the LIDO that encourages the use of permeable surface for parking areas.
110
111 Chris Sandt: We accept those types of applications, however,they are kind of treated like an SCM but it has to be designed
112 and sealed by an engineer,you need an operational maintenance agreement—that's the big thing with those types of surfaces,
Approved 10.5.22
113 they tend to get clogged over time. They get compacted and then they turn into impervious pavement. A lot of times they refer
114 to the 57 stone option for areas that are not traffic loaded.
115
116 Whitney Watson: When I see extremely long driveways,would that have required a permit.
117
118 Chris Sandt: Yes,that's a common problem when there is a larger lot,when there is a long,deep lot and someone wants to
119 build at the back. For the developer,there are limits and it varies by zoning district but you have impervious limits and you can
120 only put so much pavement down and that includes the driveway.
121
122 Whitney Watson: How are farms treated in regard to stormwater control?
123
124 Chris Sandt: We get that question a lot. If they have bona fide farm status they are subject to the state's interpretation and yes
125 they can allow sediment to leave the site and they are not held to that higher standard that we would hold a residential or
126 commercial project,We are an agricultural state. However, if they put a residential property on the farm,that residential portion
127 of the farm is subject to the UDO.
128
129 Randy Marshall: So all these homes and farms that have long driveways are probably all grandfathered in because they
130 preexisted these ordinances and what you are really talking about is new development.
131
132 Chris Sandt: Yes sir.
133
134 Statler Gilfillen: We are seeing large developments being proposed,you are describing a process that is an insurance that a
135 developer will pay long-term and short-term to make sure the public interest is best protected. Do you have a sense in the
136 development process of that percentage that costs a developer?
137
138 Chris Sandt: That's not something I can put a number on. These developments vary but yes it does induce a cost. We have
139 bigger buffers in this county than the state minimum. For stormwater and erosion control we can't ask to go above and beyond
140 state minimum.
141
142 Cy Stober: I think the best that we can do to represent that is to say more about the amount of land that could be consumed by
143 a development for standard, residential subdivision without utilities, I think it would be fair to estimate that 40 to 50% of the land
144 is going to be dedicated to either stormwater management or septic treatment. I think that is conservative and fair.
145
146 Chris Sandt: And buffers.
147
148 Lamar Proctor: Is there anything in these UDO text amendments that changes substantively the older, previous version of the
149 UDO that impacts the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Something that is substantive and substantial?
150
151 Chris Sandt: My first answer would be no. Essentially we are clarifying a lot of things in conformance with the ordinances. It's
152 really getting our definitions up to current state model ordinance definitions and the performance guarantee clarifications.
153
154 Lamar Proctor: Do we have any other questions or comments?
155
156 MOTION BY Whitney Watson to adopt the Statement of Approval and Consistency that is attachment 1 and finding that the UDO
157 text amendments are consistent with our Comprehensive Plan as well as consistent with North Carolina General Statutes.
158 Seconded by Statler Gilfillen.
159 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
160
161 The Planning Director and Planning Board members held a discussion on holding future Planning Board meeting in the Whitted
162 Building. The consensus was to make that change through the calendar year and potentially beyond.
163
164 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
165 Meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.
166
167
168 Adam Beeman, Chair