Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.7.22 PB Agenda Packet ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 f 179 52 s� Am Q Cato AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WHITTED MEETING FACILITY 300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, December 7, 2022 Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 2• 3-4 a. Planning Calendar for December and January APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 - 6 October 5, 2022 Training and Ordinance Review Committee Notes 3' 7 — 20 October 5, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes 21 — 22 November 2, 2022 Training Notes 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health,safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations,decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS No. Page(s) Agenda Item 7. 23 — 28 PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To review and approve the annual input form which informs the BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning. Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor, and Cy Stober, Planning Director 8. 29 — 42 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS — NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETINGS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to Neighborhood Information Meetings. This item was introduced at the August 3, 2022 ORC meeting and reviewed at the October 5, 2022 Planning Board meeting where it was continued to the next meeting. It is scheduled for a BOCC public hearing in January. Presenter: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 9. 43 — 54 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS — FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT SIGNATURE BLOCKS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO that would remove the school district signature block on final subdivision plats. This item was introduced at the October 5, 2022 ORC meeting and is scheduled for a BOCC public hearing in January. Presenter: Tyler Sliger, Planner II, and Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor 10. 55 — 68 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS — EFFICIENCY UNITS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to efficiency apartments (also known as "accessory dwelling units" or ADUs). This item was introduced at the October 5, 2022 ORC meeting and is scheduled for a BOCC public hearing in January. Presenter: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 11. ADJOURNMENT Written Comments Interested persons who cannot attend the meeting in-person are invited to submit written comments on agenda items to the Planning Board via email at planningboard .orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/g/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department's offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County's Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. 3 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 Notes:*Planning Board Member Attendance Required Planning Board meetings are held in room 230 on the second floor of the Whitted Building located at 300 W.Tryon St., Hillsborough, NC 27278 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOCC Planning Board Business 7:00 pm* Meeting 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BOCC Board of Business Adjustment Meeting 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HOLIDAY Offices Closed 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4 1 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Planning Board 7:00 pm* Whitted Bldg. 8 10 11 12 13 14 Board of Adjustment 7:00 pm Whitted Bldg. 17 18 19 20 21 BOCC :• Business . Meeting 7 pm Whitted 7m Building 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Notes: *Planning Board Member Attendance Required Planning Board meetings are held in room 230 on the second floor of the Whitted Building located at 300 W.Tryon St.,Hillsborough,NC 27278 DRAFT 5 1 SUMMARY NOTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 5,2022 4 TRAINING SESSION AND ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 5 6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions and Ordinance Review Committee 7 meetings. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; 10 Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township 11 Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects& GIS Supervisor; Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Pat Mallett, 14 Interim Current Planning Supervisor and Erosion Control, Stormwater& Engineering Supervisor; Carlos 15 Sanchez, Planning Technician: Tina Love, Administrative Support; 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION — Staff will lead training designed for recently 20 appointed Planning Board members on basic aspects of land use regulation in Orange 21 County. 22 PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor 23 24 Perdita Holtz conducted a training session on motions and voting and on the basic processes of amending 25 the LIDO and Comprehensive Plan. 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE — UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 28 AMENDMENTS — FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT SIGNATURE BLOCKS — To review proposed 29 amendments to the UDO that would remove the school district signature block on final 30 subdivision plats. 31 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 32 33 Tyler Sliger presented the proposed text amendments to the UDO regarding the removal of a school district 34 signature block on subdivision plats. 35 36 Lamar Proctor expressed serious reservations on removing the school district from being required to sign 37 all subdivision plats. 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE — UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 40 AMENDMENTS — EFFICIENCY UNITS — To review proposed amendments to the LIDO 41 pertaining to efficiency apartments (also known as "accessory dwelling units" or 42 ADLIs). 43 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 44 45 Tyler Sliger presented the proposed text amendments to the UDO regarding efficiency units or ADUs. 46 47 Adam Beeman expressed objections to allowing mobile homes and disagrees that it is any more affordable 48 than a stick built residence but depreciates faster, has worse building design and is not a good addition to a 49 property or neighborhoods. 50 1 DRAFT 6 51 Delores Bailey stated that she is doesn't like ADUs but doesn't think it is fair to be prejudiced against 52 mobile homes. 53 54 Adam Beeman thinks ADUs should be allowed. 55 56 Lamar Proctor agreed that mobile homes are not desirable. 57 58 Beth Bronson requested the item come back to ORC prior to going to the regular meeting. 2 7 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 5,2022 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative; Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township 8 Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall,At-Large Representative; Charity Kirk,At- 9 Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; 10 Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects&GIS Supervisor; Pat 15 Mallet, Interim Current Planning Supervisor/Erosion Control, Stormwater&Engineering Supervisor;Tom Altieri, 16 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Brian Collie, Planner II; Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Carlos Sanchez, Planning 17 Technician;Tina Love,Administrative Support 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Briant Robey, Doug Barr, Beth Myers, Leah Cook, John Mark Thomas, Mimi Locathetis, Celia Rice 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 27 a. Planning Calendar for August and September 28 b. Countywide Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update 29 30 Tom Altieri updated the Board on the Countywide Strategic Plan the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and advised a 31 consultant may be on board by the end on the year to begin work on the Strategic Plan early next year. Additionally, a 32 resolution of intent for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update is going forward to the BOCC on October 18, 2022. 33 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 36 September 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes 37 38 MOTION BY Randy Marshall to approve the September 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes. Seconded by Beth Bronson. 39 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 40 41 42 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 43 There were none 44 45 46 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 47 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 49 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 50 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB)to uphold the written land development law of the County. 51 The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. 52 OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and 53 businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health,safety, 54 and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive 55 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 8 DRAFT 56 57 PUBLIC CHARGE 58 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 59 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 60 any time,should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge,the Chair will 61 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 62 decorum fail to be restored,the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 63 to this public charge is observed. 64 65 66 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 67 There were none 68 69 70 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETINGS 71 -To make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the UDO pertaining to 72 Neighborhood Information Meetings. This item was introduced at the August 3, 2022 ORC meeting 73 and is scheduled for a BOCC Public Hearing in November. 74 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 75 76 Tyler Sliger reviewed the proposed UDO text amendment. 77 78 Lamar Proctor: So this amendment is proposing taking Planning completely out of the NIM process? 79 80 Tyler Sliger: Yes. Like other jurisdictions, this puts the responsibility on the applicant. I couldn't find another jurisdiction 81 where they have a planner do this. 82 83 Lamar Proctor: Personally, it scares me because it seems like you are putting the fox in charge of the hen house. You 84 are going to leave the applicant who has a monetary interest in a land use change completely in charge of providing 85 information, posting, noticing. You are putting the applicant who has the monetary incentive for this thing to pass,they 86 are going to make a lot of money,they are unilaterally informing and noticing those neighbors who are most directly 87 affected without any oversight or even availability of planning to answer questions to the general public. That seems 88 hugely irresponsible to me. 89 90 Tyler Sliger: That is what the report is for. If they do not meet the requirements, they are not following procedure.They 91 would have to have the Neighborhood Information Meeting. 92 93 Lamar Proctor: Then they can just report whatever they want to report there is no independent witness to verify the 94 authenticity or credibility of what the developer who has a huge interest in making sure it passes, that it's verified and 95 true in the report. It says on page 15 sub 5 that the applicant shall submit a written report of the NIM to the Planning 96 Department before a public hearing is held and the written report shall include those things. So, before a public hearing 97 is held. 98 99 Tyler Sliger: Correct, before they get to this point they have to have a Neighborhood Information Meeting. 100 101 Beth Bronson: They could literally have given you the report on that this morning. 102 103 Delores Bailey: Don't you schedule the Public Hearing? So,they would have to have everything in before you would 104 schedule it. 105 106 Tyler Sliger: That is part of the application so they get it one day before this meeting and they don't have the necessary 107 documentation to go to the Planning Board or BOCC because you don't get this packet the day before. 108 109 Overlapping conversations 110 9 DRAFT 111 Tyler Sliger: Before the packet is sent out everything you are sent has to be submitted a week before so if they don't 112 send this report in a week before your packet is go out then it's not on the agenda. 113 114 Beth Bronson: Then why is it changed from being scheduled to be held? I think that should be written into the text 115 amendment that would be my recommendation. That should be in the text amendment that the report is available 14 116 days prior to the Planning Board. 117 118 Adam Beeman: Look at the last sentence on page 15,the meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the date 119 of the Planning Board meeting where the application is scheduled for review. So they have to have it 2 weeks ahead of 120 time that means they've got 14 days to get it sent in. 121 122 Beth Bronson:Then have 13 days to get out the report. 123 124 Overlapping conversations 125 126 Beth Bronson: I know it sounds nitpicky. 127 128 Delores Bailey: But they control whether it goes on the agenda so if they don't get the packet in enough time it won't be 129 on our agenda. 130 131 Beth Bronson: Well they say until the meeting then they can schedule the Public Hearing. 132 133 Delores Bailey: It doesn't matter. 134 135 Adam Beeman: If they don't pass their paperwork in then their meeting would just get kicked and they wouldn't be in 136 front of us. 137 138 Cy Stober: Question of direction from the Planning Board,would it be more satisfactory to have that trigger rather than 139 be scheduling a public hearing, be scheduling a Planning Board meeting? Rather than the language reading scheduling 140 a public hearing it would be to schedule the Planning Board meeting. 141 142 Beth Bronson: Yes. 143 144 Cy Stober: Ok. 145 146 Adam Beeman: That way they have to have the written paperwork in before you can even schedule a meeting with us. 147 The public hearing is this in front of the Planning Board the NIM is just the name of the information meeting. That's what 148 1 think you are getting flip flopped. The public hearing would have been they have to have the paperwork in before they 149 can get this meeting scheduled. 150 151 Cy Stober: The public hearing is the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. This is a public meeting, it's 152 not a public hearing. So if we change the language from public hearing to the Planning Board meeting. 153 154 Lamar Proctor: The way this is written would it have allowed them to submit the NIM report after we heard about it? 155 After we considered it? 156 157 Cy Stober: No,the application would be considered incomplete without the written report but to address the concerns 158 that have been stated today this would provide additional time prior to even scheduling the Planning Board meeting. We 159 would have to have the written report in hand before we could even schedule it. 160 161 Lamar Proctor: Right, cause the way this reads you don't have to have the report in hand before you schedule it. They 162 can just turn the report in like Beth said. 163 164 Cy Stober: That's the concern I'm hearing so if we provided that textual change. 165 10 DRAFT 166 Lamar Proctor: That's one concern but I still have the overarching concern of now you've taken any government 167 presence out of the NIM meeting and so allowing the developers or the applicant to unilaterally convey information 168 however they see fit whether correct or not correct,whether they are misstating the LIDO and the Comprehensive Land 169 Use Plan. Whether they are misstating the process,there is no representative from government that can correct any 170 misstatement by applicants whether intentional or not at the Neighborhood Information Meeting. Then what is reported 171 by the applicant in the NIM report,who knows, its accuracy. We have no idea. 172 173 Charity Kirk: How do other governmental bodies do this similar thing,validate that things were done as deemed? 174 175 Tyler Sliger: I reached out to Chapel Hill about how they do theirs because I could not find it in their ordinance and 1 176 have not heard back from them. Carrboro just states that they have to have one there is no requirement like we do in 177 having ours. It just says people in a 500 ft. radius have to be notified and that's it. It doesn't tell when they have to have 178 it or anything like that. Basically, Chatham County is a lot like this where they put the responsibility on the applicant to 179 do this process and they check what they do. 180 181 Charity Kirk: So how do you plan on checking what they do? 182 183 Tyler Sliger: Basically, confirming their report. If no one comes to a Neighborhood Information Meeting, that is a little bit 184 skeptical and if it is in a 1,000 ft. radius they are going to get a Planning Board notification letter. If they come and we 185 have a report of someone not getting or they weren't notified about a NIM then we would say that they didn't follow 186 procedure. They have to have it somewhere. If they don't go to,for instance, the Library or they say they are going to 187 have it that's a red flag. 188 189 Lamar Proctor: I love the system we have. I think it is a boon to our citizens. I think it keeps people very well informed 190 about the changes that are going on. Frankly, I think 1,000 ft. in the County is too short of a distance. I think it should be 191 2,500 ft. I think when you are talking about large projects that occur in the County that sometimes encapsulates 10, 192 scores, 100s of acres, involves millions of sq.ft.of impervious surface, 1,000 ft. is kind of way too small because those 193 sorts of projects are going to have effects for miles around. I think 1,000 ft. is ridiculously short for County projects 194 especially ones that are larger and involve larger acreage and sq.ft. I love the fact that Planning is there. I know it's a 195 lot of work for Planning but I feel like it assures me that applicants and developers aren't taking advantage of the 196 process. 197 198 David Blankfard: Can we just have a member of staff be required to go to the NIM? 199 200 Charity Kirk: Yea.. 201 202 Cy Stober: We can do that. I would be more comfortable coming back to you with language rather than coming up with 203 a clause on the fly. We will consult with the Attorney's Office on a simple clause. Hopefully, 10 words or less. 204 205 Charity Kirk:Another thing is that rather than a written report, you could ask for a recording of the meeting. If the concern 206 is a lack of validation of a developer,you can validate what happened. 207 208 Cy Stober: My only concern is I would like to have leeway to have a recording or to have staff go to observe. The 209 concern from Planning staff and the reason that Planning staff often don't present at NIMs is that our opportunity to 210 provide findings of fact is this meeting. When we present at a Neighborhood Information Meeting, it gives the 211 appearance that we are representing the project which is not our role. Our role is to find the facts, disclose them to the 212 appointed and elected officials and the public at open meetings. Neighborhood Information Meetings are a courtesy 213 extended through our ordinance and through many ordinances, including most of our neighbors and most of our 214 municipalities, but not all of them, and the responsibility for leading that discussion is appropriately the applicant or the 215 developer. Having Planning staff also has the effect of chilling the opportunity for a robust and productive discussion 216 between the applicant and concerned neighbors to find solutions to their concerns. If we are always there saying no, no, 217 no,you can't do that it stifles some creativity that may result from a discussion between the applicant and those who are 218 most affected by what they are proposing to do. Those are the concerns that we have,the Planning staff. I hear your 219 concern about verifying the proceeding of the NIM. I think that we can come up with some basic very simple language to 220 address that. 11 DRAFT 221 222 Randy Marshall: I completely agree with the notion that the applicant needs to defend his own project and the Planning 223 staff doesn't need to be there defending the applicant's project because I think that puts the focus, as you've said, on the 224 Planning staff and not on the applicant where it needs to be.That being said, I concur that there needs to be some 225 verification as to what happened at those Neighborhood Meetings either recording and/or a staff person present who 226 could answer questions if need be is just wise. If we could reword that to include it in this text amendment, I think that 227 would be preferable. 228 229 Cy Stober: If there are other concerns, I am happy to address them otherwise I would request a vote to continue that to 230 the next meeting to address those concerns stated tonight. 231 232 Beth Bronson:And prior to the Planning Board meeting being held. 233 234 Cy Stober: We'll address that text change as well. 235 236 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to continue this text amendment. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen. 237 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 238 239 240 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT(CONVENTIONAL DISTRICT)—To review and make a recommendation to the 241 BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone a 7.05 acres portion of property, 242 which totals 54.23 acres,from AR(Agricultural Residential)to NR-CD(Non-Residential Conditional 243 District). 244 The parcel's is located at 9825 NC Highway 49 in the Cedar Grove Township(PIN 9940-46-0359). 245 This item is scheduled for the BOCC public hearing in November. 246 PRESENTER: Brian Collie, Planner II 247 248 Brian Collie presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the proposed zoning atlas amendment. 249 250 Beth Bronson: Can you clarify the industrial zoning? The NR-CD applications,the red area that you mentioned is part of 251 a Rural Industrial Zoning District? 252 253 Brian Collie: No, it's not a zoning district. It's in an activity node, a certain amount of land is allowed to be rezoned to 254 commercial needs. 255 256 Perdita Holtz: The Rural Industrial Node is a Future Land Use Map classification that is found in the Comprehensive 257 Plan. It is not a zoning district;you can see there that the definition of Rural Industrial Activity Node is the areas that are 258 focused on designated road intersections. Designated road intersections in this case is the confluence of NC 49 and NC 259 86 and it serves as crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for small scale 260 industrial uses. That is the vision of the Comprehensive Plan as it is written today for that type of node. That being said, 261 NR-CD is allowed in the Rural Industrial Activity Nodes and as part of that any of those permitted uses can be applied 262 for. 263 264 Brian Collie continued the PowerPoint presentation and review of the proposed zoning atlas amendment 265 266 Applicant Representatives Briant Roby and Doug Barr reviewed the site plan and gave an overview. 267 268 Charity Kirk: I have a general Comprehensive Plan question, on the map it looks like it is a Rural Neighborhood zone, 269 not a Rural Industrial zone, can you clarify? In the Comprehensive Plan document not in your slide. Page 86 of 270 Comprehensive Plan document shows that it's a pink area around that node which indicates Rural Neighborhood. 271 272 Brian Collie: It is within the Rural Industrial Activity Node. 273 274 Perdita Holtz pointed out the location on the Future Land Use Map. 275 12 DRAFT 276 Charity Kirk: So this is more serving the county above us. 277 278 Brian Collie: A little bit of both. There is a need for them to submit the 30 ft. landscaping buffers on the site plan. 279 280 Lamar Proctor: Can you explain the relationship between the total acreage of the parcel, 54.23 acres but 7.05 acres is 281 what they are asking to be rezoned and you are going to develop. Is that the set ratio for Hyco Watershed? 282 283 Briant Roby: It's the 7 of the 54, its 7 acres based on the fact that 15%of that 7 acres is impervious. 284 285 Lamar Proctor: So it's a 15% impervious limit so to get the impervious surface,you have to rezone 7 acres. 286 287 Briant Roby: Exactly. 288 289 Lamar Proctor: But the rest of the property could be rezoned later. That's not at issue, it's just these 7 acres because 290 you're limited to 15%? 291 292 Briant Roby: That's correct. There is a limit in a protected watershed on how many can be impervious. We have been 293 through the exercise of ensuring that this is within those limits. 294 295 Whitney Watson: You had asked for a reduction in the number of parking spaces, I'm curious how you arrived at that. 296 What kind of studies were done to determine if the amount of parking spaces would be adequate for customers. 297 298 Briant Roby: Primarily based on rural character of the site, a traffic impact analysis was required as it is with all 299 conditional zoning requests. The peak traffic per hour didn't come out to justify the need for the full 53 spaces, 46 will be 300 adequate based on that. Part of that was also off-setting the use of those islands as landscaping as well. Based on 301 where this is located,we don't anticipate the need for the full 53 spaces. 302 303 Whitney Watson: Does that mean that you also did an assessment about customers per hour? 304 305 Briant Roby: That's correct. 306 307 Whitney Watson: So that's relatively low? If you are allowed 53-54 spaces and you want to reduce it to 46 or 47 is that 308 still going to be enough spaces. How do you justify the reduction or even in fact,the flipside of that is how do you justify 309 placing a retail establishment there that is going to have a relatively low use from customers? 310 311 Briant Roby: Understood. 312 313 Whitney Watson: They made some assessment, some calculation about this to begin with that it was going to be viable 314 based on this size store, this number of spaces,this many people per hour and I was curious how those numbers came 315 out. 316 317 Briant Roby: I would have to double check the report but we do have figures for what the peak hour is,what the total 318 daily trips are and looking at that and assuming length of trip,we can go back into whether or not that is enough spaces 319 for a particular use. 320 321 Statler Gilfillen: You are looking for a variance for fewer parking spaces, under what the code technically requires, if that 322 is approved and 2 years from now it turns out that all the planning that was done, all the estimates,the future there were 323 done were seriously in error and we need to put the additional parking back or it is determined that it should be put back. 324 What safeguards do we have to approve it less for now when in reality, say 2 years from now,they find out they really 325 need those spaces to require them to be put in. I don't know if there is a firm answer to that. 326 327 Briant Roby: There is a small amount of area on site that is not being used for impervious area. The spaces could be 328 added back later. We are very close to the threshold but good design guidelines include leaving a small amount of 329 additional area. 330 13 DRAFT 331 Randy Marshall: Is there any elaboration that could be given for why the area was designated as Rural Industrial in the 332 first place. I don't know how long it's been that but what was thinking when it was designated that way? Some group, 333 presumably the County Commissioners, made a determination that this was going to be future Rural Industrial. My point, 334 down the road is if it has been designated, someone thought that this was an appropriate place to have this designation 335 in place and the developer is taking advantage of the County's designation of this to fulfill the Commissioners desires 336 that this could be developed at some point. 337 338 Perdita Holtz: It was part of the former Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map did not get changed in the 339 2008 update and so it was part of the 1981 Comprehensive Plan.Whether it was designated in'81 or sometime between 340 '81 and when I arrived in '03, 1 cannot say for certain but it has been that way since at least 2003 and my money would 341 be on that it has been designated that way since 1981. 342 343 Randy Marshall: So presumably, it's not a big surprise to anyone that this is a potential future use for this particular 344 piece of property. 345 346 Perdita Holtz: For people who are familiar with the Future Land Use Map, it shouldn't be but many people are not 347 familiar with the Future Land Use Map. 348 349 Delores Bailey: As a regular citizen, I wouldn't know that right? I could have gone past that parcel all my life and never 350 realized that was the designated use. 351 352 Perdita Holtz: It's been my observation that people buy houses and don't realize that the land next to them is designated 353 commercial. I'm not just talking about Orange County, I'm talking everywhere. 354 355 Beth Bronson: The Rural Industrial term, defined as land focused on designated road intersections that is appropriate 356 for small scale industrial uses which do not require urban type services, so to the conversation of if this is consistent with 357 what a Rural Industrial Activity Node looks like, I would say that this is a retail space in the application versus an 358 industrial manufacturing or building, am I misinterpreting industrial? 359 360 Charity Kirk: I believe this is on the allowed lists for the definition of Rural Industrial. 361 362 Adam Beeman: To the Conditional District, the industrial zoning is an overlay that they can fall under but it doesn't 363 actually mean that area is the industrial. If we give them the Conditional District that they're seeking,they say they only 364 want the retail but all those uses would be under this Conditional District. 365 366 Charity Kirk: Your question is how do we define Rural Industrial. 367 368 Beth Bronson: No,would the applicant's proposal for a Family Dollar meet that consistency,we would rezone it to non- 369 residential because it's within a Rural Industrial Node. However, does this application for the Family Dollar meet what is 370 interpreted in the Land Use as Rural Industrial or is it appropriate, consistent? 371 372 Adam Beeman: Dollar General is less than 4/10 of a mile from driveway to driveway and there is a gas station with a full 373 store and a little small restaurant just 4/10 of a mile away. I would ask why is it needed? What brought this about? 1 374 don't believe it represents the character or the area up there, so for me, I'm against the retail change in general. Right at 375 the point of this property is the sign that says Welcome to Cedar Grove which is essentially saying welcome to Orange 376 County because you just rolled out of Caswell County. 377 378 Charity Kirk: What was the intention of Rural Industrial? 379 380 Perdita Holtz: I read you the intention earlier. Beth just reiterated it. What it comes down to is that NR-CD is an 381 allowable zoning district within the Rural Industrial Future Land Use category and this is an allowable use within NR-CD 382 and the County has legislative discretion on whether to approve it or not. 383 384 Charity Kirk: So now, I guess now it's up to us to define what industrial does meet the definition. 385 14 DRAFT 386 Adam Beeman: If you guys want to go forward and give them approval,you are allowed to give them conditions and 387 negotiate some conditions and give and take that everybody has to agree to. There is that opportunity if anybody else is 388 interested, you already know my position and I am going to stick with my position there is nothing, nobody is going to 389 change my mind so I'll let the rest of you guys debate. 390 391 David Blankfard: Should we let the public speak? 392 393 Adam Beeman: Ok, I didn't know if you guys wanted to debate or discussion on our end before we let the public speak. 394 That way maybe the public can understand where most of everybody stands. 395 396 Steve Kaufmann: Do you actually live in that area? 397 398 Adam Beeman: I do, I'm less than 10 minutes from that spot. I drive by there all the time. When I first came in 2008 a 399 Mebane Shrubbery sign was there and they had moved and that was last thing that was on that property and there has 400 been nothing there since 2008 since I've lived here, nothing. 401 402 Delores Bailey: With you being there that long, and you knowing exactly what it could do,what did you expect as a 403 neighbor of this spot? What did you think might go there? 404 405 Adam Beeman: I would like to see the industrial stuff. I would prefer to see some sort of manufacturing or something go 406 on because there is a Dollar General. There's not on Orange County's side, if you rode down coming into Caswell and 407 past this property, I think I passed 2 houses within a half mile of the place and if you go down 49, it's another half mile 408 before you hit residences. It really gets sparse out there, it's tobacco fields, soybean fields there is not a lot of density so 409 when they say they had to reduce their parking because the numbers didn't work,they're competing with Dollar General 410 and the other gas station with is 4/10 of a mile up the street. I don't see that store,just like White Cross, you guys all 411 were against the Dollar General rezoning in that White Cross property. To me, I don't see it any differently. There's 412 people there serving the need. 413 414 Delores Bailey: So light industrial you imagined would go there. 415 416 Adam Beeman: Yeah, down on 86 you see Happy Wax and what used to be the old forms place,that type of thing that 417 doesn't require a whole lot of staff, there's a building there and it's just kind of out there doing their thing. That's 418 something that I would envision or same concept with Efland where the gentleman wanted to put in some smaller 419 storefront with some storage space so a contractor up in my neck of the woods could rent a space and have something. 420 That would be more beneficial to the people in my area than another Family Dollar or another discount dollar store, 1 421 don't personally see the need for it and I don't see it being helpful to the County. I don't see it being in harmony with the 422 County. Like in White Cross it would take away any future availability for any other future land so that they could get that 423 spot. So you're taking away industrial space for a Family Dollar, I don't see it. You can never convince me that's 424 pushing the County forward and that's going to make us, it's the first thing people are going to see when they come in 425 out of State. People come down all the time from Virginia driving down 86 coming into North Carolina and they are going 426 to roll right Family Dollar and say welcome to Orange County. 427 428 David Blankfard: Don't you think competition would be good. 429 430 Adam Beeman: Again, there's not that many people out there. I did some work for the Dollar General, someone 431 crashed their car into the service and they were without power for 2 days, I had to replace the panel,there was maybe 432 150 a day that go past that store. I just don't see 2 stores, its wasting resources, my opinion. Everybody else can have 433 a completely different view but that affects me, it's right up in my corner of the woods and I just don't see it. 434 435 Doug Burr: I'm Doug Burr with Elkin and Associates and I certainly appreciate all the comments. This is a little bit 436 different, and I hear you, it is a Family Dollar but it's a Family Dollar and Dollar Tree which is something that cannot be 437 offered, Dollar Tree in and of itself, I'm sure most are familiar with it. It caters itself a little bit differently than Dollar 438 General and Family Dollar so it allows more gifting, gift wrap,seasonal, school supplies and that kind of thing. An 439 offering at that single price point, half the store is Dollar Tree and half is Family Dollar. This is an opportunity for them to 440 come into markets like this that are very rural. It's a large company,they have a significant amount of stores that do a 15 DRAFT 441 significant amount of studies to understand what kind of business they are going to do here. They are not frivolous in 442 what they do when they invest money into a site like this and this is one that they've looked at for some time. The Dollar 443 General does do a decent amount of business. They would serve to some competitiveness with them to keep everybody 444 working hard. It offers jobs in that area which is a very rural area. I understand it is retail there is not an enormous 445 amount of retail and a limited amount of people in that specific area. If you were to go into a tight circle of it, it services a 446 much larger rural area,the people are driving in and around to and from all over the place and the traffic does play a big 447 role into as well. I just wanted to offer that up as to why our client is considering this a site. There are some limited 448 resources up there for shopping and this would be another one and adding the Dollar Tree portion of it in certainly sets it 449 apart from the gas station and the Dollar General up there by adding another part of it that the area doesn't have and 450 wouldn't have typically because you can't. A standalone Dollar Tree can't survive. 451 452 Delores Bailey: And a market study was done for this? 453 454 Doug Burr: Dollar Tree has 16,000 stores between the 2 of them,they do internal studies that they analyze the entire 455 area, population,traffic that kind of thing and come to the conclusion as to what kind of sales they are going to do. 456 457 Delores Bailey: With the area being so rural, you are telling us that the market study supported it. 458 459 Doug Burr: Yes,supported this store. Supported this store with the Dollar General as well. With the traffic, I might just 460 address that as well. Most communities have a traffic requirement of 4 per 1000 and that is in a market like 461 Hillsborough. If you were to go in for general retail it would be 4 per 1000. On this particular case we are pushing more 462 5 per thousand or something like that to get us to the 53 parking spaces that are there so even in a market like this that 463 would have much higher traffic, of people coming through, on a store like this generally somewhat between 32 and 40 464 parking spaces is about what we would need given the traffic we might expect and usually that comes at Christmas time 465 it's not even at a normal shopping dates. Up in this particular area we are going to far exceed what we would need if we 466 were to go into a community as dense as where we are right now so the 53 parking spaces far exceeds what we typically 467 would need pretty much anywhere and how they operate. Usually we go with the extra ones because it's a requirement 468 of the area or code but generally speaking somewhere between 32 and 40 is what we usually are going for with this 469 client. 470 471 Randy Marshall: You are essentially counting on out of county customers or commuters to build your customer base to 472 make this a viable business because everyone seems to agree there is not sufficient residents within the circle around 473 the business to make it viable, is that correct? 474 475 Doug Burr: I would say that certainly plays a part of it. The other thing that happens is when you get into a rural area 476 like this generally you look at a 5 mile radius for this particular client as to how many people are there. When then look 477 at these rural areas and they've done many of them,they are looking at a much bigger circle, say 15, 20 miles. What 478 that will bring in is commuters coming back and the traffic that is actually going back and forth. I'm sure there is a lot of 479 people that might live up there that work down in Hillsborough or other place but traffic would play a role in that and draw 480 from a much larger area for people's daily needs rather than driving here or driving someplace else. 481 482 Randy Marshall: My point being if we are pulling in out of county customers,we're pulling in tax dollars to the Orange 483 County tax base that would not have been available otherwise. 484 485 Doug Burr: That's a good point. 486 487 Beth Bronson: Is there a plan to add groceries? 488 489 Doug Burr: They do have groceries but as far as fresh produce,they don't do that if that's what you're asking. They do 490 have a grocery component including freezers and coolers that would carry milk, eggs, and those types of things. It 491 would be somewhat limited by the nature of what they do. This store is going to offer the same things they would offer in 492 any other store. 493 494 Beth Bronson: Do they ever use local vendors? 495 16 DRAFT 496 Doug Burr: I don't exactly know they sourcing since I am the developer but they are a large company and they buy in a 497 huge selection and they have a limited price on their items so I don't know. 498 499 Beth Bronson: So whether or not they deviate from their very structured plan. 500 501 Doug Burr: I don't know the answer to that, I'm not sure. 502 503 Charity Kirk: A question about the conditional nature of this because that's one of the things in the White Cross 504 development,we couldn't set conditions,what kind of conditions are possible for us to set? 505 506 Adam Beeman: Things in the past that we've done was we negotiated electric charging stations in the parking lot. One 507 of the things they wanted to get away from the adding of the tree buffer and a lot of people don't get away with not 508 having the tree buffer. They are asking for that exception here. You can basically ask them for anything you want but 509 whether they agree to it is a different story. It's up to you and the applicant to agree on that and the Planning Board 510 would have to come to a consensus on whether we all agree with somebody's proposal before we presented it to the 511 applicant to go back and forth on but you can set any kind of condition you want to try. 512 513 Cy Stober: I am Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director for the County. Mr. Beeman is largely correct, it has to be 514 mutually agreed upon. The site plan the staff had on hand when packets went out and the site plan that is featured in 515 your packet,there were 2 waivers requested, 2 conditions requested to deviate from the development standards of the 516 ordinance; 1 for the parking because they were deficient at that time by 1 space but they also did not have the terminal 517 landscaped islands in the parking lot. They've since addressed that in the site plan you saw before you tonight so that 518 waiver is no longer being requested. The consequence of providing that landscaping is that they essentially lost 2 519 parking spaces per terminal island so now they are requesting the condition to not meet our parking standard to have 46 520 rather than 53 spaces. I think that was also based on a slightly different building footprint; it's about 52 so they are 521 deficient by 6 spaces at this time but Mr. Beeman is correct if there are additional elements that you'd like to see on the 522 site plan, this is a site specific plan,this will be the footprint that is binding to the property. All other development 523 standards must be complied with in Article 6 or any use specific standards for the retail use must be complied with 524 unless the condition has been requested by the applicant at this time as has been disclosed to staff it is simply the 1 525 condition to deviate from the parking standards. If are additional amenities or features you would like to negotiate with 526 the applicant this is an appropriate time to do so. 527 528 Randy Marshall: I am a little confused,we're dealing with an application for zoning atlas amendment but you're talking 529 about putting conditions on proposed project that seems like its 2 different items to me. 530 531 Cy Stober: Welcome to the wild world of conditional zoning, it does not have a long history in North Carolina. It is a 532 relatively new allowance under General Statutes, it dates back about 15+years and it does allow for site specific 533 requirements for unique zoning districts with unique requirements and unique allowances to deviate from the ordinance 534 requirements as seen appropriately in the legislative authority by the elected body, in this case the County 535 Commissioners and as advised by the Planning Board. This is a zoning district, it is a zoning district with a site specific 536 plan, if approved, it would be a zoning district with a site specific plan and specific conditions. At this time the only 537 condition that would be different from any other development standard is the parking. 538 539 Randy Marshall: So we are doing 2 things with 1 decisions here. 540 541 Cy Stober: That is correct. This is how metro areas end up with literally tens of thousands of zoning districts each with 542 their unique characteristics and they all have to be tracked. 543 544 Delores Bailey: It says Planning Director Recommendation what was that,would you remind us again. 545 546 Cy Stober: I am recommending the request as presented given the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its 547 goals and objectives. 548 549 Brian Collie continued his presentation 550 17 DRAFT 551 Beth Myers: My name is Beth Myers and I am a resident of Cedar Grove, I like on 86 at the intersection of 86 and Efland 552 Cedar Grove Road so very close here. I am about 2 miles south of the proposed project. I would like to say that I am 553 strongly opposed to it. As we've mentioned there is already a Dollar General in the area within walking distance of this 554 proposed project and I don't see this bringing any benefit to the County or to our rural neighborhood and we do want to 555 keep it rural. I am a farmer, I sell to Carrboro Farmer's Market and I really appreciate the rural area of Northern Orange 556 County and I really want to keep it that way. This project, other than I really don't understand the business aspect 557 behind it, they are competing with the Dollar General,they are absolutely not going to be bringing in new customers they 558 would simply be halving the existing customers between the 2 stores and there is already a gas station across from the 559 existing Dollar General. If you travel further south on 86 there is the Farm and Garden which recently reopened and they 560 have gas,they have a lot of local products that we talked about,food,things like that. There are some amenities in the 561 area and again I want to say I am strongly opposed to it. Thank you. 562 563 Leah Cook: Hi,thank you for your time, my name is Leah Cook and I live in Cedar Grove as well. I live on Allison Road, 564 I'm 1,000 feet within this proposed project. I am a farmer as well. I am here to say I am strongly opposed to this project 565 for a lot of the reasons Beth just specified. It makes no sense. We've got a Dollar General just over the Caswell line. 566 So to have a Family Dollar and a Dollar Tree, I didn't know it was Family Dollar and Dollar Tree and then the gas station, 567 it makes no sense. It is a waste of space. I am also concerned about the water table in our area, I farm. I sell at 568 Carrboro Farmer's Market and Weaver Street. I am concerned about light pollution as well and I'd like to ask these 569 gentlemen if they truly understand where their food comes from. It doesn't come from Family Dollar. It doesn't come 570 from Dollar Tree its farmers so to answer your question earlier yea you can get canned stuff there, eggs, milk. You can 571 get that at Dollar General,you can get that at the Triangle Grocery Store, you can get a pizza up there if you are in a 572 pinch. You can get gas but you can't get real food so thank you for your time. 573 574 John Thomas: Good evening and thank you for your time. Leah and I actually, she's my partner we farm together and 575 we have about 30 acres on Allison Road and we are very close to this. I am opposed to this. I don't see the value add 576 for the same reasons that have been stated as far as we already have multiple stores in the area that will offer what this 577 offers except for possibly Christmas wrapping. You are 12 miles to Yanceyville from this area, 12 miles to Hillsborough 578 from this area you are 5 miles or so from the store at the corner of Walnut Church Grove Road and 86 which is a pretty 579 nice store it's just been rebuilt that is much nicer than this. We offer jobs,we pay a living wage to our employees,we 580 pay$15 an hour to our employees,they are part time employees, I guarantee you nobody in this store will make$15 an 581 hour probably like the manager. The volume of traffic in the area is already increased and it is already a dangerous 582 intersection with the Dollar General and the way 49 and existing gas station is,to add 1 more thing in that mix and this is 583 going to be almost right on the curve where this gentleman knows there is a Welcome to Cedar Grove sign, it's just going 584 to make it worse. Again, I am opposed to this and don't see the value add and as Leah noted, so what's going to 585 happen is you're going to run farmers out. We also work and what we've done in the past is we work as an incubator 586 farm some of our employees have gone on to farm themselves in the area to produce stuff. We sell, like Leah said,we 587 sell at Carrboro Market,we sell at Weaver Street,we sell at restaurants in the Chapel Hill Carrboro area so I'm against it. 588 589 Mimi Locathetis: My name is Mimi, I live in Cedar Grove as well, neighbors with these guys. I am vehemently opposed 590 to this project. For the reasons stated previously there is no fresh food there,this creates food desert conditions for low 591 income rural communities, it's about 50% higher in these sort of situations. Just the health of our community. I can 592 barely get out of my driveway now with the traffic,this is just going to be one more thing making everything dangerous. 593 I'm glad it was brought up about notifying people in this area for these sorts of projects, 1,000 ft. is not nearly enough for 594 a rural community cause there are plenty of other people who are going to be affected by this that live in this area and 595 they don't even know about it yet. So, hopefully,we'll start talking a little bit more and let them know and if this does go 596 forward and to the Board of Commissioner meeting hopefully there will be a little bit more of an outrage but is not the 597 right project. I can think of a million other things that could go in this space but I'm also worried if this does get rezoned 598 once this fails,what then happens. It's just like opening a Pandora's Box of stuff we don't need. This is one other thing 599 we don't want in our community. 600 601 Celia Rice: I recently bought property in this area, I'm on Route 49 right across from this store is going to be located. 1 602 bought this property as a rural property. I intend to live there, I'm in the process of building a home, I have a neighbor 603 right behind me, he's not within the 1,000 ft. of notification so he was not notified and I would like to state that the 604 distance should be definitely increased for a rural community. I'm also concerned mostly about the traffic. I have 605 property as well in Caswell County and have been driving on 86 for the last 15 years,the traffic has exponentially 18 DRAFT 606 increased a great deal and I've talked to some of my neighbors about the incidents of accidents in that area and they say 607 that they have definitely increased. I don't personally verify that but I am not surprised that they have said that so my 608 concerns are the change in our rural status and the traffic that was possibly increased along that area and the 609 reduncency of the store there. It just seems a waste of property. It could be used for something else some other time 610 and if you rezone this for this type of store, are you going to rezone something for another type of redundant store? 611 You're kind of setting your standards pretty low and I'm surprised. Thank you. 612 613 Delores Bailey: Are we allowed to ask the citizens questions? 614 615 Adam Beeman: I don't see why not. 616 617 Delores Bailey: Leah,would you come up please. What do you imagine should go there? 618 619 Leah Cook: That's a great question. Honestly, I've lived in Cedar Grove for over 20 years. I've farmed in Cedar Grove 620 for over 20 years and I hadn't really thought about that because I assumed, it had been Mebane Shrubbery, it had been 621 a hot dog stand before that,so I hadn't thought about that prior to this and Mimi had some pretty great suggestions. To 622 give you my honest answer, nothing. Why can't we leave it? Why can't we preserve the integrity of the rural area in very 623 Northern Orange County? I bet most of you all don't live there in the very northern tip of Orange County. It's pretty great 624 up there and we live there because we like it that way. I don't need to have a grocery store right down the road from me. 625 I'm ok with going into Hillsborough once a week. I have to plan a little more, Mark and I have to double up on our 626 errands. Let's go to the bank, let's go to grocery store and we'll hit Home Depot or something like that or we go to 627 Roxboro to Tractor Supply so honestly nothing. Shiver. Mimi had some pretty great thoughts,what about a Vet's office 628 or Tractor Supply what about a real grocery store could we come up with something innovative that will provide food to 629 people in the area aside from canned stuff. 630 631 Lamar Proctor: Planning's recommendation is that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Planning 632 believes it's consistent? Is that fair to say? That's the recommendation correct? I'm wondering if Planning could 633 articulate what is consistent given the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and maintaining the rural character and I'm looking 634 through the Table of Permitted Uses and retail is not listed as an Industrial Use and this is a Rural Industrial Activity 635 Node so I don't know if there is anything Planning could add to that or if there was some thinking there or what the 636 thought process was. 637 638 Cy Stober: The General Statute compels us to make 2 findings, 1 is that it is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of 639 our adopted plans, particularly our Comprehensive Plan which is to be maintained to reflect the needs of the County and 640 that it is generally consistent with that Plan so we evaluate the Future Land Use Map,we determine if an amendment is 641 needed to that. We've determined that it is not because it is in the Rural Industrial Activity Node and that the zoning 642 request is consistent with the Plan and per Appendix F,which is the land use matrix which defines the allowable uses 643 within the Future Land Use Map not the zoning district. This is one of the uses that is allowed so that is the basis of the 644 finding of staff plus insuring that the submitted site plan is in compliance with the development standards of the Unified 645 Development Ordinance and should it not be a condition is noted and if the condition appears to produce any safety 646 concerns or intersectionality, negative impacts,to surrounding neighborhood properties that we would not support a 647 waiver or deviation from our standards that would introduce negative impact on surrounding land uses. Otherwise the 648 zoning determination, land use determination in this case is defined largely by the Future Land Use and the Appendix F, 649 allowable uses for that Future Land Use. 650 651 Statler Gilfillen: I'm trying very hard to listen to what they are saying what the objection is, regardless of the industrial 652 zone. I live in the Eno District and not too long ago, I believe it went through the zoning because it is a major retail 653 establishment, the Eno River Farm at St. Mary's and Lawrence Road, it is a major retail establishment right there in my 654 neighborhood that generates a lot of traffic. I took no exception to what was done or any of the zoning on that issue 655 because I felt that was compatible with what was there. If I'm hearing you and the other neighbors,the issue may be not 656 an Eno River Farm but a national chain store coming in to the neighborhood, it's the type of business in retail that is 657 there that you feel is really incompatible with what that neighborhood is. 658 659 Adam Beeman: I think it's the duplicity, its 4/10s of a mile to Dollar General and the gas station there is nothing out there 660 that warrants another store. I don't care if it's a tobacco or vape store or whatever, I don't see any kind of convenience 19 DRAFT 661 store going there right now. It's just not necessary. It's like in my mind you look at CVS and Walgreens they go across 662 from each other,whatever happened to Rite Aid,we have a bunch of empty Rite Aid buildings because CVS and 663 Walgreens knocked them off and you've got AutoZone and all those guys next door they all want to be next to each 664 other and compete with each other but I just don't see this, it's not necessary there is not enough, they already said it 665 they have to reduce their parking spaces just because their numbers aren't going to hit the full parking spot. It's just not 666 necessary. It's reduncency upon reduncency and if there was a tire shop, heck you've got one down the street, a tire 667 shop,you don't need one of those. There's all sorts of better uses that I think we could put there and they'll hook onto 668 Efland Cedar Grove and run down Efland Cedar Grove to avoid 86 so they don't ever get any further than that and that's 669 what they are counting on. The catch is the out of state traffic running by and I understand the taxes but we turned down 670 Buc-ee's which was printing money and I don't see a Dollar Tree, a Family Dollar, is going to provide that much tax 671 money to justify a building that maybe 5 years down the road is abandoned and it's just sitting there as an eye sore. 1 672 don't know it might thrive who knows, there's too much reduncency there. We don't need a shopping mall up in the top 673 of the County and that's essentially what you're trying to provide is multiple choices. We have choices. 674 675 Statler Gilfillen: Would you like to make a motion one way or the other, I think we're at that point? 676 677 Adam Beeman: No. It's up to you guys, I can say I am against it but that's the only motion that we're at. 678 679 Statler Gilfillen: I think somebody has to do a motion. 680 681 Charity Kirk: Are we done with questions? 682 683 Beth Bronson: Anybody have questions? 684 685 Overlapping conversations 686 687 Adam Beeman: Does anyone else have any questions or concerns? 688 689 Lamar Proctor: Can I make a comment? I asked Planning about this and I'm looking at Appendix F and even if we're 690 trying to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, this area the red circle is a Rural Industrial Activity Node, this is a 691 retail space which when I look at the Table of Permitted Uses, seems to suggest a zoning designation of LC-1 or NC-2 692 things that would allow for retail establishments. Under Appendix F,the Rural Industrial Activity Node suggests stuff that 693 falls more under 1-1 which is Light Industrial so I don't think that this is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and the 694 Comprehensive Plan because it is a use that would fall more under something that in the Future Land Use Map would be 695 Rural Community Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood Activity Node or a Commercial Transition Activity Node or CITAN 696 area. I don't think it's consistent with the Future Land Use Map and the uses that were anticipated under a Rural Industrial 697 Activity Node that it is cited as in that red circle. 698 699 Adam Beeman: I would say that I would prefer them not to take business away from the Farm and Garden store that just 700 reopened by the dump off of Walnut Grove they sell local Bison, beef, chicken, all sort of meat and fresh produce. That's 701 right down the street from where this proposal is so why would we want to put someone out of business or take people 702 away from that store that just came back after being burnt down and they are providing goods from the community where 703 they are selling local beef and meat and vegetables versus trucked in corn nibbles. 704 705 David Blankfard: Before you make a motion, are there any conditions that would change anybody's opinion? 706 707 Adam Beeman: Not mine. 708 709 Beth Bronson: Is this going to be sold to or is it going to be leased to? 710 711 Overlapping conversations 712 713 Doug Burr: We would be buying the 7 acres so he would still have the remaining. 714 715 20 DRAFT 716 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to deny the UDO text amendment and rezoning application for Non-Residential Conditional 717 Zoning based on the finding that the application does not follow the intention of the Future Land Use Map designation 718 within the Comprehensive Plan 2030 via designation of Rural Industrial Activity Node and that it would not be harmonious 719 with the surrounding area or reflect the desires of the community. Seconded by Lamar Proctor. 720 MOTION PASSED 9—2(MARSHALL,BLANKFARD) 721 722 Adam Beeman: Based on that the rezoning is denied. 723 724 725 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 726 Meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. 727 728 729 Adam Beeman, Chair 21 DRAFT 1 SUMMARY NOTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 NOVEMBER 2,2022 4 TRAINING SESSION 5 (This training session meeting was held virtually. 6 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 7 8 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions. 9 10 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large 11 Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township 12 Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; 13 Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor 16 17 OTHERS PRESENT: Anna Richards 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: PLANNING BOARD TRAINING SESSION — Staff will lead training on basic aspects of land use 20 regulation in Orange County. The topic is Plans and Agreements that Affect Planning in 21 Orange County. 22 PRESENTER: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor 23 24 Perdita Holtz conducted a training session on Plans and Agreements that Affect Planning in Orange County. 25 1 22 23 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 7, 2022 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report/Work Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: (919) Annual Report / Work Plan Form Cy Stober, 245-2592 Perdita Holtz, 245-2578 PURPOSE: To provide an annual report and work plan input to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). BACKGROUND: Each year the County Clerk's Office collects information from each of the County's advisory boards to prepare a report for an early spring BOCC work session. The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year's activities of advisory boards/commissions, as well as proposed activities for the upcoming year. Staff and advisory boards are asked to collaborate to complete the form that has been provided by the Clerk's Office and return by January 27. Proposed activities are to be consistent with the goals of the BOCC. The attached Annual Report / Work Plan form has been completed by staff for Planning Board review and comment. Some topics of prime interest include: 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update 2. Analysis of and Revisions to the Conventional Zoning Districts 3. Affordable and Senior Housing These topics are accented on page 3 of the attachment. The Planning Board is involved with approximately 40 - 60% of the work Planning Department staff is responsible for (the percentage varies by year, depending on specific work being completed in a given year). For the upcoming year, Planning staff will be working and collaborating on some items that do not go to an advisory board for a recommendation or for which other advisory boards have primary responsibility. Examples of these tasks are work related to the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) and the Transit Plan Governance Study. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: 1. Review the attached document prior to the meeting. 24 2. Discuss members' ideas about any additional activities to be worked on in 2023 or any additional issues to be brought to the attention of the BOCC. 3. Either: a. Approve the attached Annual Report and Work Plan Form, or b. Ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report / Work Plan form and submit the form to the Clerk's office, or c. Ask staff to incorporate the results of any discussion into the Annual Report / Work Plan form bring the final form back to the January 4, 2023 meeting in order to meet the January 27 due date. 25 NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Planning Board Report Period: 2022 calendar year for annual report; 2023 calendar year for work plan ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ANNUAL REPORT/ WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of Commissioners appreciates the dedication of all the volunteers on their boards and commissions and welcomes input from various advisory boards and commissions throughout the year. Please complete the following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form. Board/Commission Name: Planning Board Person to address the BOCC and contact information: Adam Beeman, Chair, (919) 563-0463, abeeman4784CcDyahoo.com (Note: the Planning Board elects a Chair and Vice-Chair every January; if the Chair changes in January 2023, the 2023 Chair would be the presenter) Primary County Staff Contact: Cy Stober, Planning Director; secondary contact: Perdita Holtz, Special projects & GIS Supervisor How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any special meetings and sub-committee meetings? Generally once per month for a regular meeting + optional Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) or training session (ORC or training sessions occur on the same evening as the regular meeting several times a year). Brief Statement of Board/Commission's Assigned Charge and Responsibilities. Under the authority of NC General Statute, the BOCC created the Planning Board to embark upon a continuing planning program, including but not limited to the preparation and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, in protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents and businesses, landowners and visitors. The duties of the Planning Board are listed in Section 1.6.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance, and reflect the duties and responsibilities charged to all jurisdictions by NCGS 160D. What are your Board/Commission's most important accomplishments? In 2022, the Planning Board accomplished the following: • Reviewed and made a recommendation on a revision to a preliminary plat for a major subdivision — The Lodges at Chapel Hill • Reviewed and made a recommendation on extensive UDO Text 26 Amendments pertaining to erosion control and stormwater provisions • Reviewed and made a recommendation on an applicant-initiated request to rezone a 2.32 acre parcel in Efland to 1-2 (Medium Industrial) • Reviewed and made a recommendation for a rezoning in the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node for a general retail store (applicant withdrew application prior to the public hearing). • Reviewed and made a recommendation for a rezoning in the Cedar Grove Rural Industrial Activity Node for a dollar store (applicant withdrew application prior to the public hearing). • Reviewed and made recommendations on UDO text amendments pertaining to Neighborhood Information Meetings, Efficiency Units (ADUs), and subdivision plat signature blocks. • Completed several training sessions offered by Planning staff. List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually. • Monthly Planning Board meetings • Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meetings and special meetings as required • Review applications for Unified Development Ordinance text amendments, Zoning Atlas amendments, and major subdivisions, and provide recommendations to the BOCC • Develop and recommend policies, ordinances, administrative procedures and other means for carrying out plans • Coordinate with staff on ongoing planning updates, changes, and new techniques Describe this board/commission's activities/accomplishments in carrying out BOCC goal(s)/priorities, if applicable. The Planning Board is involved in the ongoing implementation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and any potential regulatory revisions resulting from updates to BOCC priorities. Describe the collaboration relationship(s) this particular board has with other advisory boards and commissions? In 2022, there was not direct collaboration with other advisory boards (e.g., joint meetings). However, as the County embarks upon a Strategic Plan and eventual update to the Comprehensive Plan (commencement expected in 2023), it is anticipated that advisory boards may be part of the processes and joint collaboration may occur. Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2023 as they relate to established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable, is there a fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff time, other resources) associated with these proposed activities (please list). The Board will continue its work in partnership with staff to further BOCC priorities, some of which may emerge at the January 2023 BOCC retreat (not in 2 27 priority order): 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update: The County is in the process of commencing work on a countywide Strategic Plan which will inform an eventual Comprehensive Land Use Plan update, including a survey that will serve both efforts. Both efforts are expected to be completed with the assistance of a consultant with the Strategic Plan underway in the first half of 2023 and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update beginning later in 2023. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan update is likely to focus primarily on land use and will include a public outreach program. 2. Affordable and Senior Housing, including Co-Housing: On-going need for affordable housing opportunities, including mobile home parks and senior housing, in the county. Continue to work with the Housing and Aging Departments on their adopted plans and policies to develop regulatory amendments that will further mutual goals and objectives. (Note: the proposed UDO text amendments regarding efficiency units furthers this goal). 3. UDO Amendments: Planning staff anticipates reviewing the UDO in 2023 to compile amendments necessary to streamline and clarify the regulations and to respond to recent court decisions. 4. Continue Training for Planning Board Members: Planning staff will continue to offer training to Planning Board members on an as-needed basis. Suggestions on additional topics for training are welcome. 5. Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative changes at the State level. 6. Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement Map Amendments / Reconciliation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning Lines: Work with WASMPBA partners to bring forward amendments to reconcile discrepancies in the WASMPBA "Primary Service Area," County Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning lines, and any discrepancies on similar municipal maps. 7. 2023 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2023 BOCC retreat. What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners' attention? 1. Wireless and Broadband Access: Wireless and broadband access continues to be a challenge in many portions of Orange County. 2. Climate Change: Continue to encourage and regulate builders to take into account long-term changes; for example: encourage building locations well beyond the 100- year floodplain to account for possible increases in flooded areas. Encourage better building standards to withstand stronger storms. Ensure public water availability during times of extended droughts. Be mindful of deforestation/clear cutting and the destruction of ecosystems. 3. Growth of Mebane into Western Orange County: The continued growth of Mebane has created uncertainty for area residents. More formal communications, relationships, and/or agreements with Mebane should be pursued to ensure residents have a better idea of future plans and growth areas. 4. Energy: Continue to allow solar arrays in appropriate areas, perhaps performing a 3 28 reanalysis of locational criteria. Propose UDO amendments to better enable small arrays for placement and use on major subdivisions and nonresidential projects. Revisit energy information in the County's Comprehensive Plan to expand information on the variety of energy types (DEAPR is the lead Department on this Element of the Comprehensive Plan). 5. Watershed Review and Implications of County vs. State Watershed Delineations: Review the County and State watershed delineation lines and the implications of current differences, including stormwater standards. Be mindful of any lessened watershed protection measures. 6. Rural Enterprises: Determine need to address innovative water & sewage disposal issues in the Rural Activity Nodes (RANs) to encourage development in these nodes. Evaluate non-residential acreage thresholds in both the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update to better enable retail services or other uses in identified (RANs). 7. Transportation Issues: Determine if rural "transit oriented development" could be hubs of transit located in the rural community nodes. Accent focus on transit dependent populations and their connection to other transit infrastructure. 8. Long-Term Planning for Potable Water and Waste Disposal: Planning for potable water and waste (wastewater and solid waste) should continue to be a topic for study (i.e., supportive infrastructure analysis) and potential discussion with public and non-profit utility providers as growth in Orange County continues. 9. Post-COVID Needs: Evaluate planning-related changes that emerge post-COVID and respond appropriately. 4 29 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 7, 2022 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Neighborhood Information Meetings DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Statement of Consistency Tyler Sliger, Planner II (919) 245-2586 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Cy Stober, Director (919) 245-2592 Amendments 3. August 3, 2022 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on County-initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to require an applicant to host a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) instead of the current requirement that Planning staff coordinate and host the NIM. BACKGROUND: NIMs are a required step in the review procedures for several types of Planning applications. Specifically, NIMs are required for the following applications: • Special Use Permits (UDO Section 2.7.5), • Conditional Districts (UDO Section 2.9.1), • Minor and Major Subdivisions (UDO Sections 2.14.4 and 2.15.2), and • Governmental Uses (UDO Section 2.24). The purpose of a NIM is to educate attendees on the proposed project, a valuable engagement opportunity for the public to become better oriented with a project. Currently, Orange County Planning staff is required to schedule, host, and present the project to the public, which often gives the public an impression that staff is involved with and has a bias in favor of the project. To eliminate this confusion, staff has prepared proposed revisions to make the applicant responsible for scheduling and hosting the NIM instead of staff. Applicant presentations of their rezoning, special use, and subdivision projects at neighborhood meetings is common practice throughout counties and municipalities in North Carolina; direct staff involvement in hosting such meetings is not. This item was presented at the August 3, 2022 ORC meeting (Attachment 3, Meeting Notes). This item was reviewed by the Planning Board at its October 5, 2002 meeting. The following suggestions for additional requirements were made by Planning Board members during the October 5 meeting: 1. Submission of a recording of the NIM by the applicant, along with a required NIM report; and 30 2. Ensure that the NIM is held with enough time for the NIM report to be submitted to staff for inclusion in the Planning Board packet. As a result, the following language has been added to the recommended amendment language: The applicant shall submit a recording and a written report of the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the Planning Department at least 14 days before the [type of meeting or action is included in each UDO section proposed for amendment]. Joint Planning Area (JPA) Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Agreement with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, the amendment package was sent to the Town planning staffs on August 30, 2022. To date, Orange County staff has not received any comments from the Towns. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: • Statement of Approval and Consistency indicating the text amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, as contained in Attachment 1. • Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments, as contained in Attachment 2. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no costs associated with this project other than the use of staff time and the required legal advertisement for the amendment's public hearing. County staff has and will continue to accomplish the necessary tasks associated with amending the UDO and the legal advertisement will be paid from budgeted funds for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Review the proposed UDO text amendments and deliberate as desired, 2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Approval and Consistency (Attachment 1) and the proposed UDO text amendments (Attachment 2) in time for the January 17, 2023 BOCC meeting. 31 Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY PLANS Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to revise its requirements for Neighborhood Information Meetings. The Planning Board hereby recommends approval of the proposed text amendment and issues this Statement of Consistency pursuant to NC GS § 160D-604 (d)Planning board review and comments—Plan consistency. The Planning Board finds: 1. The requirements of UDO Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments have been met; 2. The amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, as prescribed by UDO Section 1.1.5 Statement of Intent—Amendments and Section 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans; 3. The amendment is consistent with the applicable plan because it supports the following: a. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. b. Comprehensive Objective LU-6.1: Undertake a comprehensive effort to inform and involve the citizens of Orange County in the land use planning process. 4. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it encourages communication between the applicant and the public while allowing County staff to maintain neutrality. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Adam Beeman, Chair Date 32 Attachment 2 The following pages contain Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments to our Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) standards. These revisions are geared to help residents get a better understanding of projects that require a NIM. Within this amendment package: • Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text that staff is suggesting be added to the UDO. • Red Strikethrough Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete. Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8305/Unified-Development-Ordinance-PDF 33 SECTION 2.7.5 Neighborhood Information Meeting (A) Before an Evidentiary Hearing may be held for a Special Use the applicant is required to schedule a minimum of one neighborhood information mootin Neighborhood Information Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on the proposed development project and allow staff an opportunity to explain the review process associated with the request. (B) The applicant shall obtain n or+„GWReF mailing address infOrmatien from the nraRgG Geunty RaRRing DepartmeRt whiGh shall utilize Orange GGURty Land RGGerds data, and shall moil n0tiGes of the mooting date and time send notice of the meeting via first class mail to each property owner within one thousand feet of the property for which a Special Use has been requested. The applicant shall use Orange County Land Records data to determine which parcels are within the one thousand foot notification boundary and the mailing address of the property owners. (C) The applicant shall mail notice of the Neighborhood Information Meeting a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the meeting. (D) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and time of the meeting a minimum of 40-14 days prior to the date of the meeting. (E) The meeting shall be held a minimum of 45 days prior to the date of the Evidentiary Hearing. (F) The applicant shall submit a recording along with a written report of the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the Planning Department at least 14 days before an Evidentiary Hearing is heldsan be SGheduled. e (1) The written report of the meeting shall include a list of those persons and organizations contacted about the meeting and the manner and date of contact; the time, date, and location of the meeting; a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting; and a summary of issues discussed at the meeting. Neighborhood Information Meetings for T 7 telecommunication facilities shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.10.8 (B) (2). 34 SECTION • • 2.9.1 Conditional Districts (D) Neighborhood Information Meeting (1) Before a Public Hearing may be held on an accepted application for a Conditional District, the applicant is required to schedule, with the assistance of the Planning Department a minimum of one neighborhood information meeting Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). The purpose of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on the proposed development project. (2) Theo nliGant shall obtain n erfii o ailing address information from the Qrange CGS Rty Planning Department and shall mail nGtiGes of the meeting date and time via first Glass mail to each property owner within one thousand feet of the property for which a Conditional District has been requested. The applicant shall send notice of the meeting via first class mail to each property owner within one thousand feet of the property for which a Conditional District has been requested. The applicant shall use Orange County Land Records data to determine which parcels are within the one thousand foot notification boundary and the mailing address of the property owners. (3) The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the proposed Neighborhood Information Meeting. (4) The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and time of the meeting a minimum of--1-8 14 days prior to the date of the meeting. (5) The applicant shall submit a recording along with a written report of the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the Planning Department at least 14 days before a Public Hearing Gan he sGhedt edis held. (a) The written report of the meeting shall include a list of those persons and organizations contacted about the meeting and the manner and date of contact; a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting; a summary of issues discussed at the meeting; and a description of any changes to the application made by the applicant as a result of the meeting. {�)(6) The meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the Planning Board meeting where the application is scheduled for review. 35 SECTION - • - SUBDIVISIONS 2.14.4 Concept Plan (B) Neighborhood Information Meeting for Minor Subdivisions utilizing the Flexible Development Option (1) A minor subdivision application using the Flexible Development Option shall require a Neighborhood Information Meeting NIM if it proposes more than five lots, excluding open space. (2) Upen aGGeptanGeAs a component of a Concept Plan application, the PlaRning DireGtGr applicant shall schedule a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM4 and shall obtain property owner mailing address information from Orange County Land Records data and mail notices of the meeting to each owner of property within one thousand feet of the property proposed to be subdivided. (3) Notices of the NIM shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten 14 days prior to the date of the meeting. (4) The RIaRRin^ DiYe^+^r applicant shall place a sign on the affected property indicating the total number of lots proposed, the date, time, and location of the NIM; and the Planning Department telephone number. The sign shall be posted on the affected property at least seven 14 days prior to the NIM. The NIM shall be held a prior to Final Plat Application submittal. (5) The purpose of theAt the NIM is for the,t#e applicant to present the proposed Concept Plan to persons in attendance, shall be avail to answer questions about the proposed subdivision, and to receive comments from neighboring property owners for the purpose of improving the proposed subdivision design. (6) The Planning DireGtor shall explain the subdivision approval proGess and neighboring property owners may speak with regard to c nifie conGerns andlor issues-.The applicant shall submit a recording along with a written report of the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the Planning Department at least 14 days before submitting a Final Plat application for the subdivision. (a) The written report of the meeting shall include a list of those persons and organizations contacted about the meeting and the manner and date of contact; the time, date, and location of the meeting; a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting; a summary of issues discussed at the meeting; and a description of any changes to the application made by the applicant as a result of the meeting. 36 SECTION • - SUBDIVISIONS 2.15.2 Concept Plan (D) Neighborhood Information Meeting (1) Upon acceptance As a component of a Concept Plan application, the Planning D+resteF-applicant shall schedule a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and shall obtain property owner mailing address information from Orange County Land Records data and mail notices of the meeting to each owner of property within one thousand feet of the property proposed to be subdivided. (2) Notices of the NIM shall be mailed by first class mail at least 14ten days prior to the date of the meeting. (3) The applicantPlann'n^ Dir^^+^r shall place a sign on the affected property indicating the total number of lots proposed, the date, time, and location of the NIM; and the Planning Department telephone number. The sign shall be posted on the affected property at least 14seven days prior to the NIM. The NIM shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the concept plan is scheduled to be reviewed. (4) At theThe purpose of the NIM, is for;the applicant to present the Concept Plan to persons in attendance,^"all be avail ahlo to answer questions about the proposed subdivision, and to receive comments from neighboring property owners for the purpose of improving the proposed subdivision design. (5) The Planning DireGtGF shall explain the subdiyisinn a al PFOGess and shall identify meeting dates of the Rannin.. Beard and Beard Of CGMMissinn^rs a+ a„dwe.r yes The applicant shall submit a recording along with a written report of the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the Planning Department at least 14 days before submitting the Preliminary Plat. (a) The written report of the meeting shall include a list of those persons and organizations contacted about the meeting and the manner and date of contact; the time, date, and location of the meeting; a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting; a summary of issues discussed at the meeting; and a description of any changes to the application made by the applicant as a result of the meeting. 37 SECTION - GOVERNMENTALUSES 2.24.1 Applicability The following applies to those land uses permitted within the Governmental Uses land use category as detailed within Section 5.2. 2.24.2 Neighborhood Information Meeting (A) If a proposed project has not been a part of a previous planning effort that included the opportunity for public comment and input, a noighhnrheed information moo+in Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM)shall be held prior to the submittal of a site plan application. The purpose of this meeting is to obtain surrounding property owner input and comments on the proposed development. (1) Examples of planning efforts that generally include the opportunity for public input are: park master plans, small area plans, solid waste management master plans, library master plans, etc. (B) The Planning Department shall assist the applicant with the scheduling of the notghborhood inform +inn meeting. (C)(B) The applicant shall obtain property owner mailing address information from the PIaRRiRg Department, who shall „+irzo Orange County Land Records data,and shall mail notices of the meeting date, place, and time via first class mail to each property owner within one thousand feet of the subject property. kMLQL_The notices shall be mailed a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of the meeting. PLPJ_The applicant shall post a sign on the property advertising the date, place, and time of the meeting a minimum of 140 days prior to the date of the meeting. {F) ELThe applicant shall submit written certification that the notices were mailed in compliance with the requirements of this subsection. The written certification shall denote the date of the mailing as well as a synopsis of comments from the meeting as part of the site plan application. The applicant shall also provide a written response on what steps, if any, were taken to address said comments. (F) The applicant shall submit a recording along with a written report of the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the Planning Department. (1) The written report of the meeting shall include a list of those persons and organizations contacted about the meeting and the manner and date of contact; the time, date, and location of the meeting; a roster of the persons in attendance at the meeting; a summary of issues discussed at the meeting; and a description of any changes to the application made by the applicant as a result of the meeting. (G) A neighborhood information mooting Neighborhood Information Meeting shall not be required in cases where an applicant is proposing to expand facilities less than 50% of existing floor area. 38 DRAFT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 5,2022 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative;Whitney Watson,At-Large Representative; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township 8 Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall,At-Large Representative; Charity Kirk,At- 9 Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; 10 Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects&GIS Supervisor; Pat 15 Mallet, Interim Current Planning Supervisor/Erosion Control, Stormwater&Engineering Supervisor;Tom Altieri, 16 Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Brian Collie, Planner II; Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Carlos Sanchez, Planning 17 Technician; Tina Love,Administrative Support 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Briant Robey, Doug Barr, Beth Myers, Leah Cook, John Mark Thomas, Mimi Locathetis, Celia Rice 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETINGS 27 -To make a recommendation to the BOCC on proposed amendments to the LIDO pertaining to 28 Neighborhood Information Meetings. This item was introduced at the August 3, 2022 ORC meeting 29 and is scheduled for a BOCC Public Hearing in November. 30 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 31 32 Tyler Sliger reviewed the proposed UDO text amendment. 33 34 Lamar Proctor: So this amendment is proposing taking Planning completely out of the NIM process? 35 36 Tyler Sliger: Yes. Like other jurisdictions,this puts the responsibility on the applicant. I couldn't find another jurisdiction 37 where they have a planner do this. 38 39 Lamar Proctor: Personally, it scares me because it seems like you are putting the fox in charge of the hen house. You 40 are going to leave the applicant who has a monetary interest in a land use change completely in charge of providing 41 information, posting, noticing. You are putting the applicant who has the monetary incentive for this thing to pass,they 42 are going to make a lot of money,they are unilaterally informing and noticing those neighbors who are most directly 43 affected without any oversight or even availability of planning to answer questions to the general public. That seems 44 hugely irresponsible to me. 45 46 Tyler Sliger: That is what the report is for. If they do not meet the requirements, they are not following procedure. They 47 would have to have the Neighborhood Information Meeting. 48 49 Lamar Proctor: Then they can just report whatever they want to report there is no independent witness to verify the 50 authenticity or credibility of what the developer who has a huge interest in making sure it passes,that it's verified and 51 true in the report. It says on page 15 sub 5 that the applicant shall submit a written report of the NIM to the Planning 52 Department before a public hearing is held and the written report shall include those things. So, before a public hearing 53 is held. 54 55 Tyler Sliger: Correct, before they get to this point they have to have a Neighborhood Information Meeting. 39 DRAFT 56 57 Beth Bronson: They could literally have given you the report on that this morning. 58 59 Delores Bailey: Don't you schedule the Public Hearing? So,they would have to have everything in before you would 60 schedule it. 61 62 Tyler Sliger: That is part of the application so they get it one day before this meeting and they don't have the necessary 63 documentation to go to the Planning Board or BOCC because you don't get this packet the day before. 64 65 Overlapping conversations 66 67 Tyler Sliger: Before the packet is sent out everything you are sent has to be submitted a week before so if they don't 68 send this report in a week before your packet is go out then it's not on the agenda. 69 70 Beth Bronson: Then why is it changed from being scheduled to be held? I think that should be written into the text 71 amendment that would be my recommendation. That should be in the text amendment that the report is available 14 72 days prior to the Planning Board. 73 74 Adam Beeman: Look at the last sentence on page 15,the meeting shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the date 75 of the Planning Board meeting where the application is scheduled for review. So they have to have it 2 weeks ahead of 76 time that means they've got 14 days to get it sent in. 77 78 Beth Bronson:Then have 13 days to get out the report. 79 80 Overlapping conversations 81 82 Beth Bronson: I know it sounds nitpicky. 83 84 Delores Bailey: But they control whether it goes on the agenda so if they don't get the packet in enough time it won't be 85 on our agenda. 86 87 Beth Bronson: Well they say until the meeting then they can schedule the Public Hearing. 88 89 Delores Bailey: It doesn't matter. 90 91 Adam Beeman: If they don't pass their paperwork in then their meeting would just get kicked and they wouldn't be in 92 front of us. 93 94 Cy Stober: Question of direction from the Planning Board,would it be more satisfactory to have that trigger rather than 95 be scheduling a public hearing, be scheduling a Planning Board meeting? Rather than the language reading scheduling 96 a public hearing it would be to schedule the Planning Board meeting. 97 98 Beth Bronson: Yes. 99 100 Cy Stober: Ok. 101 102 Adam Beeman: That way they have to have the written paperwork in before you can even schedule a meeting with us. 103 The public hearing is this in front of the Planning Board the NIM is just the name of the information meeting. That's what 104 1 think you are getting flip flopped. The public hearing would have been they have to have the paperwork in before they 105 can get this meeting scheduled. 106 107 Cy Stober: The public hearing is the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. This is a public meeting, it's 108 not a public hearing. So if we change the language from public hearing to the Planning Board meeting. 109 40 DRAFT 110 Lamar Proctor: The way this is written would it have allowed them to submit the NIM report after we heard about it? 111 After we considered it? 112 113 Cy Stober: No,the application would be considered incomplete without the written report but to address the concerns 114 that have been stated today this would provide additional time prior to even scheduling the Planning Board meeting. We 115 would have to have the written report in hand before we could even schedule it. 116 117 Lamar Proctor: Right, cause the way this reads you don't have to have the report in hand before you schedule it. They 118 can just turn the report in like Beth said. 119 120 Cy Stober: That's the concern I'm hearing so if we provided that textual change. 121 122 Lamar Proctor: That's one concern but I still have the overarching concern of now you've taken any government 123 presence out of the NIM meeting and so allowing the developers or the applicant to unilaterally convey information 124 however they see fit whether correct or not correct,whether they are misstating the UDO and the Comprehensive Land 125 Use Plan. Whether they are misstating the process,there is no representative from government that can correct any 126 misstatement by applicants whether intentional or not at the Neighborhood Information Meeting. Then what is reported 127 by the applicant in the NIM report,who knows, its accuracy. We have no idea. 128 129 Charity Kirk: How do other governmental bodies do this similar thing,validate that things were done as deemed? 130 131 Tyler Sliger: I reached out to Chapel Hill about how they do theirs because I could not find it in their ordinance and 1 132 have not heard back from them. Carrboro just states that they have to have one there is no requirement like we do in 133 having ours. It just says people in a 500 ft. radius have to be notified and that's it. It doesn't tell when they have to have 134 it or anything like that. Basically, Chatham County is a lot like this where they put the responsibility on the applicant to 135 do this process and they check what they do. 136 137 Charity Kirk: So how do you plan on checking what they do? 138 139 Tyler Sliger: Basically, confirming their report. If no one comes to a Neighborhood Information Meeting,that is a little bit 140 skeptical and if it is in a 1,000 ft. radius they are going to get a Planning Board notification letter. If they come and we 141 have a report of someone not getting or they weren't notified about a NIM then we would say that they didn't follow 142 procedure. They have to have it somewhere. If they don't go to,for instance,the Library or they say they are going to 143 have it that's a red flag. 144 145 Lamar Proctor: I love the system we have. I think it is a boon to our citizens. I think it keeps people very well informed 146 about the changes that are going on. Frankly, I think 1,000 ft. in the County is too short of a distance. I think it should be 147 2,500 ft. I think when you are talking about large projects that occur in the County that sometimes encapsulates 10, 148 scores, 100s of acres, involves millions of sq.ft.of impervious surface, 1,000 ft. is kind of way too small because those 149 sorts of projects are going to have effects for miles around. I think 1,000 ft. is ridiculously short for County projects 150 especially ones that are larger and involve larger acreage and sq.ft. I love the fact that Planning is there. I know it's a 151 lot of work for Planning but I feel like it assures me that applicants and developers aren't taking advantage of the 152 process. 153 154 David Blankfard: Can we just have a member of staff be required to go to the NIM? 155 156 Charity Kirk: Yea.. 157 158 Cy Stober: We can do that. I would be more comfortable coming back to you with language rather than coming up with 159 a clause on the fly. We will consult with the Attorney's Office on a simple clause. Hopefully, 10 words or less. 160 161 Charity Kirk:Another thing is that rather than a written report, you could ask for a recording of the meeting. If the concern 162 is a lack of validation of a developer,you can validate what happened. 163 41 DRAFT 164 Cy Stober: My only concern is I would like to have leeway to have a recording or to have staff go to observe. The 165 concern from Planning staff and the reason that Planning staff often don't present at NIMs is that our opportunity to 166 provide findings of fact is this meeting. When we present at a Neighborhood Information Meeting, it gives the 167 appearance that we are representing the project which is not our role. Our role is to find the facts, disclose them to the 168 appointed and elected officials and the public at open meetings. Neighborhood Information Meetings are a courtesy 169 extended through our ordinance and through many ordinances, including most of our neighbors and most of our 170 municipalities, but not all of them, and the responsibility for leading that discussion is appropriately the applicant or the 171 developer. Having Planning staff also has the effect of chilling the opportunity for a robust and productive discussion 172 between the applicant and concerned neighbors to find solutions to their concerns. If we are always there saying no, no, 173 no,you can't do that it stifles some creativity that may result from a discussion between the applicant and those who are 174 most affected by what they are proposing to do. Those are the concerns that we have,the Planning staff. I hear your 175 concern about verifying the proceeding of the NIM. I think that we can come up with some basic very simple language to 176 address that. 177 178 Randy Marshall: I completely agree with the notion that the applicant needs to defend his own project and the Planning 179 staff doesn't need to be there defending the applicant's project because I think that puts the focus,as you've said, on the 180 Planning staff and not on the applicant where it needs to be.That being said, I concur that there needs to be some 181 verification as to what happened at those Neighborhood Meetings either recording and/or a staff person present who 182 could answer questions if need be is just wise. If we could reword that to include it in this text amendment, I think that 183 would be preferable. 184 185 Cy Stober: If there are other concerns, I am happy to address them otherwise I would request a vote to continue that to 186 the next meeting to address those concerns stated tonight. 187 188 Beth Bronson:And prior to the Planning Board meeting being held. 189 190 Cy Stober: We'll address that text change as well. 191 192 MOTION BY Beth Bronson to continue this text amendment. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen. 193 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 42 43 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 7, 2022 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Final Subdivision Plat School District Signature Block DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Background Information regarding SAPFO Tyler Sliger, Planner II (919) 245-2586 2. Statement of Consistency Cy Stober, Director (919) 245-2592 3. UDO Text Amendment 4. Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Meeting Notes 5. Letter of Support from Orange County Schools PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on County-initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to remove the requirement in Section 7.13.3 (F)(3)(g), the school district signature block on final subdivision plats. BACKGROUND: Attachment 1 contains information on the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO), an ordinance the Planning Board is not directly involved in administering. Planning staff will present an overview of the SAPFO and CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) program at the Planning Board meeting so that Planning Board members may have a better understanding of the SAPFO. The issuance of CAPS prior to development approval is one aspect of the overall SAPFO and the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that accompany the SAPFO, which are prescriptive regarding most aspects of SAPFO administration. None of these documents require school district signatures on plats and none of the other MOUs/SAPFO parties (i.e., the municipalities) require such plat signatures. The MOU/SAPFO requirement is only for issuance of the CAPS certificate (if capacity is determined to be available) by the relevant school district, and this requirement is not proposed for modification as part of this proposed text amendment. Subdivisions that follow the traditional or major subdivision review process have to receive several signatures before recording the final plat. Orange County currently requires signature by the relevant school system, per the language found in Section 7.13.3 (F)(3)(g) of the UDO. Research into the plat certificate requirement has shown that the requirement was added to Orange County's former Subdivision Regulations as a small portion of a multi-part amendment to the Subdivision Regulations in the year after SAPFO amendments were added to the former Zoning Ordinance. Agenda materials and minutes from that time do not speak directly to the addition of the plat signature block, other than a statement found in minutes made by previous staff that the signature block addition was "needed for SAPFO." None of the municipal signatories amended their regulations to require this plat and signature, and, as evidenced in Attachment 5, this requirement 44 is not supported by Orange County Schools. Both school districts require CAPS issuance as part of the subdivision review and approval process, in compliance with the adopted 2003 SAPFO and its accompanying MOUs independent of the plat signature. The school districts staff (OCS and CHCCS) keep their respective elected boards apprised of CAPS issuance through regular staff reports; this will remain unchanged. Planning staff is recommending that the signature block be removed as a subdivision plat recordation requirement to remove an unnecessary and time-intensive step from subdivision plat approval. The approved CAPS will remain part of the subdivision application package and a criterion for Planning staff approval of the plat for recordation, and will be maintained by Planning staff with the subdivision request file. The recommended amendment does not have any impacts on the school districts' reporting of enrollment figures and will remove an unnecessary step from plat approvals in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) reviewed the UDO amendments at the October 5, 2022 ORC meeting (see meeting notes in Attachment 4). Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: • Statement of Approval and Consistency indicating the text amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, as contained in Attachment 2. • The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments, as contained in Attachment 3. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no costs associated with this project other than the use of staff time and the required legal advertisement for this amendment's public hearing. County staff has and will continue to accomplish the necessary tasks associated with amending the UDO and the legal advertisement will be paid from budgeted funds for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board. 1. Review the proposed UDO text amendments and deliberate as desired, 2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Approval and Consistency (Attachment 2) and the proposed UDO text amendments (Attachment 3) in time for the January 17, 2023 BOCC meeting. 45 A. SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION 1. Background ■ The Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) and two Memorandums of Understanding were adopted in 2003 between Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County, Hillsborough, and Orange County Schools (OCS). ■ The purpose of SAPFO is to ensure that new residential growth within the county occurs at a pace that allows the County and school districts to provide adequate school facilities to serve students from the new developments. The ordinance identifies the school districts as being responsible for planning and constructing new school facilities, Orange County being responsible for funding the new school facilities, and the local government being responsible for monitoring development impacts and timing. ■ The ordinance provides guidelines for determining a projected student growth rate methodology and student generation rate and collecting annual student membership and building capacity reports. ■ Additionally, the ordinance outlines criteria for maintaining a two part system including: 1) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) linked to the needs identified by student projections and available capacity and 2) Issuing Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) for new residential developments. 2. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ■ The ordinance calls for the development and maintenance of a Capital Improvement Plan for school construction based on historical growth patterns including school membership and building capacity (which could change based on building additions, revaluation of core capacity, revisions to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction student class size and/or modifications to the Board of Education certified capacities). ■ SAPFOTAC Report 1) The ordinance also established a Schools Adequate Facility Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) which produces an Annual Report documenting, among other things, projected future student membership and school capacity needs over a 10-year period. This process also includes review, comment, and acknowledgement by the local governments. 2) SAPFOTAC report also monitors and reports on changes in class size averages at the state level, charter school enrollment and impacts, future school construction projects, and major residential development projects. November Orange County requests student membership and capacity numbers December BOCC accepts membership and capacity numbers December - March Student membership and projections are utilized during the budget process January SAPFOTAC meets to review draft report and 10-year student projections March Draft report distributed to SAPFO partners for comment April Draft report and 10-year student projections presented to elected officials May Final report is certified by the BOCC 46 3. Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) ■ SAPFO outlines a process for issuing a Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools (CAPS) on all new residential units proposed in Orange County based on student generation numbers and school capacity. ■ A test of new development impacts using Student Generation Rates (SGR's) against available capacity 1) CAPS Issued if capacity exists or 2) CAPS deferred until Part 1 CIP needs and associated funding for more capacity is achieved ■ SAPFO established maximum capacity expectations at each school level. If a school level exceeds these maximum when a new development is reviewed, issuance CAPS is supposed to be suspended and the project delayed until capacity is available (e.g., new school is constructed). To date, issuance of CAPS has not been suspended because new school facilities have been constructed as they have become necessary. Maximum capacity levels are: 1) 105% at Elementary School level 2) 107% at Middle School level 3) 110% at High School level ■ Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) computer program which tracks existing membership and capacity 1) Test for and log new development impacts (multi-year as appropriate) against capacity levels 2) Local governments approve feasibility 3) BOE staff confirms adequate capacity 4) CAPS certificate given to local government from BOE for final development approval ■ Historically, the identification of future CIP capacity has been far enough in advance to foresee and construct new capacity without CAPS deferral ■ CAPS system was previously suspended in 2005 until new capacity was constructed 47 B. SCHOOL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SAPFO) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. Adopted Level of Service (LOS) ■ Level of service means the number (level) of students that can be accommodated (serviced) at a certain school system grade group [i.e., Elementary Level (K-5), Middle Level (6-8), High School Level (9-12)]. ■ The adopted levels of services were originally developed based on information provided from the school districts, regarding existing school facilities and their functional ability to handle overcapacity situations, and discussions among the Schools and Land Use Council. The Schools and Land Use Council included members from School Boards, the BOCC, and Orange County staff. Level of service is illustrated as a percentage of a hybrid formula agreed to by the school districts and BOCC and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) rated capacity of schools of a certain level added together. ■ One of the reasons level of service standards above 100% were chosen as benchmarks is that membership may rise near the 100% mark and yet not create a long-term need. For example, if a couple of years have larger than normal grade level class sizes the need for more capacity may exist for only a limited time. ■ The service levels were adopted in the two Memorandums of Understanding in 2003 between Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County, Hillsborough, and Orange County Schools (OCS) after three years of negotiation. ■ The level of service is the standard that is monitored and evaluated in school level projections to identify the CIP needs for future school construction. If the level of service is met during the CAPS `test' in a given year, then housing approvals must be delayed or deferred until the new school is scheduled to be built. In over thirteen years of implementation, the CIP phase has identified in advance the need for a school and additional capacity. As a result, the CAPS `test' related to proposed development has not created a construction delay. ■ Level of service is calculated at the grade group level since membership may vary between schools in a grade group from under capacity to overcapacity. To be fiscally prudent, it is not necessary to build another school district-wide if rebalancing can be done by redistricting. • The level of service standard can be revised if all original parties are able to agree on new service levels. A level of standard revised upward is usually easier than the opposite because a reduction could potentially create a home building moratorium or create an immediate financial burden on the County. 2. Residential Development in the City of Mebane ■ The City of Mebane lies partially within Orange County and students within the Orange County portion of Mebane attend Orange County schools. However, the City of Mebane is not a party to the SAPFO agreement and therefore does not require that CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) be issued prior to development approvals. The first part of SAPFO, Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS), is the testing and gauging of the student generation rate (SGR) from development projects against available capacity within a school. ■ Though the City of Mebane does not request CAPS from OCS as part of their process, students from new residential development are accounted for and included in the second part of SAPFO (i.e. CIP needs phase; where actual new enrollment from new development and existing housing is counted) where the 48 student projections are made and the capacity needs assessment is analyzed. This part of SAPFO is the tracking of historical enrollment and the projection of future student enrollment against existing capacity at a certain grade group level. This is not directly related to a development project, but a current year outcome of how many children actually `show up' in a school year. This includes non-new project related students from existing housing stock. ■ The 10-year student projections developed for the SAPFO Annual Report forecast future school needs based on current student membership numbers and historic growth rates derived by the five projection models. Once students begin to `show up' in a school year through annual reporting of student membership numbers, 10-year student projections can be updated to display future capacity needs in time to efficiently plan for future school construction requests. ■ The process accounting for students once they are actually enrolled in the school system emphasizes a delay that exists from the time a residential development is approved and developed to when students begin to enter the system. For example, the significant proposed residential growth that has occurred in the recent past within Mebane's jurisdiction (and Hillsborough as well) has yet to be seen with OCS student membership numbers and fully realized into the historically based projection methods due to the recession, charter schools, and possibly new family dynamics affecting family size. Orange County staff will continue to work with the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee and our planning partners to monitor future residential development throughout Orange County. 3. Charter Schools ■ Charter Schools' membership and capacity numbers are not included in the SAPFOTAC Annual Report. However, the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee does monitor charter schools and their effect on student enrollment at both school districts. When issuing CAPS for new residential development, it is assumed that students generated from the new development will all feed into the public school system. As a result, the process does not account for possible charter school enrollment resulting from new residential development. Including charter school membership and capacity in the SAPFO process may be a difficult element to implement since charter school students are not required to live in Orange County. So students attending charter schools in Orange County may not be Orange County residents. Forecasting for these unknown variables may not provide feasible results when analyzing current and future student memberships and capacities. ■ Two Charter Schools are currently operating in the Orange County School district. Concerns were raised regarding the effects the closing of a charter school may have on OCS and CHCCS capacity levels. Pace Academy High School closed before the 2015-16 school year with no substantial effects on OCS and CHCCS. Both school districts experienced a decrease in student membership at the high school level. Some students from Pace Academy were absorbed into the OCS and CHCCS systems, but others may have absorbed into other public school districts or charter schools located outside of Orange County. If a charter school does close and a spike is realized in school enrollment, the student projections will likely accelerate the need in future years, still within an appropriate time for CIP planning. 49 ■ Although charter school students are not accounted for through the SAPFO process, they are monitored by the Department of Public Institution (DPI) which provides pupil information to the County for funding purposes. ■ Charter school enrollment is informally reported in the SAPFO Report's executive summary. 4. Portable Classrooms ■ SAPFO projection numbers relating to capacity do not include portable classrooms. If student membership temporarily exceeds 100% capacity, portable classrooms may be used to alleviate the overcapacity. If projections show that student membership is expected to exceed the adopted levels of service (105% at elementary school level, 107% at middle school level, and 110% at high school level) for an extended period of time, a new school servicing the affected level(s) would need to be added to the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) in order to be constructed in time to alleviate the projected overcapacity. ■ The SAPFO Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) excludes mobile classrooms as permanent, but they may be used to house temporary individual school overcapacity situations. The SAPFOTAC Annual Report and projections includes student membership numbers from portable classrooms, but not capacity numbers of the portable classrooms. Therefore, SAPFO projections may show a need for permanent classrooms earlier and the need for new schools is not `masked' by the use of portable classrooms. If portable classroom capacities were reported and included in the SAPFO projections, service levels may decrease and push the need for permanent classrooms out further in the future. The MOUs specifically state that only permanent buildings can be used to calculate capacity and specifically exclude using mobile or temporary classroom spaces as counting toward building capacity. 5. Pre-K Students ■ Although not included in SAPFO school capacity or membership numbers, Pre-K programs continue to impact operations at District elementary schools where Pre-K programs exist. ■ Both school districts struggle with locating and providing adequate space for Pre- K programs. Newer schools are designed and constructed with Pre-K classrooms; however, older schools are not forcing the school districts to absorb Pre-K students into existing elementary schools. This decreases overall available capacity for elementary school students. In some cases, portable classrooms have been set up to accommodate Pre-K students at schools that do not have the capacity in the existing school facility. ■ Pre-K students are informally reported in the SAPFO Report's executive summary. 6. School Renovation and Redevelopment (Capacity Changes) ■ The SAPFO system can identify new `whole' school needs, but can also accommodate partial capacity addition as in new school wings or planned capacity expansions such as the prototype high school designs with a core for 1,500 students, but an interim capacity of 1,000 students. ■ As renovations occur that may add capacity, this information will be added to the SAPFO program both in CAPS and CIP needs/student projections. 50 Attachment 2 STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY PLANS Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to revise its requirements for a plat signature block regarding adequate public facilities that requires school system signature. The Planning Board hereby recommends approval of the proposed text amendment and issues this Statement of Consistency pursuant to NC GS § 160D-604 (d)Planning board review and comments—Plan consistency. The Planning Board finds: 1. The requirements of UDO Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments have been met; 2. The amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, as prescribed by UDO Section 1.1.5 Statement of Intent—Amendments and Section 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans; 3. The amendment is consistent with the applicable plan because it supports the following: a. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal 6: A land use planning process that is transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. 4. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it removes an unnecessary and time-intensive step from subdivision plat approval without compromising the requirements or purpose of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the supporting Memoranda of Understanding. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Adam Beeman, Chair Date Attachment 3 51 SECTION • • ' PLAT DRAWINGS 7.13.3 Final Plat Specifications (f) Where a property is recombining property that includes a vacant lot or an existing dwelling the following statement shall be shown on the plat: "The recombination of existing lots has been reviewed by the Orange County Health Department, Environmental Health Division. Based on available information, this proposal does not appear to adversely affect the suitability of the lots for the issuance of an improvement permit, nor the installation, maintenance, or repair of an existing wastewater system. This certification is not an Improvement Permit or an approval for septic system on any of the lots. Subsequent changes to the lots may affect the ability to obtain Improvement Permits and/or Construction Authorizations." /n\ Where Info have been approved for recordation by either the Orange \9! County School System or the Chapel HiII/Carrhnro Qrhnnl System the following statement and endorsements shall appear on the final plat- the certify that the Into shown on this plot have been approved by the vcnr'el SycSt8M fGFTccorivaiiGR i date] in orrlonr.e�.�i+h +he RphAr,Io Adequate P u pr or+o [insert hlir Gor.ir+ies nrrainonGe ChAorDate Secretary Attest to dt� (h) All certificates and endorsement signatures on the Final Plat, except those of the County Manager, Planning Board Chair, Planning Director and Environmental Health Officer shall be notarized by the statement of a Notary Public entered on the Final Plat. The Notary Public statement shall be shown in substantially the following form: "North Carolina County I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing certificate. Witness my hand and seal this day of , 20_ "Seal or Stamp Notary Public My Commission expires (4) Certificate of Improvements (a) If the required improvements are completed prior to the submission of the Final Plat, then one of the following certificates shall be shown on the plat and followed by the County Manager's signature: "The County Manager hereby certifies that all improvements required by the Orange County Subdivision Regulations have been installed as specified by the approved Preliminary Plat for Subdivision and that said improvements comply with Orange County specifications." County Manager: Date: DRAFT 52 1 SUMMARY NOTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 5,2022 4 TRAINING SESSION AND ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 5 6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions and Ordinance Review Committee 7 meetings. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; 10 Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township 11 Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor; Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Pat Mallett, 14 Interim Current Planning Supervisor and Erosion Control, Stormwater& Engineering Supervisor; Carlos 15 Sanchez, Planning Technician: Tina Love, Administrative Support; 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE — UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 20 AMENDMENTS — FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT SIGNATURE BLOCKS — To review proposed 21 amendments to the LIDO that would remove the school district signature block on final 22 subdivision plats. 23 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 24 25 Tyler Sliger presented the proposed text amendments to the UDO regarding the removal of a school district 26 signature block on subdivision plats. 27 28 Lamar Proctor expressed serious reservations on removing the school district from being required to sign 29 all subdivision plats. 1 Attachment 5 53 Orange ENGAGE. CHALLENGE, INSPIRE. County Schools NpRTk�c Rp!_!n!.r. Orange County Schools 200 E. King Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 October 24, 2022 Orange County Planning Board 300 W. Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 To whom it may concern: The Orange County Schools (OCS) supports the removal of signature lines for the Chair of the Board of Education from subdivision plats. The text proposed for removal is not required by either SAPFO or the MOUs. OCS staff support the proposed amendment as presented and request a recommendation of approval from the Orange County Planning Board and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. OCS further submits that its sole role in the lot approval process is the issuance of a Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) for any given development project. OCS does not "approve" lots "for recordation,"and the requested certification is therefore never applicable in any event. Sincerely, Patrick Abele Deputy Superintendent 200 E.King Street -Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278 -919.732.8126 W W W.0 R A N G E C 0 U N T Y F I R S T.C 0 M 54 55 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 7, 2022 Action Agenda Item No. 10 SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment — Efficiency Apartment DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Statement of Consistency Tyler Sliger, Planner II (919) 245-2586 2. UDO Text Amendments Cy Stober, Director (919) 245-2592 3. Excerpt of Meeting Notes — October 5, 2022 ORC Meeting 4. Letter of Support — Orange County Aging Department 5. Letter of Support — Orange County Housing Department PURPOSE: To review and make recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on County-initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding proposed revisions to the current standards for "efficiency apartments". BACKGROUND: An "efficiency apartment" is an accessory dwelling to the primary single- family dwelling on an individual property. The salient current use standards for efficiency apartments in Section 5.5.3 of the UDO are: • Maximum gross square footage of 1,000 ft. ( maximum of 800 sq. ft. can be heated/cooled), • Cannot be a mobile home, and • The efficiency unit shall remain in the same ownership as the primary residence. An efficiency apartment can give a property owner the ability to enhance their property use for additional family members or to rent to a tenant. The current size limitation of 1,000 sq. ft. for an efficiency unit can result in some property owners having to subdivide their property in order to construct a larger unit, affecting the affordability of such homes and lots due to the professional service costs and review fees in creating a new lot. The increased flexibility of the proposed amendments will also allow for greater aging-in-place and multigenerational living opportunities, as well as serving equity needs by better enabling less-resourced property owners the abilities to realize viable secondary residences for rent or use by relations without requiring subdivision of property. In September 2021, the BOCC received information from a multi-department staff group regarding expansion of affordable housing incentives and opportunities. The agenda materials can be viewed at: Housing Affordability Study. Expanded use of accessory dwelling units was 56 included as a strategy to increase affordable housing options within Orange County, Orange County is proposing to amend the UDO to: 1. increase the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit to 50% of the primary dwelling, or 1,500 sq. ft., whichever is greater; 2. allow mobile homes to be efficiencies; and 3. modern the language from "efficiency apartment" to "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU). The proposed UDO text amendment help serve the goals and objectives of Orange County's 2022 Master Aging Plan and affordable housing strategy, as evidenced by the respective letters of support from the Orange County Department on Aging and Department of Housing (Attachments 4 & 5). The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) reviewed the UDO amendments at the October 5, 2022 ORC meeting (see meeting notes in Attachment 3). Joint Planning Area (JPA) Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Agreement with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, the amendment package was sent to the Town planning staffs on September 16, 2022. To date, Orange County staff has not received any comments from the Towns. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 1. Statement of Approval and Consistency indicating the text amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, as contained in Attachment 1. 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments, as contained in Attachment 2. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no costs associated with this project other than the use of staff time and the required legal advertisement for the text amendment's public hearing. County staff has and will continue to accomplish the necessary tasks associated with amending the UDO and the legal advertisement will be paid from budgeted funds for this purpose. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Review the proposed UDO text amendments and deliberate as desired, 2. Consider the Planning Director's recommendation, and 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Approval and Consistency (Attachment 1) and the proposed UDO text amendments (Attachment in time for the January 17, 2023 BOCC meeting. 57 Attachment 1 STATEMENT OF APPROVAL AND CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY PLANS Orange County has initiated an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to revise its requirements for Efficiency Apartments. The Planning Board hereby recommends approval of the proposed text amendment and issues this Statement of Consistency pursuant to NC GS § 160D-604 (d)Planning board review and comments—Plan consistency. The Planning Board finds: 1. The requirements of UDO Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments have been met; 2. The amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, as prescribed by UDO Section 1.1.5 Statement of Intent—Amendments and Section 1.1.7 Conformance with Adopted Plans; 3. The amendment is consistent with the applicable plan because it supports the following goals and objectives stated in the plan: a. Housing Element Goal 1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all parts of the County. b. Housing Element Objective H-1.6: Promote innovative approaches to housing that are responsive to the needs of Orange County, maintain quality and human scale, increase energy efficiency, and reduce construction and maintenance costs. c. Housing Element Goal 4: Development ordinances and incentives that promote inclusionary practices and housing options for all income levels. d. Housing Element Objective H-4.1: Continue to permit HUD code-compliant manufactured housing as a form of affordable housing in the County. e. Housing Element Objective LU-4.1: Support the use of individual manufactured housing units as a useful housing resource in the County by increasing the opportunities where these units can locate by-right. f. Housing Element Objective H-4.2: Expand assistance for elderly households that have difficulty affording their home property tax. g. Housing Element Objective LU-4.4: Encourage the provision of a range of affordable and suitable low and moderate income housing by means of 58 development incentives in order to provide a balanced housing stock for the residents of Orange County. 4. The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it creates more diverse and affordable housing options in Orange County through the by-right use of residential properties. The Planning Board hereby adopts this Statement of Approval and Consistency and the findings expressed herein. Adam Beeman, Chair Date 59 Attachment 2 DIMENSIONALRATIO STANDARDS Tract size, min./max. 5/100 (acres) Tract Front Setback 40 from ROW, min. (feet) -- Tract Side Setback, 20 min. (feet) The purpose of the Home Park Conditional District (HP-CD)is to Tract Rear Setback, provide for the development of properly located and planned 20 facilities for mobile home and temporary housing unit parks. min. (feet) Adequate housing is fundamental to the welfare of county residents; Individual Mobile Home however, conventional housing is not consistently affordable to, nor Space Size, min. 5,000 desired by,all members of the general public. There is also an (square feet) identified need to provide some level of flexibility for transient residents who need to reside within the area on a temporary basis. Temporary Residential Where properly regulated and located, Home Parks address the Unit Space Size, min. 2,000 public need for alternative housing and achieve a satisfactory (square feet) relationship to adjoining and nearby property. APPLICABILITY Individual Space Width, 50 min. (feet) The district shall be located in such a manner as to be compatible Height, max. (feet) 25 [1] with the character of existing development of surrounding properties, thus ensuring the continued conservation of building values and Consistent with encouraging the most appropriate use of land in the county. Tract Floor Area Ratio, residential uses in Therefore,when evaluating an application for this district, emphasis max adjacent zoning districts shall be given to the location of the proposed mobile home district, the relationship of the site and site development plan to adjoining Consistent with and the development itself. Required Open Space property, p residential uses in Ratio, min. adjacent zoning districts Required Livability Consistent with Space Ratio, min. residential uses in DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NOTES: adjacent zoning districts [1]Two feet of additional height shall be allowed for one foot increase of the required front and side setbacks. Required Recreation Consistent with Space Ratio, min. residential uses in adjacent zoning districts HP-CD DISTRICT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Uses shall be restricted to those indicated for the HP-CD District in Section 5.2. Additionally, non-residential uses are restricted based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is located. Refer to Section 4.2.3 for land use restrictions. 2. Development within the zoning district shall be subject to all applicable use standards detailed in Article 5 and all applicable development standards detailed in Article 6 of this Ordinance. 60 3. The residential density permitted on a given parcel is based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is located. Refer to Section 4.2.4 for a breakdown of the allowable density(i.e.,the number of individual dwellings that can be located on a parcel of property). 4. Allowable impervious surface area is based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is located. Refer to Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 for a breakdown of the allowable impervious surface area. 5. See Section 5.5.4 for standards pertaining to Home Parks. 6. When a new home park is proposed to be located adjacent to an existing home park, the Standards in Section 5.5.4 shall be met. 7. Each home space shall contain only one designated temporary or permanent residential unit.Accessory Dwelling UnitsE#iGi8RGY I lain are prohibited within HP-CD districts. 8. A Temporary Residential Unit shall be allowed within a given park for a maximum of 180 days. 9. All permanent residential units within a HP-CD shall be designed and built to the appropriate State and Housing and Urban Development HUD standards and shall be served by permanent utility connections. SECTION 5.5 STANDARDS 5.5.1 Accessory Structures and Uses (A) Standards of Evaluation (1) Accessory structures and uses, including recreational uses and amenities, shall not be located in any required front open space and shall conform to the principal setbacks of the district where located unless otherwise provided in this Section. (2) An attached private garage, or carport, not exceeding 12 feet in height, may occupy a portion of the required side open space, provided that this does not result in a required side open space of less than 7% of the lot width, nor a total, when combined with the required side open space of the lot immediately adjacent, of less than eight feet. (3) Mobile homes as accessory structures to residential uses are prohibiter) 5.5.3 Accessory Dwelling Unit(AD )Efficiency Apartment (A) Standards of Evaluation (1) Effi^ien^„apartment Accessory dwelling unit(ADU) shall be allowed only as an accessory use to a single-family residence. (2) There shall be no more than one U4*ADU, whether detached or attached, on any lot. (3) The gross square footage of the ,;tADU shall contain no more than 50% of the primary dwelling or 1,5004,009 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater with a maximum limit of 800 square feet of heater!/cooler) habitable living snore (4) The residential lot shall meet all dimensional requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. (5) The eff'^'en^„ „pitnDU shall comply with the N.C. Residential Building Code and HUD standards including minimum light/ventilation and room sizes. (6) The ADU shall be served by an approved water supply and sanitary facilities. (7) The ADU shall remain in the same ownership as the primary residence. 61 (8) An accessory `dwellinq unit will need to be a completo inde onrJont liiinry r�r-r-a ccc��v cca�v-vim. complete, fac'!'tv equipped with a kitchen and with prov'smon&for sanotatoop-and 5.5.5 Home Park (2) Home Park Space Requirements (a) A Home Park shall be divided into individual Home Park Spaces, each Home Park Space having an area and width consistent with Section 3.8. The Orange County Health Department may increase the minimum area requirements for the park and/or individual Home Park Spaces where necessary to be consistent with groundwater resources and/or the limitations of providing sewage disposal systems for the proposed home park. (b) Only one mobile home or Temporary Residential Unit and its customary accessory buildings may be located within any Home Park Space at one time. Additional AGGessery n,.,ol g , sADUsEffi^ior,^„ l�or Temporary Residential Units shall not be permitted within an occupied Home Park Space. (c) The location of each Home Park Space must be at an elevation, distance and angle in relation to the adjacent access drive or street such that placement and removal of the mobile home or Temporary Residential Unit is practical by means of customary moving equipment. (d) The surface of each Home Park Space and the area around it shall be graded where necessary to provide proper drainage and prevent the accumulation of water. SECTION •AD ; CIRCULATION 6.9.7 Off-Street Parking Requirements OFFICE Offices and Financial Services,without a One space per 200 square feet of gross floor area drive-thru facility Offices and Financial Services,with a One space per 200 square feet of gross floor area; plus five drive-thru facility stacking spaces per drive-thru window RECREATIONAL USES Amusement Areas One space per 50 square feet Athletic Field Ten spaces per field Basketball Court Five spaces per court Billiard or Pool Hall Two spaces per table Botanical Gardens&Arboretums Two spaces per acre Bowling Establishment Three spaces per lane Camp/Retreat Center Five spaces for first two acres of recreation space and one space for each additional acre thereafter Golf Courses Two spaces per tee One space per guest room, plus one space per employee. Guest Ranch Additional parking may be required based on facilities and uses ro osed. Health Exercise Facility One space per 50 square feet Pitch and Putt Courses Two spaces per tee 62 Shooting Ranges One space per target area Skating Rink One space per 200 square feet Subdivisions- Private Recreational Facilities Five off-street parking spaces for first two acres of each Dedicated Recreational Land recreational site plus one space for each additional acre thereafter Swimming Pool One space for every five patrons, based on maximum design capacity Soccer Fields, Ball Fields Eight spaces per acre Tennis, Handball, Racquet Ball Courts Two spaces per court Basketball Courts Five spaces per court Picnic Shelter Area One space for every ten patrons, based on maximum design capacity Swimming Pool One space per 140 square feet Tennis,squash, Handball or Racquet Ball Two spaces for every court Court RESIDENTIAL Dormitory, Fraternity, and Sorority One space per lodging resident member Dwelling, Multi-family: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ef One space per dwelling unit One bedroom One and one-half space per dwelling unit Two bedroom Twos aces per dwelling unit Dwelling, Single Family One space per dwelling unit Dwelling,Two Family One space per dwelling unit Family Care Facilities One space per three residents; One space per employee on the shift of maximum employment Group Care Facilities One space per two beds; Ones ace per employee on shift of the maximum employment Health and Personal Care Facility One space per two beds; One space per staff member SECTION1DEFINITIONS Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) dwellingAn aceesseFy unit that „ alleF than the igFoneeigal so dent„'' .dwelling The accessory dwelling unit is situated on the same lot as the principal residence and may be '^,.ated y4tha^attached to the principal residence or+ebe a separate building with a separate access.An accessory dwelling unit w+lE facility e,d ,.,nth a l4trhen ;;Ad ..,nth n fe.- sanitation an4 s'^^nin^must fulfill the qualifying characteristics of a dwelling unit, as defined in this ordinance The aeceSS9F,.dwell*n.. u..4- i.. .^..+.�„+e,d+e 1,500 SEj Ua.e feet of heated living snaee Dwelling Unit A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. 63 Efficiency Apartment outimne J wothon thmo Ordonance DRAFT 64 1 SUMMARY NOTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 OCTOBER 5,2022 4 TRAINING SESSION AND ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 5 6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Planning Board Training Sessions and Ordinance Review Committee 7 meetings. 8 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; 10 Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township 11 Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects & GIS Supervisor; Tyler Sliger, Planner II; Pat Mallett, 14 Interim Current Planning Supervisor and Erosion Control, Stormwater& Engineering Supervisor; Carlos 15 Sanchez, Planning Technician: Tina Love, Administrative Support; 16 17 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE — UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT 20 AMENDMENTS — EFFICIENCY UNITS — To review proposed amendments to the LIDO 21 pertaining to efficiency apartments (also known as "accessory dwelling units" or 22 ADUs). 23 PRESENTER: Tyler Sliger, Planner II 24 25 Tyler Sliger presented the proposed text amendments to the UDO regarding efficiency units or ADUs. 26 27 Adam Beeman expressed objections to allowing mobile homes and disagrees that it is any more affordable 28 than a stick built residence but depreciates faster, has worse building design and is not a good addition to a 29 property or neighborhoods. 30 31 Delores Bailey stated that she is doesn't like ADUs but doesn't think it is fair to be prejudiced against 32 mobile homes. 33 34 Adam Beeman thinks ADUs should be allowed. 35 36 Lamar Proctor agreed that mobile homes are not desirable. 37 38 Beth Bronson requested the item come back to ORC prior to going to the regular meeting. 1 65 1 Orange County Department on Aging /endless possibilities Robert& Pearl Seymour Center 12551 Homestead Rd. I Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Jerry M.Passmore Center 1 103 Meadowlands Dr., PO Box 8181 I Hillsborough, NC 27278 November 18, 2022 The Honorable Renee Price Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Chair Price, As you know Orange County has a growing aging population. In 2020, 21% of the population was 60+ and by 2040 it will be 26%.This represents a 47.8% change in just 20 years; whereas, children aged 0-17 years are 17% of the population in 2020 and in 2040 will decline to 15% of the population which represents a 4.5% change. From 2010-2018 Orange County grew by 12,325 residents,while its 65+ age group grew by 7,575 residents. This means 61.S% of Orange County's growth was from the population 65+.Among peer counties, Orange County is second only to Chatham County in the share of county growth driven by its 65+ age group (64.5%). The share of growth in this age group is substantially higher than the state (53.7%). As stated in the accepted Orange County 2022-27 Master Aging Plan, steps to improve choice, quality,affordability, and stability of housing for older adults needs to be taken. Housing is an important part of safe and comfortable aging in communities. Housing in age- friendly communities should: - Be affordable; - Be close to services, or have transportation options; - Have accessible design or offer modifications and maintenance; - Provide a wide range of living options; - Be integrated into the community at large, especially long-term care facilities; and - Be safe and comfortable. The proposed staff-initiated amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) will address several of these needs, as well as the adopted MAP Housing Objectives 3.1 and 3.3 to "Expand the development of a wide array of housing models that advance racial equity,livable design, and social connections for older adults;" and to "Increase the number and types of affordable housing options, for rent or ownership, suitable for older adults." The proposed amendments will allow for a wider range of living Visit us online @ www.orangecountync.gov/departments/aging Like us on Facebook @ www.facebook.com/OrangeCountyDepartmentOnAging 66 options and more practical accommodations for independent and semi-independent living than the current regulatory threshold of 800 square feet of heated space.The proposed new heated space regulations for both attached and detached accessory dwellings better serve the "livable design and social connections" needs established by Objective 3.1 and will allow for property owners to explore various designs and sizes of housing options for rent or ownership suitable for older adults identified by Objective 3.3. At the November 8th meeting of the Advisory Board on Aging this proposed amendment was discussed. We concur with the Planning staff that these amendments will better serve adopted Orange County goals and objectives and allow for a more livable community for Orange County residents of all ages. We hope that you will support the adoption of the proposed amendments as presented. Sincerely, Janice Tyler, Secretary Orange County Advisory Board on Aging cc. Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager Adam Beeman, Chair, Planning Board 67 w ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING DEPARTMENT NORTH CAROLINA November 28, 2022 Orange County Planning Board 300 West Tyron Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Orange County Housing Department support for ADU amendment Dear Chair Beeman and Planning Board Members, Thank you for your consideration of the amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The Housing Department enthusiastically supports these staff- initiated amendments. As a prosperous county with a higher median household income than the North Carolina average, Orange County faces challenges in providing housing options at prices below a fair market rate. "Affordable housing" is housing that is affordable to households with low incomes, meaning that these households pay no more than 30% of their income for housing costs like rent, mortgage, and utilities. In 2021, an Orange County renter earning the mean wage ($13.93) would need to work 63 hours per week (1.6 full time jobs) to afford the Fair Market Rent for a standard two-bedroom apartment ($1,134). For the fiscal year from July 2021—June 2022, Orange County approved 291 new single-family residential homes with an average value of $429,469.50 (note: this is the value of the home construction cost, not the home's sales price); and 150 new residential additions with an average value of$87,057. As established in the chart below, these home prices are generally beyond the abilities of the mean wage earners in Orange County to purchase or rent. Orange County North Carolina (statewide) Fair Market Rent ("FMR") $1,134 $960 for a 2-bedroom apartment Income Needed to afford a 2- $45,360 $38,400 j bedroom apartment at FMR ($21.81 per hour) ($18.46 per hour) Mean Wage earned by renters $16.37 per hour $13.93 per hour Mailing Address Hillsborough Office Chapel Hill Office P.O.Box 8181 300 W.Tryon Street 2501 Homestead Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Telephone(919)245-2490 • Fax(919)944-8496 68 Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2022, htt,ps://reports.nlihc.or /oor/north- carolina The proposed staff-initiated amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) will address these concerns by offering a wider range of living options and more practical accommodations for rental or ownership than the current regulatory framework that limits "efficiencies" to 800 square feet of heated space. The proposed new heated space regulations for both attached and detached accessory dwellings will better serve the needs of median wage earners in Orange County, as well as property owners in offering such options through increased investment in existing single-family lots throughout the county. We concur with the Planning staff that these amendments will better serve adopted Orange County goals and objectives and allow for a more livable community for Orange County residents of all ages and incomes. We hope that you will support the adoption of the proposed amendments, as presented. Sincerely, Corey Root Housing Director