HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.3.23 PB Minutes Approved 6 - 7 - 2023
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 MAY 312023
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT : Adam Beeman ( Chair) , Cedar Grove Township Representative ; Lamar Proctor (Vice - Chair) , Cheeks
7 Township Representative ; Melissa Poole , Little River Township Representative ; Delores Bailey , At- Large
8 Representative ; Charity Kirk , At- Large Representative ; Statler Gilfillen , Eno Township Representative ; Whitney Watson ,
9 At- Large Representative ; Steve Kaufmann , Bingham Township Representative ; Chris Johnston , Hillsborough Township
10 Representative ; Elizabeth Kalies , Chapel Hill Township Representative
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT : Beth Bronson , At- Large Representative
13
14 STAFF PRESENT : Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director — Development Services ;
15 Taylor Perschau , Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz , Deputy Director — Long Range Planning
16 & Administrative Division ; Tom Altieri , Senior Planner — Long Range Planning & Administrative Division ; Lauren Coffey ,
17 Planning Technician
18
19 OTHERS PRESENT : James Parker, Applicant ; Patrick Byker, Kathy Bivins , Daniel Bivins , Clancy Russell , James Russell ,
20 Brian Hill , Bethany Kidd , Jack Niklas , Jessica King , Carolyn Robinson , Curtis Kelly , John Dempsey J . Wright- Simpson ,
21 Hollis Chatelain , Robb Minton , Matt McDermott, Debra Fields , Kyle Simpson , Jim West , Wanda Richardson , Rachael
22 Price , Nick Schumacher, Scott Czechlewski , Emilee Collins , Kathleen Harper, Brandon Welch , Gregory J . Singer, Maria
23 Perez , Margaret Cates , Sandra Brown , Thomas Brown , Amber Bickford , Rachel Hawkins , Jaine Parker, Scott Ray ,
24 Peggy McCracken , Jerry Vinski , Cathy Vinski , Faye Rhodes , June Minton , Linda Johnson
25
26
27 AGENDA ITEM 1 : CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
28 Chair Adam Beeman called the meeting to order.
29
30
31 AGENDA ITEM 2 . INFORMATION ITEMS
32 a . Planning Board Calendar for May and June
33 b . Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update
34
35
36 AGENDA ITEM 3 : APPROVAL OF MINUTES
37 April 5 , 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
38 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to approve the April 5 , 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes . Seconded by Lamar Proctor.
39 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
40
41
42 AGENDA ITEM 4 . CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
43
44
45 AGENDA ITEM 5 . PUBLIC CHARGE
46
47 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE
48 The Board of County Commissioners , under the authority of North Carolina General Statute ,
49 appoints the Orange County Planning Board ( OCPB ) to uphold the written land development law of
50 the County . The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious
51 development . OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its
52 citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes
53 the health , safety , and welfare of the overall County . The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a
54 vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations , decisions , and
55 recommendations .
Approved & 7 - 2023
56
57
58 PUBLIC CHARGE
59 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect . The Board asks its
60 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful , courteous manner, both with the Board and with
61 fellow citizens . At any time , should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public
62 charge , the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains
63 personal control . Should decorum fail to be restored , the Chair will recess the meeting until such
64 time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed .
65
66
67 AGENDA ITEM 6 : CHAIR COMMENTS
68 There were none .
69
70
71 AGENDA ITEM 7 : ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT ( CONDITIONAL DISTRICT) - To continue review of and make a
72 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant- initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone an
73 84 . 9 acre parcel from R- 1 ( Rural Residential ) to MPD- CD ( Master Plan Development Conditional
74 District) .
75
76 PRESENTER : Cy Stober, Orange County Planning and Inspections Director
77
78 Cy Stober gave a brief update on the item to remind the board of their options and where they are in the process.
79
80 Adam Beeman : I have a question for the applicant about the skate park . We glazed over that part last time and no one
81 really talked about it, so if you could give me a little background on what the intention is for the skate park and how you
82 plan to plan that and build it?
83
84 James Parker: For a long time , we' ve known that Hillsborough has wanted a skate park in the vicinity, we thought it was
85 a good add to the plan even though it' s a small . . . At' s on the tennis facility property . It would be a condition of that
86 developer to do that, and it would be a non - profit .
87
88 Adam Beeman : I was going to ask if you could invite the community and ask what they would like to see and not just a
89 generic skate park . There is plenty of appetite out there for it .
90
91 James Parker : We would love someone to step up and take ownership of design and vision .
92
93 Statler Gilfillen : It is my understanding right now; you have certain things you plan if this is approved that would start
94 construction very soon . There are other things like the baseball diamonds that are going to rely upon public funding to
95 create them . I ' m a little bit unclear about the distinction like what you just mentioned about the skating . . . what is or is not
96 included with the first build through ?
97
98 James Parker: Currently we have a buyer that wants the school site , and they will be responsible for building the school
99 site .
100
101 Statler Gilfillen : Do you have any idea what physical athletic facilities that they will be building with that school ?
102
103 James Parker: What' s on the plan for the school site , is what they will be building . That' s the high school that we have a
104 current buyer .
105
106 Melissa Poole : Just to clarify because I do think this was mentioned in the last meeting with regards to if the proposed
107 plan , particularly for the public charter school , were to use municipal sewer and water, then the lines to run that to the
108 school will be paid by whom ?
109
110 James Parker: By the school , by the private sector.
Approved & 7 - 2023
111
112 Chris Johnston : I have a follow up question about the tennis facility . I understood from the documents that it was going to
113 be a pro -shop or clubhouse , but I also saw recently in one of the narratives that it was going to be indoor tennis courts so
114 could you be clear what that structure is going to be ?
115
116 James Parker : The structure is sized like it is on the plan to allow different uses internally that could be accommodated
117 there . Basketball courts , indoor tennis courts , volleyball courts , anything indoor recreation that could be in there and
118 certainly a pro - shop could be in there as well . It is a building that could house all or some of those items .
119
120 Melissa Poole : I don ' t have a question but I would like to address the board . I ' ve been on the planning board for 5 years
121 now . I ' ve heard presentations , everyone imaginable , UDO updates , commercial development, residential development ,
122 never in my memory has a project come before us that benefitted across the entire county . The majority of projects
123 brought before us during my time , have been residential developments . Most of the time , those residences have been
124 classified as single -family homes , usually anticipating buyers with children . Families buying homes in Orange County are
125 going to look for extracurricular activities for their kids and with this project, there are a number of options clustered
126 together in one space . With regards to HYAA , they are likely to lose 4 fields due to the town ' s train station project . The
127 contract with the town only gives them a 60 - day notice when they are going to lose their fields . For the district 1
128 represent, I don ' t know many people who have not or do not have children involved in HYAA and they have been for
129 years . Some of whom are still involved even though their kids have aged out . Since 2020 they have provided $ 12 , 000 in
130 scholarships to children . There are currently hundreds of children signed up and there are waiting lists . I think it is
131 reasonable to infer that with additional residential development in Orange County , the numbers for HYAA and waiting
132 lists due to lack of space will only increase going forward . I apologize to the tennis club ; I am admittedly more familiar
133 with HYAA than I am with tennis . I would imagine that their struggles are going to be the same . HYAA has players from
134 Orange , Person , Chatham , and Alamance Counties . That is 3 other counties coming to Orange County and likely
135 spending money in Orange County . I think that investment in the space for them , giving them the zoning to build their
136 fields , is an investment for our county . They have almost 1 , 000 players per year coming through . The project meets the
137 mission , particularly the ball fields , providing space that reduces the town financial impact of purchasing and
138 maintenance of athletic and park space . The wells versus water/sewer, I know we have discussed that ad nauseum , but
139 I ' ve never sat up here and had a project where they had multiple options . Usually , we only hear county proposals and
140 that is strictly well and septic . The state does have a mandate for provision of water and sewer to public schools . If our
141 ultimate concern is the resident' s wells , then I would encourage the developer to pursue the state mandated provision of
142 water and sewer. The other discussion has been around what was presented in our first meeting being the letter that
143 was presented and entered into the record . This still bothers me as what is referenced is their proposed plan , their draft
144 plan , which we cannot consider because it is not legislation . It has not passed , therefore shouldn ' t bear on any decision
145 made by us . Regarding traffic , As a parent, I ' ve made clear that I have children in charter schools , our charter school has
146 one entrance , in and out, onto Hwy . 57 and we don ' t block traffic . There are no busses at our school . This charter school
147 is proposing busses . That is going to reduce traffic compared to what some of the other charter schools in the county
148 have . I would urge that we pass this on and advance it to the BOCC .
149
150 Chris Johnston : I ' m new to this board , this is my first foray into this , so I appreciate everyone bearing with me on this .
151 think , and I am only speaking for myself here , that if this were a presentation for athletics fields and only for athletics
152 fields , that we would have been done on April 3rd . I don ' t think anyone here disagrees that we need additional athletics
153 fields and that we need them badly . It is outrageous that we have to go other counties for that sort of thing , tennis
154 players , pickleball players , whatever you may be . I think the question that we are all wrestling with up here is dealing with
155 our mandate of following the planning board thing of considering all the things that we can ' t consider . . . right? We can ' t
156 consider the water considerations ; we can only consider the plans as they are . We have to consider the WASAMPBA
157 participation as it currently is , we can ' t consider the traffic , we can ' t consider a number of things . Charter school versus
158 public school versus private school , it' s a school . But at the same time , we do have other considerations as well . We are
159 neighbors with the folks of Hillsborough and the folks of Hillsborough have elected representatives and those
160 representatives have submitted that letter that said they were against this particular development for whatever reasons
161 they have . So , I am struggling a lot with this one just because of all the things we can ' t consider . I think we really need
162 the athletic fields , I think those are really important , I don ' t know, we had a . . . . . Cy , are you here? In regard to the school
163 and the need that was mentioned , in regards to needs for schooling in this area , in terms of attendance and what our
164 future growth is and that sort of thing . . .
165
Approved &7 - 2023
166 Cy Stober: The school ' s adequate facilities public ordinance annual report has a 10 -year forecast using 5 different
167 models for both the municipal school district and the Orange County School District, none of those models forecast a
168 capacity concern for the public school system .
169
170 Chris Johnston : Again , I have a lot of things that I ' m considering on my first Orange County Planning Board , and I don ' t
171 quite know what to think .
172
173 Melissa Poole : With regards to the capacity issue , while the report does show that there is no 10 -year forecast capacity
174 issue , there is a February 8th article in the Daily Tarheel , where the Deputy Superintendent of Orange County Schools is
175 quoted as saying " Overcrowding is a concern for the school district as new growth in the area is leading to class sizes
176 that are exceeding capacity . The district is bringing in mobile units to help with the problem . " The title of the article is
177 " Orange County Schools Employees Bring Concerns of Overcrowding to Board of Education " so it seems as if there is
178 some disconnect between the report and what the superintendent and county employees are saying .
179
180 Chris Johnston : To confirm though , the article was an employee saying something and then the report is what we are
181 supposed to consider. That' s been one of the major things that we keep talking about, is we have to consider what the
182 actual report says , not what we hear .
183
184 Cy Stober: If I may, there are a couple of relevant things to consider. What the 10-year forecast does not consider is the
185 condition of the schools or the facilities . It also identifies over capacity of individual schools that could be resolved
186 through redistricting which the school districts are engaged in at this time . It shows system -wide at the high school ,
187 middle school , and elementary school levels that through redistricting the capacity concerns could be potentially resolved
188 because it is just looking at the total amount of capacity for the total number of students enrolled . That is not to say that
189 there are not individual schools that are beyond capacity at this time .
190
191 Melissa Poole : Should we consider capacity at all when a charter school is not districted anyway?
192
193 Cy Stober: I would encourage you to consider whether a school being sited at this location is an appropriate land use as
194 discussed in our adopted plans and in consideration of the land use in the area .
195
196 Charity Kirk : I like the proposal . I don ' t think it's on the right piece of property . We are talking about the mixed residential
197 zoning which states that if it is going to be non - residential , it will be an infill arrangement serving more than 50 dwelling
198 units in a walkable manner. This property is not going to be serving people in a walkable manner. It is a car- oriented
199 property , especially since the Department of Transportation is not going to be doing sidewalks in the area . It is also going
200 to be attracting people from around the county . . the tennis and the softball . . . people are going to be driving there .
201 believe that Orange County needs it . I would like to see this in a more urban environment . I don ' t think this is the right
202 property for it . Now , is there a right property for it? I don ' t know . I just feel like the interpretation of what mixed residential
203 is , doesn ' t match with what is planned for the property .
204
205 Lamar Proctor: I ' ve thought a lot about this , I spoke with the chair of the school board , they are not in favor of another
206 school . They have many repairs that need to be done on the schools . The SAPFO shows that there is capacity for
207 schools in Orange County over 10 years . I agree with Chris , if this was just the ballfields , it would be a no- brainer and it
208 would be done . It' s the school . Orange County does not need another school , we need to focus on the schools we have
209 and making those as good as we can make them . Looking at our Comprehensive Land Use Plan , it encourages us also
210 to do work with the municipalities in a fair and equitable way . They oppose this , Hillsborough opposes it, they indicated
211 that it would put an undue burden on their wastewater system . They considered this and opposed and voted against it .
212 Orange County has to be a good neighbor to its municipalities , the one that is directly affected by this project opposes it,
213 we do not need another school in Orange County, and that' s pretty much it for me . In our land use plan , we are trying to
214 encourage expanded use and non - auto modes of travel . I want those ball fields somewhere , as I asked HYAA, there
215 were over 40 acres cleared in my district in Cheeks that was supposed to be these ball fields and somehow that fell
216 through . That 40 plus acres was within 2 miles of two 1 .40 exits and was across the street from the soccer fields next to
217 Gravelly Hill . That would be an ideal place for these ball fields as opposed to jammed into a tight residential area with
218 creating traffic concerns . I am not talking about traffic concerns from the school because we are not considering those
219 but traffic concerns for HYAA tournaments , traffic concerns for tennis tournaments , traffic concerns for skate park
Approved & T2023
220 tournaments and ongoing leagues . That is another issue in this tight area . As one of the members of the public said ,
221 " They are trying to pack an elephant into a closet here . " Those are the reasons why I am opposing this .
222
223 Elizabeth Kalies : I am also new to the board and not even sure if I am supposed to say something here about how I feel
224 about this , but I am happy to . I have been very torn the whole time as well and agree that there are some good things
225 about this plan . It could be the wrong spot . Every time someone speaks , they nearly change my mind again but what
226 keep going back to is that the town of Hillsborough , the mayor, and the planning board were all of the same opinion that
227 they do not approve the plan , so I am going to trust local judgment on this .
228
229 Delores Bailey : Good evening , great notes from last time , thank you for sending those to me . I listened and read all of
230 what we went through last time . I thought it was a very thorough discussion of this project . I am going to not agree . I do
231 not like the project . My main cause is the Hillsborough board coming to us and explaining to us that it did not fit into what
232 they were planning . That troubles me . The piece about the water still bothers me . Where are you going to get the water
233 from ? You don ' t need the water; it can be wells , . that concerns me . One of the comments from the notes that I read that
234 there were plans on here for a lower school but that' s not what we are voting on . We are voting on the high school and
235 the lower school is going to get rolled into whatever happens . I believe there was a question about whether we get to talk
236 about the lower school and the answer was " no , we don ' t get to talk about the lower school . " For those reasons , that' s
237 unclear to me , and I don ' t think that' s a correct way to present this . I ' d like to know that we could discuss the lower
238 school and what' s going to happen after the high school gets put there . My vote at this time would be no .
239
240 Whitney Watson : I sort of started this off last time we met, asking us to consider the community and rural character of
241 that area . That is one of the land use goals , it' s number 3 . We are supposed to consider whether this preserves that
242 character or not, whether it minimizes land use conflicts and is supported by an efficient and balanced transportation
243 system . I think what we ' ve heard is that, yes , it would become a destination , but it becomes a destination for
244 automobiles . There' s not a transportation system that the average member of the county could avail themselves of to get
245 to this site . There' s no bus route or bus stops there . I think the important part is the community and rural character of that
246 area . I did take the time to drive around through that . It is fields , rural . Yes , it' s dense , there are a lot of homes in that
247 area . If this property were to be developed into more residential areas as I think Cy sort of proposed last week , that it
248 might be somewhere around 50 - 60 residences that could be placed on this property , once you took out for roads ,
249 utilities , and easements and so on , that still would not change the character of that community . I think that' s an important
250 consideration as we go forward . The other way I looked at that is , had the community developed up against an existing
251 site with the kinds of recreational activities and school opportunities , we would probably not be concerned at all about it
252 closing in on this site . The fact that we are now talking about the other way of inserting an area of activity of a kind of
253 development, into an area that already has its existing character I think is the wrong way to go about it .
254
255 Steve Kaufmann : It' s been a very difficult choice for me also because I have been a public school teacher for many
256 years , and I actually worked at a charter school too . I work in the PE department at Duke now , so I am very athletic .
257 love the idea of ballfields ; I love the idea of tennis but that' s not what is in question here . It' s the neighborhood , and 1
258 drove around it several times last week and it' s like what most people on this board have said already , "why here? " It' s a
259 great plan , it looks great on paper. If I were living in a major city and they proposed this plan , it would look wonderful , but
260 we have many more opportunities in this county to do something like this and I hope it gets done . As many of you have
261 said , this isn ' t quite the right place for this project . So , I will be voting against it .
262
263 Statler Gilfillen : I have spent a tremendous amount of time since the last meeting trying to reach out to both sides . I met
264 with Jim ; he made a comment that surprised me . He said that nobody has bothered to contact him directly . I spent
265 several hours with someone who could not be today but was very outspoken against this development . I am your Eno
266 representative . I take this personally and it is difficult for me . I believe that Jim , as a developer, has done everything
267 possible to try to reach out and work with both sides . That meeting that I tried to arrange this week , never happened , I ' m
268 sorry for that . I am still very mixed in many ways . When I look at the state regulations of what our jurisdiction covers , and
269 what this requires , the Town of Hillsborough ' s disagreement is not based upon the current laws that they have
270 presented . That' s part of the problem I have . If they were objecting under the new reformed laws that are proposed , that
271 would be one thing , but they are not . If you were a judge sitting on the bench , you are bound by the laws as they are . I ' m
272 not happy with this but I can ' t see a physical reason to say no to this proposal . I can raise that there are many issues if
273 were homeowners and I think that Mr. Parker is open at least from discussions with him , to deal with that . One of them
274 that concerned me that was raised at the last meeting ; if the town does not provide water and he puts a well in , and that
Approved & 7 - 2023
275 well lowers the level of water in the immediate area , there are people who could end up without water. That is a pretty
276 disastrous situation . The lawyer raised the point at the meeting that yes , under state law the developer has to cover it,
277 etc . but by the time you get through the law and you go to the courts , that' s a legal answer, yes but that doesn ' t solve the
278 immediate problem of somebody without water, living in a house . When I raised that issue to Jim Parker, he indicated
279 that if you are talking about 5 or 6 wells in there that start to go dry , perhaps because they are drained , then people need
280 to be taken care of because it has happened because the water table lowered . If like 15 years ago , we had a drought,
281 that could happen . If they are just old wells that the equipment needs to be replaced , that' s not what we are talking
282 about, we are talking about a water table . That I think could be verified as an architect . The environmental issues , unless
283 1 read it wrong as an architect, you can talk about 65 houses in this unit but if you can not properly support them with the
284 septic system for 65 units and the wells for 65 units , you can ' t build that many units on that site either. So , that' s
285 academic , the environmental issues over rural . I ' m looking at, in the end , on this board whether I would accept or not
286 accept the idea of the school . From what the county has told me , correct me if I ' m wrong Cy , that is not under our
287 jurisdiction .
288
289 Cy Stober: Whether or not the site is appropriate for the land use of a preparatory school as described in our ordinance
290 is well within your purview .
291
292 Statler Gilfillen : In other words , any type of school but not a specific school ?
293
294 Cy Stober: That' s correct . And the school size is relevant, so 400 students is relevant versus 200 students . That' s
295 relevant because it has to do with the building footprint and associated activities .
296
297 Statler Gilfillen : Remember your department' s review, this is an acceptable use at this site , of a school .
298
299 Cy Stober: I believe our staff analysis and our recommendation reflects that .
300
301 Statler Gilfillen : That makes it very difficult to vote against when the professionals that are administering the law have
302 made a decision to advise us accordingly .
303
304 Lamar Proctor: Every proposal that you submit to us , you find consistent, is that not true?
305
306 Melissa Poole : Not historically .
307
308 Lamar Proctor In my time on the board , everything that you ' ve presented . . . .
309
310 Overlapping conversation
311
312 Cy Stober: In the 9 months I ' ve been here , we have recommended all the applications that have come before this board .
313
314 Chris Johnston : To confirm , it wouldn ' t make it to us if it wasn ' t recommended ?
315
316 Cy Stober: They have a right to be heard .
317
318 Melissa Poole : We have heard proposals that were not recommended by the Planning Department of Orange County .
319
320 Cy Stober: That' s a legal right, that every property owner and every applicant has in the State of North Carolina ,
321 regardless of the staff analysis and recommendation . They have a right before the Planning Board and a right to a public
322 hearing .
323
324 Statler Gilfillen : Thank you , I have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to reach out and listen to both sides and
325 this is a very difficult issue before this board for us to vote upon . I hope my neighbors understand , regardless of how I
326 vote . It is based on what I believe will be the best in the end . I just hope that if it goes in Mr. Parker' s favor, that many of
327 you that have objections will finally sit down and try to talk to him about those things that could individually impact you .
328 That might make a difference . I think he ' s open . For a couple of years of construction , as a developer, I would want to be
329 open to the people that are surrounding me .
Approved & T2023
330
331 Lamar Proctor : For the record , I spoke with Mr. Parker too . You said no one else spoke with Mr . Parker,
332
333 Statler Gilfillen : He had informed me that none of the opposition had reached out to him .
334
335 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to recommend denial because the proposed amendment does not match the residential
336 character of this neighborhood , it will not meet the walkability standards that we believe describes a mixed residential
337 development , it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan , specifically land use objectives 1 . 1 , 1 . 21 3 . 1 ,
338 3 . 2 and land use goal 6 . 2 . Seconded by Lamar Proctor ,
339 Motion Passed 7 . 3 ( Poole , Beeman , Gilfillen )
340
341 Cy Stober : There is a tentative public hearing date of June 6 , 2023 .
342
343 Tom Altien : There has been a change to the date on which the county commissioners will consider the consultant
344 contract for the comprehensive land use plan . The date has been changed from June 6 to May 16 , 2023 .
345
346 Charity Kirk : Can I make a motion to have staff review applicant time limits for presentations ?
347
348 Adam Beeman : As I said , if you want to discuss that, we can discuss that before we close the meeting so that we can all
349 be on the same page . I don ' t know how many of us read the email and got through . If we want to have a quick
350 discussion about what you are proposing , then we can go from there .
351
352 Charity Kirk : Based on a number of the presentations that we ' ve had recently, particularly this Lawrence Road
353 presentation , I don ' t feel that it was well organized nor respectful of our time nor respectful of the public and all the
354 comments . My suggestion is to require presentations to be no longer than an hour and a half and ask them at the time of
355 meeting scheduling , how long they are going to be . If they are going to be over an hour, make sure that they know they
356 are going to need their own meeting . That is my suggestion . Staff might have something more to say .
357
358 Cy Stober : I have spoken with several of you in the last month about specifically the Lawrence Road zoning case
359 because of applicant presentation length , the limit on public comments to 3 minutes , setting an adjournment time of 10
360 o ' clock , empowering you all to change rules as you need by a simple majority vote . Right now, our rules of procedure are
361 those that are assigned to all boards for Orange County . I propose that we actually have a work session . We have no
362 other zoning applications at this time on file , so we have future meetings that outside of trainings , you have an
363 opportunity to have some time to discuss these matters and frankly , we have some concerns that we would like to
364 address and recommend for formal amendment of the planning board ' s rules of procedure so that you all have the ability
365 to tell applicants , to tell the public , no , we ' ve adopted these rules of procedure , the commissioners adopted them at our
366 recommendation and this is what the rules are when you come to the planning board : presentation length , public
367 comment length , meeting duration , and also giving you the powers to waive those rules as you see fit on a case by case
368 basis .
369
370 Melissa Poole : So you are suggesting that there is nothing on the agenda for June and that we should set June as a
371 work session to discuss that in more depth ?
372
373 Cy Stober: The primary feature on the June agenda will be Tom coming back to provide more details on the consultant
374 for the comprehensive plan and give you a preview of what to expect for the comprehensive plan .
375
376 Melissa Poole : You are suggesting that we make a motion to set a work session on the agenda to discuss that in more
377 depth ?
378
379 Cy Stober: I think it' s needed . I think as staff it would be to our benefit as well , providing that communication to
380 applicants to say "this is what the expectations are when you come before the planning board and if you are going to
381 need to deviate from that because you have a very complex project , you need to make that clear upfront . " That can be
382 presented to the planning board for consideration .
383
Approved & 7 - 2023
384 Statler Gilfillen : As you know, I ' ve called several times this last week , I ' ve got hours of time . . . for people on the board to
385 know, I met with Jim Parker then I got a hold of and met with someone who was totally on the opposition , I tried as an
386 individual citizen to get them to talk together about it . It didn 't happen . There is a lot of animosity in this decision . 1
387 reached you at your electrical number, I went online and got your number. I tried reaching Lamar, but he ' s apparently
388 changed his phone number. There are times when I think there is value with a difficult situation . I think what he said
389 tonight was incredibly intelligent, but it didn ' t change my vote but sometimes being able to talk about more information
390 that others have , can be helpful . He was a strong opponent last time and I wanted to reach him also .
391
392 Charity Kirk : What does this have to do with developer presentations ?
393
394 Statler Gilfillen : It has to do with the fact that is it possible that we on the board , since it' s not listed publicly , could have
395 each other' s phone numbers and emails to contact . . .
396
397 Charity Kirk : I believe there was a spreadsheet that was sent out with people' s emails .
398
399 Overlapping conversation
400
401 Melissa Poole : I would suggest because I do agree with Charity, that this does warrant further discussion that we set our
402 July meeting for a work session .
403
404 Charity Kirk : If June ' s meeting is really short . . .
405
406 Melissa Poole : They are doing updates on the comprehensive land plan . . .
407
408 Cy Stober: It' s just the proposal , it will be a brief overview and then we will have a deeper dive later this summer.
409
410 Melissa Poole : So we are not going to discuss it like we have other things?
411
412 Cy Stober: The consultant will not be here ; they will be coming later this summer to formally launch the process . The
413 June meeting will probably be a 10 - minute presentation on who we chose , what they propose to do , the timeline , your
414 opportunities for participation , community engagement, giving you an overview of the whole project .
415
416 Melissa Poole : I just envisioned 14 UDO update meetings . If time permits in the June meeting , we will take it up , but
417 should we not have time in June then we will definitively , no later than the July meeting , address presentation length ?
418
419 Cy Stober: I ' ll give you a deadline , we need a motion from you all to make a recommended amendment to the rules of
420 procedure by the August meeting so that we can take it to the commissioners in September for formal adoption .
421
422 MOTION BY Melissa Poole that no later than the regular August meeting , the Planning Board will have had a work session
423 and a vote to recommend changes to the rules of procedure regarding applicant presentation length . Seconded by
424 Charity Kirk .
425 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
426
427 Discussion was had about items for discussion at the upcoming work session .
428
429 Adam Beeman introduced Planning Board members and each gave a short biography of themselves .
430
431 AGENDA ITEM 82 ADJOURNMENT
432 MOTION BY Melissa Poole to adjourn . Seconded by Delores Bailey .
433 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
434
435
436 Adam Beeman , Chair