HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-4-24 PB Agenda Packet 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
f
17 52
s�
Q
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
WHITTED MEETING FACILITY
300 WEST TRYON STREET, SECOND FLOOR
I-IILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
Wednesday, December 4, 2024
Regular Meeting — 7:00 pm
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
4-5 a. Planning Calendar for December and January
6 b. 2025 Planning Board Meeting Dates
3. 7-30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 4, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes
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
2
No. Page(s) Agenda Item
7. 31-34 UPDATE ON LAND USE PLAN 2050—To receive an update from Clarion
Associates on aspects of the ongoing Land Use Plan 2050 project.
Presenter: Leigh Anne King, Director, Clarion Associates
8. 35-40 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: Cy Stober, Planning Director
9. ADJOURNMENT
Sign up to receive a notification when Planning Board agendas are posted
Interested persons can sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx to receive a
notification when agendas are posted. (Scroll down to the "Agenda Center" category and choose
Planning Board).
Monthly Planning & Inspections Newsletter
Sign up at https://www.orangecountync.gov/list.aspx?ListlD=408 to receive the monthly
communication on happenings in the Planning & Inspections Department.
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.
Planning Board Member Potential Conflict of Interest
It is the duty of every Board member to avoid both conflicts of interest and appearances of conflict.
Board members having any conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict with respect to matters
3
before the Board should identify the conflict or appearance of conflict and refrain from undue
participation in the matter involved.
As a reminder, NC General Statute § 160D-109 establishes the following standard: Members of
appointed boards shall not vote on any advisory or legislative decision regarding a development
regulation where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct,
substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. An appointed board member
shall not vote on any zoning amendment if the landowner of the property subject to a rezoning
petition or the applicant for a text amendment is a person with whom the member has a close
familial, business, or other associational relationship.
If any Planning Board member has any concern about a possible conflict related to an agenda
item, please notify Planning staff and get in touch directly with a member of the County Attorney's
staff before the meeting time to determine whether a conflict exists— and if so, how best to handle
the potential conflict.
4
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BOCC Planning Board
Business Meeting
Meeting 7:00 7:00 pm*
pm
Whitted Bldg. Whitted Bldg.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
BOCC
Business Board of
Meeting Adjustment
7:00 PM 7:00 pm
Southern Whitted Bldg.
Human Sery
Ctr.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 26 27 28
29 30 31
Notes:
* Planning Board member attendance required
Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting
Room (2nd floor) 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278
Sunda MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFrida Saturday
1 2 3 4
HOLIDAY
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Planning Board
Meeting
7:00 pm*
Whitted Bldg.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
BOCC Retreat
Board of 9:00 am-4:00
Adjustment pm
7:00 pm
Solid Waste
Whitted Bldg. Management
Facility
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BOCC
Business
Meeting
7:00 pm
Whitted Bldg.
26 27 28 29 30 31
Notes:
* Planning Board member attendance required
Planning Board meetings are held at Whitted Human Services Building - Donna S. Baker Meeting
Room 2nd floor 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278
6
Orange County Planning Board
2025 Meetings
First Wednesday of Each Month
7:00 p.m.
Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 West Tryon Street, 2nd floor, Hillsborough
January 8 (2"d Wednesday due to holiday)
February 5
March 5
April 2
May 7
June 4
July 2
August 6
September 3
October 1
November 5
December 3
7
DRAFT
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 SEPTEMBER 4,2024
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair),
7 Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Charity Kirk,At-
8 Large Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Whitney Watson,
9 At-Large Representative; Marilyn Carter,At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large
10 Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large
11 Representative.
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative.
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning
16 &Administration;Tom Altieri, Senior Planner—Long Range Planning &Administration; Jack
17 Moran, Planning Technician.
18
19 OTHERS PRESENT: None.
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
22 The meeting began at 7:00 PM.
23
24 Adam Beeman: We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome back, Cy. I know it's only briefly.A little
25 while longer still.
26
27 Cy Stober: Yeah. I'll be back in the saddle on the 16th.
28
29 Adam Beeman: Well, congratulations on your new addition.
30
31 Cy Stober: Thank you.
32
33 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS
34
35 Adam Beeman: I don't have much to say other than the Board of County Commissioners is going to be quite busy
36 for the next 2 months. The Board of Adjustment's got a couple meetings, and we have our
37 meeting in October right there in the beginning of the month on the 2nd.
38
39 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
40
41 Adam Beeman: Do I have any adjustments/corrections on the minutes from last month?
42
43 Lamar Proctor: Motion to approve the minutes.
44
45 Adam Beeman: I have a second?
46
47 Charity Kirk: Second.
48
49 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Charity Kirk
50
51 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
52
53 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
54
8
DRAFT
55 Adam Beeman: Moving right along. I don't have any considerations to the agenda. There's nobody from the
56 public, and so we're just going to head on to Tom.
57
58 AGENDA ITEM 7: UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN(CLOP)—To receive an update from staff on the
59 status of the"Land Use Plan 2050"project.
60
61 Tom Altieri: Good evening. Tom Altieri, Orange County Senior Planner. My presentation this evening is
62 probably a little bit over 20 minutes. I have quite a bit to cover with the board. My presentation
63 will include a briefing on the progress of the project, and we'll be discussing the land-use
64 alternatives,which will be a part of our outreach during Engagement Window 2,which is right
65 around the corner, starting the end of the month. And then conclude with next steps and so forth.
66 Jumping right into project progress,we're currently in Phase 4,which happens to be the longest
67 phase of the project. The purpose of it is to develop the draft plan. It includes both the second
68 and third windows of outreach during the project. The diagram here shows the entire project
69 spanning approximately 26 months. We are currently working with Clarion Associates on a
70 contract amendment to extend the project to 31 months. This is to accommodate some additional
71 outreach we are anticipating during that third engagement window when we'll have a draft plan,
72 and then also to better fit the county's calendar; primarily,the summer Board of County
73 Commissioners meeting break, but also around the holidays and so forth. So, it will last a little bit
74 longer than the original contract, and a little bit more on that later. This slide shows the work that
75 has been completed and that that is underway. The consultants' last report to the planning board
76 was back in February, and it did include an update on the Phase 2 and Phase 3 deliverables, so
77 those should probably sound a little bit familiar. And of course,work underway,which would be
78 new to the board,would be the planning for our next engagement window, development of
79 framework,vision,and goals. The draft land-use and development recommendations report,
80 which is a new deliverable that has just been posted on the project website; I'll have more on that
81 in just a moment. And then drafting plan policies and actions; again, all leading up to the input
82 that we will receive during the next engagement window. The Community Engagement Window 1
83 summary report, you have seen that. It does provide the foundation for our work during the
84 current phase, Phase 4. It is on the project website, as are all of the consultants'deliverables.
85 The new issues and opportunities report that includes, or rather, it synthesizes the critical issues
86 and opportunities identified during the first three phases of the project, also providing the
87 foundation for our upcoming work in development of the plan. And then the fact book,which
88 shares the data and the trends on community planning topics and future planning influences that
89 are important considerations for developing the planning policies. And it includes the data
90 analysis that was shared during our first engagement window and the workshop, so you've seen
91 that and are familiar with it. The land-use alternatives evaluations report,this is the report I
92 mentioned which is new and has been posted on the website. It has not been presented to the
93 county commissioners yet; it will be at their work session next week. But it is available there on
94 the website. I'd encourage you to take a look at it. A little more on that coming here in a moment.
95 But it shares the methodology and outcomes of land-use alternatives, process used to
96 development policy guidance,and the conservation and growth map, and that is what we are
97 calling the future land-use map, so you'll very often see those two terms together. The report
98 describes the modeling process,technical inputs/outputs, methods of receiving feedback from the
99 public, and then how that feedback will be used to shape the final draft plan heading into public
100 hearing. So,what are the land-use alternatives? Of course, the image on the left is the future
101 land-use map that you're familiar with. It will take that map and build off of the current policies and
102 then explore alternatives,testing hypothetical future land-use policies. There are four alternatives,
103 and more on those,four maps. Essentially, I will discuss what are some of the characteristics of
104 those maps and the policies that are considered to build those maps. And then the alternatives
105 and the input that we receive will inform the selection for a preferred policy approach in the draft
106 plan. A couple key terms: Alternatives and scenarios mean the same thing. And, again,
107 conservation and growth framework, that's the thematic title for the future land-use map and the
108 categories. So,what is the purpose and intent of the alternatives? They are to model
9
DRAFT
109 hypothetical future land-use policy alternatives for the county's jurisdiction and assess outcomes.
110 And then share outcomes of alternatives modeling with county leadership and the public to collect
111 feedback for development of the plan. The point at the bottom in blue is important. We expect
112 that what will ultimately be the draft future land-use map will be some combination of these
113 different alternatives. So,the way that outreach is structured,we want to know what people like
114 and dislike about each of the alternatives so that we can develop one draft growth and
115 conservation framework,future land-use map. So, it's not a matter of saying, I like Alternative 2, 1
116 like Alternative 4. It's going to be what we like and dislike about each of those alternatives. A little
117 about the process of creating alternatives. We looked at identifying areas where we might want to
118 see change, largely areas near municipalities outside of our water supply watersheds, maybe
119 away from some of our prime agricultural soils,for example. Explore the potential land-use
120 alternatives for those areas, evaluate outcomes of those changes, and then, again, to inform the
121 policies and land-use changes needed to support the desires outcomes. A little redundant here,
122 but maybe this graphic strikes home in a little different way. We're using a computer to model the
123 alternatives and generate outputs. We'll be sharing and collecting information from the public.
124 We use that information to refine the planned goals and policies and then adjust the future land-
125 use map. So, a little on the process. Again, receiving initial public inputs on the plan,vision, and
126 goals. We've done that. Looking at existing conditions and planning influences,and that analysis,
127 developing the alternatives, collecting public input, and then ultimately developing the draft plan.
128 The approach to the alternatives is an exploratory process, and the critical community topics,
129 overwhelmingly, that we heard from the public during the first engagement window, all very
130 familiar to the planning board; natural resources and agricultural lands protection, creating more
131 affordable housing, reducing carbon footprint and vehicle miles traveled, and support for public
132 transit,and of course, economic equity and jobs creation. So, a little bit about a"key question".
133 When people are reviewing the land-use alternatives,we want them to form their opinions and
134 provide input through a similar lens. The purpose of having a key question is to focus effort so all
135 groups involved have a common understanding of purpose and intent. It focuses analysis to
136 ensure that the testing includes a manageable number of variables and results in meaningful
137 outcomes and serves as a beacon during the development of the alternatives,when other
138 questions tend to creep in. I will share the key question that has been developed on the next slide
139 here. So,what went into identifying the key question? What specific question do we want the
140 land-use alternatives to answer? Or put another way: What is the critical land-use planning
141 question that would benefit from alternative analysis and testing with the public? So,this is our
142 key question. The county commissioners received this at their April work session so they've seen
143 it. And the question is: Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of
144 sustainable development in Orange County? So,when we're asking the public to look at each of
145 these alternatives,we're trying to frame it in a way so that they could provide input, and this is the
146 question we want them to keep in their minds as they do that and look at each of the alternatives.
147 Key influences to consider during the development of the alternatives were the climate action plan
148 and our countywide strategic plan that was fairly recently completed. Also,the findings that are
149 included in the fact book, and of course data. I mentioned our water supply,watersheds earlier,
150 and other data,the prime agricultural soils and so forth. So,these are the four recommended
151 alternatives what we're calling each of them. I'll get into each of those with a separate slide, so 1
152 won't read this slide. Alternative 1, that's really the no-change scenario,so it would be largely
153 continuing with the currently adopted future land-use map and our current zoning densities,with
154 just some minor adjustments;those being our current future land-use map is not a parcel-based
155 map. It's really a carryover going all the way back to 1981, and that's why you see,and we've
156 talked about,why the nodes are circles. So,we're looking to convert that map to a parcel-based
157 map. And then there are a few of the categories that are very similar and could be combined. So
158 those are some of the things that Alternative 1 would include, but largely, no change. So
159 Alternative 2 would be to enhance our agricultural and environmental protections, and the policies
160 to be tested for that alternative would be lowering densities to protect priority agricultural,
161 environmental watershed, and rural lands;the assumption that new, affordable, denser housing is
162 accommodated within the municipalities; and potentially that we could eliminate some of the rural
163 community activity nodes that are not currently developed. So,we're using the word policies that
10
DRAFT
164 we're testing. I think you could also say these are the characteristics of each alternative map.
165 Alternative 3: Add low-impact mixed-use neighborhoods in strategic locations. This would be a
166 focus on creating conservation subdivisions that could include a mix of housing types and possibly
167 neighborhoods serving commercial areas. As the board knows,we do have, currently, the
168 provisions for flexible developments within our unified development ordinance, so we have
169 conservation subdivisions now. What would be tested here is really a denser version,so smaller
170 lots, higher open-space requirements, and we don't currently really have an example on the
171 ground of that type of a development. I think probably the best example would be the Fiddlehead
172 Corners project as being a type of relatively higher density, mixed-use neighborhood, so that type
173 of a development is what is being communicated through Alternative 3. And then of course
174 protect key ecological viable areas of each site. Will likely require municipal utility services or
175 certainly community systems to serve such a development. And identify locations within county's
176 jurisdiction near municipalities and outside of our water supply watershed critical areas, and
177 potentially testing those locations also in the rural buffer area. I'm going to skip through this.
178 You're familiar with this. Just a graphic example showing a conservation subdivision, more open
179 space and denser development, smaller lots. So,Alternative 4 adds higher-intensity mixed-use
180 centers in strategic locations. So that would be focus on maximizing available land that could
181 include a mix of housing types and commercial employment areas; protect currently required
182 areas such as our Resource Protection Areas, RPA. They will require municipal utility services to
183 serve development. Community systems may be an option. And identify locations within the
184 county's jurisdiction near municipalities and outside of our critical areas. And, again, potential
185 testing of locations in the rural buffer.
186
187 Charity Kirk: Can I ask a clarifying question? The difference between Alt 3 and Alt 4 is more the commercial
188 aspect of it?
189
190 Tom Altieri: More the commercial aspect, and more intense. There's an example. It's an aerial photograph.
191 It's of Southern Village. So that's the example that the consultant has used as an aerial image.
192 So, Fiddlehead,Alternative 3,and a Southern Village type development with Alternative 4.
193
194 Adam Beeman: Where's the water coming from?
195
196 Tom Altieri: I'm sorry?
197
198 Tom Altieri: Where it says a lot of these options need to be close to or could use municipal utilities, so that is
199 where the public water and sewer would be coming from in that Alternative.
200
201 Charity Krik: It said community services,too. It said community services as well.
202
203 Adam Beeman: Yeah, I know, but I'm not really a fan of going down that avenue because then we have multiple
204 people dealing with sewage around the county that may or may not keep up on their task. I prefer
205 that to be a governmental operation. But I'm just curious to know if there's a plan down the road, if
206 we go that route, if they plan on increasing their capacities.
207
208 Tom Altieri: We mentioned the use of community systems. We know what those are. But to achieve some of
209 these alternatives,we'd need a public utility provider. Orange County is not a utility provider, so
210 we would need those partnerships, and they would need to agree to serve it. So,this is where 1
211 said I wanted to just stop for questions. I've only got two slides after this,about what's coming
212 next, a little bit about outreach. So, additional questions on what I've presented thus far?
213
214 Marilyn Carter: Just a quick question. I know,Tom, you're going to mention the upcoming sessions for
215 community engagement. I imagine that the testing that you're talking about as part of the
216 engagement is going to happen in those sessions coming up?
217
218 Tom Altieri: It is.
11
DRAFT
219
220 Marilyn Carter: Okay.
221
222 Tom Altieri: It's similar in a way to our first engagement window. So have a kickoff, in-person meetings, online
223 engagement, and we will be having two surveys. If you recall,we had good survey participation
224 from those that attended our meetings and completed them in person. Participation was not so
225 hot online, and so a short survey has been developed as well, and one that's a little bit longer. It's
226 pretty detailed information on each of the alternatives, but we want to get feedback from as many
227 people as we can, so we do have two surveys, and we're also doing some tabling events, and last
228 Fridays, and festivals and that type of thing during our engagement window. We know we can't hit
229 somebody with a 15-or 20-minute survey at those types of events, so something short that they
230 can complete in 5 minutes.
231
232 Dolores Bailey: Tom, I have two questions back towards what you just talked about. Are you doing anything
233 different as you're reaching out to different communities so that you can get some response?
234
235 Tom Altieri: Yes,we are. We've got two public workshop engagement meetings that are coming up that we've
236 started advertising and that Community Relations is pushing out through county notices all over;
237 on the website,social media accounts and so forth. And you'll notice these meeting locations are
238 in kind of strategic areas,so we've had a lot of growth pressure from the west from Mebane along
239 West 10 Road in the area of Gravelly Hill Middle School, some of the developments that have
240 gone in there. And so, one of our meetings will be at that school in the auditorium. We're sending
241 out first-class mail notification to about 1,000 property owners that live within the area of the
242 school, hoping that will help attendance at the meeting. And then of course the American Legion
243 post, if you're familiar with that, that's down in the southwestern part of the county down near
244 White Cross. Again, in the area of the Fiddlehead Corners development proposal. So,we think
245 those,we know those should be pretty well attended. Hard-to-reach communities, I've been
246 working more directly with some community leaders to host meetings. I mentioned that we'd be
247 working on a contract amendment. We do anticipate doing additional meetings and have started
248 planning for those, and it's really more of a grassroots effort to notification, so it's not the model of
249 county staff advertising for a meeting in a county facility,the agricultural center for example, and
250 sending out notices to everyone and just hope and pray that someone comes. We're working with
251 the community leaders for them to host and for them to invite the right people, those within their
252 communities, to the meetings.We're going to have some success and we'll be able to provide
253 more information on that shortly.
254
255 Dolores Bailey: Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I also want to make sure we're covering
256 minority communities around this area, making sure that they get their voices heard as well. My
257 second question is about the mixed housing use that you talked about. Give me some examples
258 of that, please.
259
260 Tom Altieri: This would be potentially higher density, smaller lots, a mix of residential, potentially townhomes,
261 and some services, businesses that would serve the neighboring area.
262
263 Dolores Bailey: And we're talking home ownership and rental?
264
265 Tom Altieri: Potentially. We haven't really gotten to that granular level of detail about exactly what it would
266 look like. The modeling has been primarily on putting it in the right places, on density, and then
267 for each alternative, how much capacity would we have in the county, based on land area,for that
268 development. And not just residential capacity, but also non-residential square footage.
269
270 Cy Stober: If I may,we're really focusing on the land use, and the model really focuses on the number of units
271 that would be generated, so like Tom said, that granular level of ownership model or affordability,
272 and how this comprehensive plan will integrate or interact with the adopted strategic plan and the
273 housing goals that are established in it,will be something to determine politically by the county
12
DRAFT
274 and how the county can participate in realizing such projects and/or by the private sector as well
275 and what type of projects are brought to the county. And,certainly, if there are some carrots out
276 there to make the type of projects that you're proposing, Ms. Bailey,with integration of more rental
277 units and affordable units—they're not necessarily the same; Downtown Durham can tell you that,
278 as can Downtown Hillsborough—that that's to be determined, and that can be spoken to in more
279 of the policy framework that could be part of this comprehensive land-use plan. But the modeling,
280 the scenarios that we're looking at right now really are focusing on the amount of square footage
281 of non-residential space and the number of residential units that could be generated if we pulled
282 really hard on these political value levers to envision the future.
283
284 Tom Altieri: If I could just tack onto that real quick. As part of the consultants'contract,they are to provide
285 some type of a tool to link the future land-use map categories to our zoning districts. We're
286 currently calling it a matrix. The new tool,we don't have that yet, so that will provide more detail
287 about the specifics and how it relates to zoning districts.
288
289 Dolores Bailey: Thank you.
290
291 Chris Johnston: I had a point of clarification, so the conservation and growth map versus the future land-use map,
292 I'm just confused a little about is that just a name specifically for this plan, or is that that we're
293 changing the terminology in terms of outside of the 2050 plan? So,the phrase conservation and
294 growth map came up a number of times, and I'm just trying to understand how that fits in and why
295 we're changing that terminology if we have to continually go in and say future land-use map.
296
297 Tom Altieri: So,we don't have to change it.
298
299 Chris Johnston: Okay.
300
301 Tom Altieri: The consultant used the term.And so,we said,well, people aren't going to relate initially to that,
302 so we better put in parentheses future land-use map so that they know what we're talking about.
303 But we don't have to change the name.
304
305 Chris Johnston: One of the things that I feel like comes up a lot in these documents is we get so acronym-y,which
306 isn't a word. We get deep into the acronyms,where we're adding these acronyms, and then we're
307 adding descriptors to the acronyms,and then part of this process feels like we're trying to make it
308 more accessible, but at the same time,we're adding layers upon layers,and it can just get
309 dangerous. One other thing I wanted to ask in regard to, the community engagement meetings
310 are both on weekdays, right. There's no weekend one that's coming up for the next community
311 engagement meetings. Are there plans to have weekend meetings for the future ones?
312
313 Tom Altieri: So, I mentioned we're doing some of the local events,fairs and some of those opportunities.
314 Some of those are on weekends. We've already had two weekend events. We went to the back-
315 to-school Efland-Cheeks Community Center. That was on a Saturday. And we went to the Latino
316 Americano Festival in Carrboro. That was on a Sunday. So,we're doing weekends, too. And the
317 idea is just to kinda mix it up so we're able to work around people's schedules, and then there's
318 the online engagement survey, of course.
319
320 Chris Johnston: Okay. That was going to be my next question as well is when we had initially talked about
321 outreach and how we were reaching out to people about this,we had mentioned things like Hog
322 Day or whatever the case may be, and the issue came up that that's in the municipalities. It's not
323 necessarily if you participate in Hog Day,you may not be affected by the 2050 plan. Was that
324 decision just a necessity of trying to get additional people to be interested?
325
326 Tom Altieri: One of the first things we ask when we engage people at one of these events is, "Do you live in
327 Orange County?" If they say no,we're kinda like,well, if you're not familiar with the county,you're
13
DRAFT
328 probably not too interested in this. This is about a county land-use plan, blah, blah, blah, and
329 they're like, okay,thank you, cool map. And they move on.
330
331 Chris Johnston: Right.
332
333 Tom Altieri: Typically. Maybe take a piece of candy. But if they do live in Orange County,then we engage
334 with them differently and encourage them to take the survey.
335
336 Chris Johnston: Perfect.
337
338 Tom Altieri: The online survey hasn't opened yet. It doesn't open until September 18th. And since we've
339 started attending some events already,we were taking paper copies, and when the survey opens,
340 we'll just manually input those. And we did well. We got over 40 surveys at the Latino Americano
341 Festival. Half of them were completed in Spanish. We did have an interpreter there with us for
342 about half of the festival. Jack was there too, speaks a little bit of Spanish. And all of the
343 materials were available in Spanish there. And our relationship there was with El Centro Hispano,
344 and they've been very helpful.
345
346 Chris Johnston: And that was going to be my final question, and I apologize,Whitney; sorry about taking up all the
347 time. In regard to the community engagement meetings, is there going to be any kind of childcare
348 or multilingual capabilities for those meetings for people who might need those services?
349
350 Tom Altieri: So,for the targeted meetings El Centro Hispano,for example,they'll have their interpreters on
351 site.That's just part of the arrangement that we've made with them. And then for these two
352 workshop meetings,for example, that are more general public,we've advertised that if you need
353 those services to let us know,we'll provide them. So that's how that's been handled. As far as
354 daycare aspects and that type of thing,we haven't gotten into that.
355
356 Chris Johnston: That's perfect. I just wanted to clarify on that.
357
358 Adam Beeman: Whitney.
359
360 Whitney Watson: Thank you. So, I am really interested in how the consultants and how the planning staff have
361 been engaging with the leadership from the various municipalities involved and whether it's at the
362 planning department level or if it's at the council level. Because that's really different folks.
363
364 Tom Altieri: You'll recall, during Community Engagement Window 1,the consultant had stakeholder
365 interviews, and there were county elected officials, or Board of County Commissioners and
366 planning directors from the municipalities. At that point in time,there was not interviews of
367 city/town elected officials. There was an attempt at a survey that did go out. Survey from
368 Community Engagement Window 1 that was distributed to all of the elected officials of the
369 municipalities, encouraging them to participate and return a survey. I believe that went via
370 manager to managers to elected officials, and the response rate was quite low, although we did
371 get some response.
372
373 Whitney Watson: Well, to be very transparent about it,when I look at the alternative maps and see the projected
374 changes and development for the western edge of Orange County, I'm very concerned, and I'm
375 wondering if the Mebane elected officials are looking at this at all or thinking that they are perhaps
376 going to continue to go about their merry way and do what they want.
377
378 Tom Altieri: I can't speak to that. We are certainly considering the municipal plans, and they are kind of built
379 into the alternatives. We do know urban services boundaries. Town of Hillsborough has recently
380 updated its urban services area through its comprehensive sustainability plan, so we're
381 synchronizing with the outer boundary of that boundary. And also, Mebane has recently updated
382 its urban services boundary and has just engaged with a consultant to update its land-use plan to
14
DRAFT
383 cover the additional area,which is pretty extensive. So,we're not there yet,we'll see how that
384 goes. I had mentioned that the information that you've received tonight, our commissioners have
385 seen, and so we know that there are varied opinions, even on our Board of County
386 Commissioners about the alternatives in general and growth and so forth. But they have asked us
387 to test the policies, and so that's what we're doing.
388
389 Whitney Watson: One follow-up question about the upcoming community engagement meetings. Both of these are
390 on the western side of Orange County. The decision was made not to hold an engagement
391 meeting in the eastern portion of Orange County?
392
393 Tom Altieri: I don't know that it was a conscious decision to avoid a particular area. There happened to be
394 meeting facilities in these areas, and they're areas where we feel like there's going to be local
395 interest, as there have been people,for example your last planning board meeting,where we had
396 quite a number of people with familiarity with the area around White Cross and in the Dollar
397 General that proceeded it. We have a third engagement window, and we'll look into moving these
398 around, but when we find what works,we may have a tendency to go back. That's one thing,
399 meeting with a few of the community leaders, that I've heard,which is, "Are you coming out here
400 to see us once and then you're gone, or are you going to come back, Tom?" So that's a
401 consideration as well, but really not a deliberate attempt to avoid any particular areas. We started,
402 very early on, looking at census maps and demographics and trying to see where concentrations
403 of populations were and how that aligned with where we have meeting spaces. I wish we had
404 more meeting spaces, but we'll work with what we have. And we have noticed, again,we meet in
405 county facilities and just invite people to come. That hasn't seemed to work,so we're trying to
406 meet out in some different areas with partnering hosts.
407
408 Whitney Watson: Okay. Thank you.
409
410 Adam Beeman: Statler?
411
412 Statler GiIfillen: As an architect who's done a lot of planning, there seem to be three standards. There are four
413 standards that I've developed, but there are three of them that are most common in the zoning,
414 typically. One would be the isolated housing to the suburban development. The second would be
415 the duplex to the row housing. The third would be the apartment to the high rise, each relying
416 upon a density. The fourth one that is very difficult, often, in American zoning is based on a
417 European village concept,which is kind of a mixture of a lot of things. If I'm reading what you're
418 saying,what you're trying to promote here is actually might allow that European model to come in
419 where you can have a clustered village,fairly tight density, mixed types of uses from tiny
420 apartment to duplexes to single family, all within a clustered area,with open land guaranteed to be
421 left around it. Am I right that this would be promoting that more?
422
423 Tom Altieri: I would say yes that concept is what we want to collect feedback on. Promoting, per se, not
424 necessarily promoting any of the alternatives, but presenting them to collect input and feedback to
425 guide the development of the draft plan.
426
427 Statler GiIfillen: Perhaps I can talk to you later about that. I may have some things that can be helpful.
428
429 Tom Altieri: Certainly.
430
431 Cy Stober: Well, on that point, I just want to make clear that the most constructive input you can have is
432 commenting on the scenarios themselves, as planning board members, and providing that input
433 on what you think either formally as a planning board member or as a member of,as a resident of
434 the county. That's the most constructive way to guide this process. Please.
435
436 Charity Kirk: I have some tangential questions, because it seems like this is all about how we want to develop
437 and grow the county,which is a little bit against the rural buffer idea and keeping things in the
15
DRAFT
438 towns. So, are you looking at extending the municipality boundaries so that they just take care of
439 the poop,or how would you encourage a new town somewhere to focus development? Like in
440 this day and age, are new towns even possible?
441
442 Tom Altieri: These are all great questions,and we're looking for feedback on these things. And what our
443 community members think?
444
445 Charity Kirk: So,the rural buffer is under question.
446
447 Tom Altieri: Well, potentially.
448
449 Charity Kirk: Okay. All right.Thank you.
450
451 Cy Stober: I've spoken about this before,and I'll maintain my personal and professional position, but I also
452 think the county department's position. If we do not ask the question, "Is the rural buffer serving
453 the county's goals?"we as planners,we're being cowardly, and we're not doing our jobs. The
454 answer may be it is doing a great job and we need to maintain it, or may even need to expand it or
455 strengthen it. That's fine. That's great feedback. It also may be it's not working as intended and
456 needs some modification, or we want to get rid of it. I mean,those are extremes. But we need to
457 ask the question, and we need to have it documented what the answer generally is. And I would
458 also note, as Tom covered in Scenario 2,that is very much an open-space agricultural protection
459 scenario. Frankly, and then we have Scenario 1,which is the business-as-usual model,which is
460 largely the framework of growth and development in the county, and preservation and protection is
461 maintained as it is today.
462
463 Charity Kirk: Are you specifically asking about the rural buffer in your questions, or is it just sort of one of the
464 options? Because that seems to be at least sort of a thing around the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area,
465 like people know that term.
466
467 Tom Altieri: The consultant will be presenting the maps to the county commissioners at their September 10th
468 work session. The maps are in the report that I mentioned,so you'll be able to see them very
469 soon. And one of the areas that is addressed in that Alternative 4 was the mixed-use center. We
470 mentioned Southern Village as a potential example. That would be one of the areas that is shown
471 on the map as the area around Blackwood Station on new NC-86,for example. So, that area
472 would extend into what is currently the rural buffer.
473
474 Charity Kirk: Because the sewer question is a very interesting applicable question to the rural buffer area and
475 how we take care of our waste.
476
477 Tom Altieri: Right.
478
479 Adam Beeman: Anybody else have any other questions?
480
481 Beth Bronson: Tom, I apologize. I did not hear the four descriptions. I have reviewed the maps, but I did not
482 hear your descriptions, so I appreciate it. I had a question about Land-Use Alternative 3 versus 4.
483 You see, up new 86, 1 guess? So, it goes along 40 outside, between basically new 86 and 15-
484 501. Just trying to make sure I understand. It's a rural conservation neighborhood, along,versus
485 mixed-use area in the Land Alternative 4. It's that density between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough.
486
487 Tom Altieri: I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the question. And I don't have the benefit of seeing the map.
488
489 Beth Bronson: Oh, you guys don't have maps?
490
491 Tom Altieri: No,the maps aren't part of the presentation. No.
492
16
DRAFT
493 Beth Bronson: Apologies. I thought that that's what you were asking for feedback on.
494
495 Tom Altieri: No,that's where we're going with upcoming public outreach.
496
497 Beth Bronson: Yep. We'll get there. The only other question I had was an opportunity to let the public see that
498 you're engaging with the municipalities. And I understand emailing back and forth to managers
499 and making people aware that, Mebane letting the county know that they're hiring a consultant,
500 Orange County letting Mebane know that they've hired a consultant. However, I mean, in the
501 instance of Hillsborough or, as Charity mentioned, the incorporation of Efland,for instance.
502 Things like that, I think, seeing that type of engagement in a public forum between planning staff
503 and the commissioners, or planning staff and other municipalities,would give this opportunity for
504 the public engagement, because their officials are hearing it and receiving it on their behalf. And
505 then maybe more feedback from that.
506
507 Tom Altieri: I'm hearing the point. So is the planning director. We're working our way through a contract and
508 scope of services and a process that has been approved by our board.
509
510 Beth Bronson: Okay. So, you're saying there's no funding for going out and asking to be on the agendas of other
511 councils' meetings just for presentation,for information presentations? Okay. And that's
512 understandable. I don't know if it's common or not. Thanks.
513
514 Lamar Proctor: Just a quick question about the land-use alternatives map. How do you define,what is
515 "urbanizing residential"?
516
517 Tom Altieri: So,without the benefit of the map, I mentioned Mebane is expanding its utility service boundary.
518 It's not necessarily that they're going to be extending water and sewer lines immediately, but this
519 is the area that they could potentially see themselves growing in the somewhat distant future. So,
520 when we're thinking of our existing future land-use map,we have areas that aren't agricultural
521 residential, rural residential. They're not green, they're not yellow on the map. Transition areas.
522 So,think around, maybe around Efland,the 10-and 20-year transition areas,they're kinda the
523 khaki-orange type colors on the future land-use map. And originally it was envisioned that they
524 may have public utilities someday. So urbanizing residential would be an area in the county
525 jurisdiction that would also be potentially within Mebane's utility services area. So, it is a little
526 different from what you are all used to in terms of agricultural residential or rural residential.
527
528 Lamar Proctor: Okay,thank you.
529
530 Tom Altieri: You're welcome. Yeah,some of this will make a little more sense when we get there and you can
531 have the benefit of the maps and the descriptions, and also the criteria.
532
533 Marilyn Carter: Tom,just a quick question. You had referenced the contract discussions with the consultant
534 happening or have happened perhaps. Can you just give us a brief update? I saw in the packet;
535 we're not being asked to consider or provide input on that. That's already been decided by the
536 commissioners. Is that right?
537
538 Tom Altieri: It has not been decided by the commissioners, but they have mentioned that they wanted to do a
539 better job reaching some of the targeted communities and to try to do some things differently. And
540 so, it is to address that. It would be our second contract amendment. There's been one already,
541 and that was to accommodate additional Board of County Commissioners meetings, largely
542 bimonthly meetings, so that was done shortly after the original contract was approved. And then
543 this would be our second contract amendment, more specific to outreach. Also,testing the four
544 alternatives with the public. The original contract included the release of just one draft growth and
545 conservation framework map,future land-use map to the public, and it was decided during the
546 process that the staff team didn't want to make the decision in the narrowing of the four
547 alternatives to create one draft. So testing the alternatives with the public is now being done as
17
DRAFT
548 well. And then, again, I mentioned just the extension of the calendar. Additional meetings with
549 the county commissioners take preparation and feedback, and sometimes go in a little bit different
550 direction, so that equates to time as well.
551
552 Adam Beeman: Any other questions?
553
554 Beth Bronson: Are they doing another Facebook or another ad campaign that's in the included budget for the
555 second outreach, or is this second outreach part of the contract amendment?
556
557 Tom Altieri: So,the county is doing all the notification.
558
559 Beth Bronson: So,then you guys are planning to do another? I will say that when we spoke back about the
560 interactive map and I suggested leaving it up throughout this process or leaving the surveys up
561 throughout the longer period—and if you are going to be putting new online interactive maps up,
562 that's totally different. But by saying that like, by leaving up an aggregate of answers and then just
563 saying,for the purposes of these results, all answers received by August 25th were included. And
564 then at the next time,you can just include or cite a snapshot of what answers were included. Is
565 that a way to save time or energy to keep these resources up that maybe aren't being utilized very
566 much now but, in 6 months, may be heavily trafficked?
567
568 Tom Altieri: Not sure I'm totally understanding the question. There is a kickoff to the engagement window and
569 then a closing of the engagement window, and it's like September 18th the survey goes live, and
570 then it'll be shut down November 3rd. Then that's when the consultant has to consider the input
571 that's received to then use it to go to the next step and develop the draft plan and draft policies.
572 And then that would be released for the third engagement window.
573
574 Beth Bronson: Okay. So, it would just be this one.
575
576 Tom Altieri: Yes.
577
578 Cy Stober: To re-emphasize, this is a one-way trip,so the feedback we receive is on the road map. You
579 know,we're not revisiting these points. We are collecting the feedback,and we're preserving it,
580 and we are asking for the public's trust that we do have it. And it will be collected, and I think
581 we've got good evidence from Clarion that they're summarizing it in reports to the county, and
582 that's how it's being collected. There will be further opportunities for participation, but we don't
583 want to confuse the matter. We certainly want people to think that we're revisiting topics that, to
584 our minds as professionals, have been resolved and, good, bad, in between,we're moving
585 forward with.
586
587 Beth Bronson: And that does make sense. Maybe just a suggestion for the planning board that we could add it
588 as an agenda item over the next couple months after, like in between the second and third
589 engagement window,there might be an opportunity where we can talk about this as an either an
590 information topic, and I'm not requiring you to necessarily come and present on everything, but for
591 us to have a discussion about anything we've thought about or talked about. It would give a public
592 forum setting. So, I don't know if you guys are interested in that or how we would make a motion
593 to discuss that further or later with the planning staff, but having more informal and, I think, open
594 conversations in this public setting is a way that we can participate together. I just wanted to put
595 that out there.
596
597 Dolores Bailey: Tom, you mentioned earlier local leaders. Are you in touch with African American leaders, and
598 who are some of those that you are reaching out to? Clarion, right? Clarion is doing the
599 reaching?
600
601 Tom Altieri: Yeah, I'm doing that.
602
18
DRAFT
603 Dolores Bailey: Okay.
604
605 Chris Johnston: I'm sorry. Point of clarification, one of the subcontractors was specifically brought on board to do
606 that kind of outreach. It sounds like, are you specifically doing this outreach above and beyond?
607 I'm sorry. We're getting off topic here,and I don't mean to get into the process, but wasn't that
608 part of the process? Sorry.
609
610 Tom Altieri: First question. Renee Price has been steering me to the right people. And had a couple of
611 meetings already, and it's gotten beyond phone calls. To build the trust,you have to meet face to
612 face,which I've done a few times. And so,we'll have some success. Let's see, your question
613 again? I'm sorry, Chris. You asked about our DEI consultant, and that's a subcontractor of
614 Clarion.
615
616 Chris Johnston: Right.
617
618 Tom Altieri: They will be helping with these meetings. However,the mass emails that went out to all of those
619 that were added to the database,which was part of the sub-consultant's work was to develop a
620 database. There's hundreds of emails and phone numbers in it, and they were all notified of our
621 meetings, and it resulted in,well, little to no turnout. What we need is relationships with these
622 organizations. And it's a process.When I tried to call them or email them, I didn't always get a
623 response, so it's about trying to find the right leader to get you connected with an introduction so
624 that I can make a warm call and not a cold call. And then begin from there and why I think this
625 process is important and important to your community and worth your time, and to go from there.
626 Because it's quite a process,you know,to ask somebody, please host us. And to some degree, it
627 would put your reputation out there, invite your community to come. And that's why I said,as we
628 have success,we may go back to some of the same communities, some of the same meeting
629 locations if there's interest in us doing that so we can get additional feedback.
630
631 Chris Johnston: Right. And I don't mean to get into the process. I want to draw this back to land use because
632 that's our purpose as this board. Land use is being informed by the community, and who comes
633 to these meetings and provides their input is critical for us to be able to get that community
634 feedback, so I guess what I want to say is thank you, Tom. Right? Like it sounds like you're going
635 above and beyond the process,which was originally,and I apologize if I misunderstood,was the
636 subcontractor's role to be doing these communications and these meetings and then engaging
637 with county in order to dialogue with all the different groups that need to be brought to the table.
638 And so, I guess thank you very much,Tom,for putting yourself out there and making these
639 connections above and beyond. I think I just had a misunderstanding of the process, and I'm glad
640 you're doing that because,again, having everyone at the table is what makes this valuable from a
641 land-use standpoint.
642
643 Tom Altieri: Right, and we have had to focus, because there are a lot of different communities in Orange
644 County, and so, primarily,we're starting by trying to get input from the Black community and from
645 our Latino community. There are other languages spoken. I am told that the area around the
646 Efland-Cheeks Community Center, that there's a Burmese population within walking distance
647 there. So, in that particular case,we are going to be doing some advisement in Burmese and
648 encouraging attendance,working with a community leader at the community center who's going to
649 help me engage area communities and get the notification to the right people.
650
651 Dolores bailey: And I thank you again,Tom,for what you're doing. Let me just throw out September 19th, Justice
652 United is meeting.
653
654 Tom Altieri: Okay.
655
656 Dolores Bailey: And there are a lot of the African American leaders, some of them pastors,that go to those
657 meetings. You might be able to reach out to Julia Sendor and help spread the word about some
19
DRAFT
658 of the meetings or possibly have some type of spreading at that meeting. They usually have a lot
659 of folks that come out.
660
661 Tom Altieri: Yeah, I've been working with a pastor and that's one of the groups he has mentioned. Thank you.
662
663 Adam Beeman: Thank you.
664
665 Tom Altieri: And Clarion will be here at your December 4th meeting if you didn't pick up on that. So, thank
666 you.
667
668 Perdita Holtz: While Tom is closing out, I just want to chime in that he has really gone above and beyond all
669 summer in attempting to form these relationships that the county really doesn't have. He's really
670 hit it out of the ballpark. Thank you.
671
672 Tom Altieri: Thank you. I've been given the time and the trust to get out there and give it my best shot, so
673 that's what we're doing. Thank you.
674
675 Adam Beeman: Perdita, you're all set. It's all yours.
676
677 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—Landscaping Standards—
678 To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments to the UDO
679 pertaining to landscaping standards. This amendment was reviewed at the April 3, 2024, ORC meeting and is
680 scheduled for BOCC public hearing in October.
681 Perdita Holtz: Landscaping amendments for the unified development ordinance. Before us tonight is a packet of
682 proposed amendments to the unified development ordinance pertaining to landscaping. The
683 purpose of the amendments is to clarify language, some of the language that's currently in there
684 can be difficult to interpret or enforce; to incorporate current best practices and standards;to
685 resolve some concerns that were addressed in a lawsuit that the county was involved in; and to
686 hopefully have better achievement of county goals. You may recall that this was presented at the
687 April 3rd ORC meeting. It has been a little while ago since then, so I am going to walk you
688 through with a bit more detail than we might have done had this been last month and it was more
689 fresh in your heads. There are minor updates in Articles 3 and 5. Basically,these are just section
690 reference updates and an update to the type of buffer. The meat of the amendments, if you will, is
691 going to be in Section 6.8,which is landscaping, buffers, and tree protections. Several of the
692 proposed amendments in the packets do have footnotes to explain the rationale, so I hope you're
693 able to take a look at those. First up in Section 8.2,we are looking to clarify that exempt and
694 expedited subdivisions are not subject to the standards. This is not a change; it's to clarify the
695 language so that it is more clear to everybody reading that exempt and expedited subdivisions do
696 not have to conform to the standards in Section 6.8. In Section 6.8.4,we're looking at some
697 language refinement for improved enforcement through the plat or plan review, and then we're
698 also looking at adding some standards for tree protection fencing. This is the fencing that you
699 often see on construction sites around trees-it's usually orange-to help protect trees during
700 construction. In Section 6.8.5,we're looking to clarify standards and also incorporate best
701 practices to modernize some of the language, and there is also a relocation of standards from a
702 different section that have been relocated into this section to hopefully flow a little better and make
703 a little bit more sense on where they're located. In the landscape buffer section,we're looking to
704 refine language to better distinguish the purpose and placement of these required buffers between
705 different land uses, also amending a table to exclusively focus on buffering between different
706 zoning districts, and then amending a table that would eliminate one of the type of buffers,Type
707 C,which is currently required in only four instances. There is also a creation of a table,street
708 trees and planting requirements,to require buffering on public and private streets, and this table is
709 one that the amendments of the table that I just spoke of, it took streets out of it and made it its
710 own separate table. I do want to point out on this one that I discovered an error in the numbering,
711 and you'll see here on the screen that it's 6.8.7.D is crossed out. The correct numbering is
20
DRAFT
712 6.8.6.H, and in your motion, if you could please address that, and I am going to remind you of that
713 as well. In screening,we're seeking to clarify that the purpose and application of screening
714 standards is to obscure foundations and equipment of multi-family or non-residential structures
715 from public view. And then the landscape and tree preservation plan section clarifies when the
716 plan is needed and the format of that plan. And then finally in the section dealing with additional
717 standards for the economic development districts,we're proposing to eliminate the standards that
718 refer to scenic views,which is an undefined term in the LIDO, and it's effectively unenforceable
719 during review processes. So,as is contained in the abstract,the planning director's
720 recommendation is for approval of the statement of consistency, and also the text amendments
721 that are in Attachment 2. And the recommendation for tonight is to review and discuss the
722 proposed amendments, consider the planning director's recommendation, and then make a
723 recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the statement of approval and
724 consistency in Attachment 1 and the proposed ordinance and UDO text amendments in
725 Attachment 2, hopefully in time for the October 1 st BOCC meeting. And, once again,when
726 making the motion, if we can address the table identified on Page 40 of the packet needs to be
727 labeled differently. That would be great.
728
729 Statler Gilfillen: This may be just my understanding of the language. On Page 6-39, Item No. 5, "Landscaping
730 shall not be located in any portion of public or private drainage or utility easement." Now, does
731 that mean no grass or any growing materials in those areas. My understanding of landscaping
732 would include grass, so I'm not sure it makes sense to me.
733
734 Perdita Holtz: Well, the landscaping doesn't exactly include grass. The landscaping that's talked about
735 throughout this section is about shrubs and trees, not grass.
736
737 Cy Stober: I would refer to the materials identified in the tables that describe A, B, C, now E and F type
738 buffers.
739
740 Statler Gilfillen: As I read through it, it's a language issue of making sure that I understood what was acceptable.
741 The second question on 6-46,where it refers to foundation plantings in the 5-foot landscape area,
742 my experience is that when you're planting landscaping within the first 2 or 3 feet of a foundation,
743 unless you're very careful, that can conflict long term between the landscaping and the building.
744 I've dealt with that many times, and I don't know if there's anything in there that refers to that.
745 When I was doing some checking online with other recommendation from organizations,the
746 agriculture urban forestry group made some references that seemed much more clear and
747 definitive following what I've just said here, about how close you should be to a foundation of a
748 building.
749
750 Perdita Holtz: Okay, so are you suggesting that the current standard of having a 5-foot landscaped area around
751 the perimeter should be more?
752
753 Statler Gilfillen: Possibly a little wider, and possibly it should at least allow a couple of feet out from the foundation.
754
755 Perdita Holtz: Okay. If you want to, if the board wants to make that recommendation,you're welcome to work
756 that into your motion.
757
758 Adam Beeman: I think item No. 2, it's not possible to plant,you can put planters and other such things to block the
759 view, so that gives you an out right there.
760
761 Statler Gilfillen: I'm not sure that it may or may not be covered in the language, but as I'm reading it, it's a little
762 confusing to me.
763
764 Perdita Holtz: It's about having some bushes and shrubs, not having trees, in that 5-foot area.
765
766 Charity Kirk: How would you change it, Statler? How would you suggest?
21
DRAFT
767
768 Statler Gilfillen: I'm not sure at this point. That's the problem. I'm just sitting down and discussing.
769
770 Beth Bronson: I mean, there's an exception.
771
772 Statler Gilfillen: With perhaps a better use of the language. I can give you a specific example. At the location that
773 I'm at,the farmhouse, they planted Burford Hollies in the'40s, and they were planted very close to
774 the foundation of the porch and along with other plants right there. The amount of pruning and the
775 root system that goes down to the foundations is a problem around the building.
776
777 Charity Kirk: Would you suggest a minimum distance away from the foundation?
778
779 Adam Beeman The roots are going to chase to the building. That's the problem.
780
781 Charity Kirk: I'm just trying to narrow down what the suggestion is.
782
783 Statler Gilfillen: The issue I am raising is that the way the language is written, it's ambiguous. I'm not sure that 1
784 have an exact solution to tell you tonight what that language should be.
785
786 Beth Bronson: Are you specifically referring to a minimum of 5-foot landscape area?
787
788 Statler Gilfillen: No. It could be wider,from my experience.
789
790 Beth Bronson: I'm asking is that the verbiage.
791
792 Statler Gilfillen: It's because it's up against the foundation.
793
794 Adam Beeman: That's the whole problem. And I'm on the page of Statler. I completely don't like anything planted
795 up against the foundation because when you work on a house, and the place is buried in bushes,
796 and you're bringing insects and all those other things in,that's a whole different argument, like
797 completely get rid of it. But I'm not at that argument, but that's what I think Statler's trying to say is
798 that he's not for planting something up against the building.
799
800 Perdita Holtz: The 5-foot-wide landscape is 5 foot from the building to let's just say the sidewalk for lack of a
801 better term. Now, you're getting into where a shrub should be planted within that 5 foot space,
802 because if somebody were to plant it 1 foot from the sidewalk,then it would be 4 feet from the
803 foundation.
804
805 Statler Gilfillen: The 5 foot is fine, but it should start 2 feet out from the foundation. You should not be putting
806 plants immediately at the foundation, as this language seems to allow. That's the issue.
807
808 Cy Stober: I suppose it could be interpreted in that very kind of heavy-handed way, but my interpretation and
809 what the intention is—and if it's unclear,we can clarify that—is that it can be 5 feet away from that
810 foundation. The intent is to screen it from view from the right of way. So, it can be 50 feet away,
811 theoretically. That's not going to be very useful, but I think, to your point, if the root zone is going
812 into the foundation,then the plantings will die, and we will then be able to issue a notice of
813 violation and require compliance with this landscaping requirement for non-residential structures.
814 So,we do have recourse should someone inappropriately plant them too close to the building. 1
815 share your concern, but I believe that the intention of myself,at least—I can't speak for all the
816 staff—is that they would be placed at reasonable distance away from the foundation to survive.
817 Because survival and growth is the purpose. Screening is the purpose.
818
819 Lamar Proctor: It's a minimum of 5 feet from the foundation, right?
820
821 Cy Stober: Yes.
22
DRAFT
822
823 Statler Gilfillen: You could put a tree almost, a 4-foot tree almost right on the foundation, and that is structurally
824 not good for the foundation. I have a shed with an ash tree that is cracking a foundation right now.
825
826 Beth Bronson: But these are non-residential development standards, correct?
827
828 Perdita Holtz: They are.This is an existing standard. The red is the new stuff.
829
830 Charity Kirk: I mean, I do think when I was talking to Patrick about this a long time ago, he was trying to clarify
831 this for a certain amount of non-landscapers out there,well, some portion of it. So,for the non-
832 landscapers that don't understand having a little bit more clarity about a minimum distance away
833 from the building foundation might be, I think, I would agree that that would probably be helpful.
834
835 Perdita Holtz: People have to submit the plan of how they're going to plant, and during staff review, I think that
836 things like that could be caught if they're saying that they're going to plant their holly bush a foot
837 from the foundation.
838
839 Charity Kirk: Yeah, it could, but it might not be caught, too, and it would be easier for people to have something
840 in writing.
841
842 Statler Gilfillen: When a plant is very small, it's very common just to put it right up against the foundation.
843
844 Perdita Holtz: I believe you should work it into your motion if you want to make this change.
845
846 Charity Kirk: So, Statler,what is the minimum distance from the foundation that you would suggest?
847
848 Statler Gilfillen: Typically, it's enough so you can walk behind, between the plant and the foundation,which is
849 about 2 feet.
850
851 Charity Kirk: So, a minimum of 2 feet.
852
853 Statler Gilfillen: Minimum of 2 feet, and then 5 or 6 feet of planting beyond that should be acceptable to control it.
854
855 Beth Bronson: Yeah, and again, I think that we're taking this as a very literal thing, and to add it to the motion is
856 going to maybe clarify, but it may actually make it more confusing,too. In that sense, it's about
857 non-commercial buildings. It's that you can't see the dirty foot from where the dirt is after they're
858 done building, and then you don't see the corners of the building going into the ground. That's my
859 understanding of what the intention here is, is that you don't just have a bar building going around.
860 Now,that said, to previously points, that could be 10, 15 feet away from the foundation because,
861 typically, some non-commercial buildings are not going to be right up on the sidewalk or within 5
862 feet of the right of way. And in something like a more dense urban area, like a municipality, 1
863 could see that development standard being different or there being exceptions to that, such as
864 Part 2.
865
866 Marilyn Carter: Is there going to be a motion made? Because I have a different question I'd like to pose,
867 completely different subject.
868
869 Adam Beeman: No,we're not in motion section yet. We got a ways to go.
870
871 Charity Kirk: So,would tacking on a sentence, so vegetation of varying heights and textures shall be placed
872 along walls and fences to soften the planes. Landscaping should be planted a minimum of 2 feet
873 from the foundation. Like just tag that on at the end?
874
875 Perdita Holtz: I would suggest doing a Sub A and just saying something like landscaping should be planted at
876 least 2 feet from the foundation.
23
DRAFT
877
878 Marilyn Carter: Different topic and a very broad question. Perdita,you mentioned that these changes are not
879 applying to exempt or expedited subdivisions. I think I know at least one of those types, but could
880 you reprise for us what are those exempt or expedited subdivision types?
881
882 Perdita Holtz: The exempt subdivisions that you're going to be most familiar with are the ones that have at least
883 10-acre lots. Expedited are, Cy, can you help me there.
884
885 Cy Stober: Expedited are set forth in statute. They have a 6-point test, but the most important one is that you
886 have no more than 2 acres that result—no,wait, that's exempt. You have no more than 5 acres
887 that results in three lots, no new right of ways dedicated, and that that has not been done in the
888 last 10 years and that the lots comply with our ordinance otherwise. They are a frequent
889 subdivision tool of someone with, say, 10 acres or less than 20 who can't use the exempt avenue
890 to create three new lots. And, by design, the statute's very clear that we are to use a light touch
891 other than ensuring that there is road access to those new lots, that we're not to be imposing our
892 development standards upon those new properties.
893
894 Whitney Watson: Perdita, could we go back to this, the 5-foot buffer? My question is did building code or fire
895 marshal have any opportunity to review this? Because I know that there was, right after we
896 moved back to North Carolina,there was a number of newspaper articles about landscaping,
897 particularly with pine straw that went right up to the foundation of a house,and they were like no,
898 no, no, don't do that. This sounds like it's permitted,and maybe fire safety would want to say, let's
899 move landscaping away from the foundation of the house a certain amount. The other question 1
900 had was when our house was placed, the contractor was very pointed in saying,yes,the ground
901 must slope away from the house on all sides for, I believe, 5 or 6 feet,which has provided some
902 problems because 5 feet out puts it at the bottom of a hill, and so that's where all the water
903 collects in a rainstorm. So, it seems like there might be an opportunity here for building inspectors
904 or code to suggest some way to mesh those two requirements of slope and vegetation planting.
905
906 Perdita Holtz: To answer your first question,the fire marshal is part of the Development Advisory Committee,
907 and that committee did review these amendments, and there was not a comment made about
908 pine straw. I'm not quite sure that something like that would go into a unified development
909 ordinance. That becomes something that then the zoning enforcement officer is enforcing
910 whether you have pine straw or not. And the 5-foot landscape area, it's for non-residential
911 structures. It's not pertaining to residential structures.
912
913 Whitney Watson: Okay, because that's confusing. The example right above this paragraph is a residence.
914
915 Perdita Holtz: Well, and then a new section starts. Section J then starts. That figure right above that is to
916 illustrate between-lot plantings,which is Section I. And then Section J starts.
917
918 Whitney Watson: I don't see where it says this is for non-residential use.
919
920 Perdita Holtz: If you read, "A minimum of a 5-foot landscape area must be planted around the entire front
921 foundation and sides visible from the public rights of way of non-residential structures to blend the
922 architecture into the site, etcetera.
923
924 Whitney Watson: Okay, sorry. I had covered that with a note.
925
926 Perdita Holtz: And I wanted to point out for Adam's benefit. I don't know if you noticed on Page 44 of the packet
927 at the very top,we did add language to try to address as much as we can within a UDO about
928 allowing for accessibility for maintenance purposes.
929
930 Cy Stober: And, Perdita, if I may, so to Mr. Watson's comment,the state building code still applies. I'm very
931 familiar with essentially the discharge requirement from all downspouts and gutters. Particularly in
24
DRAFT
932 urban environments, that becomes a real hassle when you have very dense townhomes or single-
933 family homes how you make that happen through micro-grading. So that's going to apply here.
934 And to the point about screening, the building code will still prevail over our ordinance. It's
935 required, and we can't allow violation of the building code,whether it would compromise the
936 foundation or lead to drainage back towards the building, and I don't disagree with you that
937 drainage away can cause different problems, but that building code is intended to preserve the
938 primary building itself. That will all be addressed and layered upon this, and generally speaking,
939 the building code will take precedence and be enforced above our ordinance whenever there's a
940 conflict.
941
942 Whitney Watson: Okay. Thank you.
943
944 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Statler.
945
946 Statler Gilfillen: Technical question on Page 6-44. As an architect, I've dealt with this constantly. There are two
947 standard measurement systems that some place it has to define which one you're using. It refers
948 to minimum width the first A then 20. 1 assume that that is feet and not metric, but it is not defined;
949 it's just a number. It's a very technical issue, but that's splitting hairs. It says per linear feet. It's
950 just the way it's presented is a little bit confusing when I was reading it. He just pointed out that it
951 is up there.
952
953 Perdita Holtz: Well, it's for linear feet, but when it says minimum width,when the tables say minimum linear feet
954 and we're in America where we use feet and inches and not meters. I feel it's getting a little hair
955 splitty. It's more like an overhaul of the whole section instead of the limited things that we've been
956 authorized to do.
957
958 Statler Gilfillen: I'm only raising it because I have professionally found that sometimes that confusion is not
959 clarified.
960
961 Perdita Holtz: Okay. Duly noted. And if we can rewrite the UDO, it would be wonderful, but right now we can't.
962
963 Charity Kirk: So,would you suggest it say 20 feet and 30 feet, or minimum width and then in parentheses feet?
964 What are you suggesting?
965
966 Statler Gilfillen: That may be already covered, and I missed this. At the top in yellow, it says plant material
967 required per hundred linear feet. That would imply, in a court of law, that it is all measured in
968 footage, in the English system not the metric.
969
970 Charity Kirk: So,you think it's okay?
971
972 Statler Gilfillen: I'm okay with it.Thank you.
973
974 Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Lamar.
975
976 Lamar Proctor: All right. So, looking at Page 34 or 6-38,at the top, Sub 2, "Existing native non-invasive and
977 drought-tolerant trees having a diameter of,"why are we going from 1 foot to 24 inches?
978
979 Cy Stober: It's about what is effectively the legacy tree and what we're going to prioritize for preservation. If
980 you feel that's wrongheaded or you'd like to preserve smaller trees,which is what we do today,
981 then that can be part of your motion.
982
983 Charity Kirk: What is the rationale for changing it from 1 to 2 feet?
984
25
DRAFT
985 Cy Stober: It's very difficult to enforce that narrow,that small of a DBH for us as staff. To get to Perdita's
986 earlier point of going out for the pine straw,for staff to go out and measure 1-foot DBH is a much
987 greater challenge than 2 feet because those are much more obvious.
988
989 Lamar Proctor: My concern on that is just doing some research as to DBH and different types of trees, the DBH
990 has to be factored in with the growth rate of the tree. But just for example, a red maple with a
991 DBH of a foot is a 37-year-old tree, so I mean my concern is,and I understand, now that 1
992 understand the rationale that it's a time-intensive thing for staff, but I think raising that from 1 foot
993 to 2 feet,you're only preserving trees that are like 70 or 80 years old, and you're cutting down
994 trees that are 30 to 50 years old, depending on the tree. The trees have different growth rates, so
995 in terms of preserving native healthy trees that form an integral part of our ecosystem, I would
996 oppose increasing that to 24. 1 would keep it at 1 foot. Or somewhere in between.
997
998 Charity Kirk: Eighteen inches?
999
1000 Lamar Proctor: I don't know how much time goes into measuring these things or evaluating in these buffer zones
1001 the tree sizes and all that. I mean,just sitting here thinking about it, it does seem a rather labor-
1002 intensive process, but I don't know if you can give me some examples.
1003
1004 Cy Stober: I can. Other than anecdotes of staff of going out to sites and going, oof, okay. So that was the
1005 response, and this is a reactive amendment. It's again addressing the enforceability of the
1006 ordinance. But to get to look at the consistency with our comprehensive plan, to your point, Mr.
1007 Proctor, I could see why there would be other goals and objectives that are in that comp plan that
1008 would be underserved by reducing this. So,you're not going to hurt our feelings, but it is a
1009 formidable challenge to enforce the 1-foot DBH.
1010
1011 Charity Kirk: Would 18 inches be easier to enforce?
1012
1013 Cy Stober: Probably. Just either way we're going to have to get used to a new standard if we change it.
1014 There was not a scientific process to this. We did not do a lot of research on this. It sounds like
1015 Lamar has done more research than most of my staff, other than perhaps Patrick.
1016
1017 Lamar Proctor: Well, if y'all name a tree I can tell you how approximately, according to these calculations, how old
1018 it is based on 1 foot or a 2 foot.
1019
1020 Cy Stober: I will also add to this point, if it is a point of concern,while it is a difficult matter to enforce, it is not
1021 creating massive headaches for us as staff. It is not a formidable challenge; it is more about the
1022 clarity of what a 2-foot DBH tree is versus a 1 foot, and we can move forward in either way.
1023
1024 Chris Johnston: And to confirm, staff is doing this; it's not the applicant who then goes through and provides these
1025 numbers. Correct?
1026
1027 Cy Stober: In an ideal world, it would be the latter. It is more often than not the staff.
1028
1029 Chris Johnston: Sure.
1030
1031 Charity Kirk: Do staff mark the trees that can't be removed?
1032
1033 Cy Stober: So,we would if we have an enforcement matter or if we have a complaint or if we know of existing
1034 legacy trees, say, in a zoning matter, or special use matter,that have been identified on the site
1035 plan. We had one just recently that was a bizarre geometry and has a number of larger older
1036 trees on a commercial property with light warehousing, but the trees overhang all the warehouses.
1037 They're right on the property line, et cetera, et cetera. We did indeed go out onto the property and
1038 say, okay,they are there. We are good. And we moved on. And they were identified on the site
1039 plan, per the ordinance. And if you want credit for them,then you have to identify these, and we
26
DRAFT
1040 will not do that for you. You cannot pay; this is not a stream identification. The county does not
1041 have a fee for this. You need to do it yourself.
1042
1043 Charity Kirk: So,what is the downside of keeping it at 1 foot, again? What's the oof?
1044
1045 Cy Stober: It's there's more trees. There are more trees that are smaller.
1046
1047 Charity Kirk: But the developer is supposed to mark them on the map.
1048
1049 Cy Stober: Yes.
1050
1051 Charity Kirk: So,what work is needed from the planning department?
1052
1053 Cy Stober: We trust, but we verify.
1054
1055 Charity Kirk: And how have you found the verification? How off is it?
1056
1057 Cy Stober: Again, it's whether it's a full day's work or it's a couple hours work. That's the difference, but it's
1058 fine in either way. We will do what the county needs us to do. It is not a major obstacle to land
1059 use, and it just is more time intensive to keep it as it is, and that's fine.
1060
1061 Charity Kirk: And if we allowed it to be 24 inches,what do you see as the onsite effect on the ground? Not of
1062 the counting that you have to do but—
1063
1064 Cy Stober: You'll have greater clearance,and you'll get less credit for tree preservation, so you'll need to
1065 preserve more open space in order to get the preservation credit, so you could,we could achieve
1066 more open space preservation because we're crediting less. But you could end up with greater
1067 clearance as a result because folks may say I just don't want to deal with this, and just I'm going to
1068 clear it and replant. You could go either way.
1069
1070 Marilyn Carter: Given our climate action plan has explicitly set some goals for planting trees in different parts of
1071 the county, I would support maintaining it as it is and the point that Lamar brought up.
1072
1073 Chris Johnston: And I apologize; I've read this. So, in that same one, No. 8 there, I'm just having a hard time
1074 understanding and I need clarity. So, if the vegetation is removed from any reason other than in
1075 accordance with the approved landscape and tree preservation plan,the dimensions of the buffer
1076 within the impacted area shall be increased by 50 percent, and the number of required plantings
1077 shall be increased by 50 percent. I want to better understand, "The number of required plantings
1078 shall be increased by 50 percent." Where is that? Is that within the entire parcel? Is that within
1079 that particular impacted area? Like is that tied in with that? I just want to better understand what
1080 that means,just as a layman.
1081
1082 Cy Stober: The current interpretation is that it is in the impacted area and immediately adjacent areas.
1083 Particularly in the regulated area.
1084
1085 Chris Johnston: So,within that regulated area,within that impacted area, not only are we increasing the size by 50
1086 percent, but we're also increasing the number of plantings by 50 percent.
1087
1088 Cy Stober: More the latter. We don't increase,say, if you have a 65-foot stream buffer,we don't add 50
1089 percent to that stream buffer width. And we add 50 percent more plantings, and we have to also
1090 ensure that the drip lines are protected, so we frequently do exceed the buffer width, but the
1091 geometry is more about, or the math is more about, replanting at 50 percent greater than what
1092 was cleared.
1093
27
DRAFT
1094 Chris Johnston: That might be my confusion point then. "The dimensions of the buffer within the impacted area
1095 shall be increased by 50 percent,"sounds like a size increase. Is that a misinterpretation? 1
1096 apologize. Again,this isn't my forte here.
1097
1098 Cy Stober: I don't think it's a misinterpretation. It's not how it's being interpreted by staff today. I think there's
1099 ambiguity there. I could read it either way.
1100
1101 Chris Johnston: Okay.
1102
1103 Cy Stober: And,frankly, I welcome that ambiguity because it allows us to find different remedies to sticky
1104 situations.
1105
1106 Chris Johnston: Yeah, and I guess that was going to be my next point, at some level,we want to apply as quickly
1107 as possible the exact terminologies and the exact definitions or whatever, but in doing so, that
1108 does limit a little bit of the staff wiggle room in terms of interpreting X,Y, and Z. I always struggle
1109 with this balance of we want to nail it down so that there's not wiggle room on the things that we
1110 truly do care about, like the width or whatever the case may be. But at the same time,we want to
1111 not make it that everything has to be so prescriptive that it has to be listed out here. Not to pile on
1112 about pine straw and things of that nature. I'm just trying to thread that needle.
1113
1114 Statler Gilfillen: The third point would be that the law often can be written to promote helping people to know what
1115 the right way is to do it.
1116
1117 Chris Johnston: Right.
1118
1119 Statler Gilfillen: And I'm reading this, and that's a lot of what this is trying to give is guidelines. If somebody is a
1120 novice at this, if we give some good guidelines in here,then the staff has some flexibility to work
1121 with that person,we end up with a better solution for all of us.
1122
1123 Chris Johnston: And then so coming back to the splitting hairs thing, as much as possible,we're trying to make this
1124 consistent so that there's not the confusion or whatever the case may be. It's frustrating because
1125 then we go in and we're fine-tooth combing it or whatever the case is, but who the audience is for
1126 this document,you guys deal with the commercial side of things and all the big-time developers.
1127 And I think their Statler's point, it sounds like this is also a document for everybody and making
1128 sure that it's consistent and readable for people like me who go through and see extending area
1129 and think, oh, that means this or that. Just trying to nail that down.
1130
1131 Charity Kirk: So,what do we think about tree diameter?
1132
1133 Chris Johnston: I think we need to have a proposed vote on that, and then that'll shake it out.
1134
1135 Charity Kirk: What are we voting on, 1 foot, 18 inches, 24 inches?
1136
1137 Lamar Proctor: I would make a motion to keep it at a foot. Just based on my research and looking at different tree
1138 species,you're getting into at least 35-50-year-old trees at a foot, and then if it's 24 inches,then
1139 you're talking some trees are like 80, 90 years old at that point.
1140
1141 Charity Kirk: All right. I will add it to my amendment list.
1142
1143 Adam Beeman: Is everybody else on board with keeping it at 1 foot, I guess before we go ahead and put a motion
1144 on it, let's see if everybody is in agreement. Is there any objection to that?
1145
1146 Marilyn Carter: No objection.
1147
1148 Beth Bronson: No objection, as long as we're referring to these non-residential areas.
28
DRAFT
1149
1150 Perdita Holtz: It has nothing to do with non-residential. It's everything in this section. So, to be clear,we're
1151 looking at Page 34 of the agenda packet. Near the top, that would stay 1 foot, and then you're
1152 also looking at Page 35, No. 8 to change that 24 inches to 12 inches.
1153
1154 Lamar Proctor: Correct. I think those are the only two areas where tree width is mentioned.
1155
1156 Adam Beeman: So, everybody's on board with 1 foot?
1157
1158 Charity Kirk: I vote yes.
1159
1160 Lamar Proctor: And, obviously,this still goes to the county commissioners,where they'll discuss it and you'll
1161 highlight the changes that we recommended versus what staff initiated.
1162
1163 Perdita Holtz: And we,from what Cy said, it seems like we're just going to go with what the planning board is
1164 recommending on this. We're not necessarily going to highlight what we presented and what you
1165 all changed if we agree with it. That's not what the county commissioners want to hear at their
1166 meetings. We're just going to say this is the amendment packet. The planning board has
1167 recommended whatever you've recommended.
1168
1169 Lamar Proctor: And to be honest with you,when I read through it, that was the only thing that stuck out to me that
1170 I felt like I needed to comment on and do further research on.
1171
1172 Perdita Holtz: Yeah. I'm not going to point out that the table was mislabeled in the planning board packet. You
1173 know what I mean?
1174
1175 Lamar Proctor: Right. I understand.
1176
1177 Statler Gilfillen: I hope you can laugh at this next question, but the diameter at breast height, is that based on the
1178 human breast height from the ground?
1179
1180 Perdita Holtz: So that is actually defined in the definitions,which I do not have in front of me, but as I recall, it
1181 might be 5 feet from the ground level.
1182
1183 Statler Gilfillen: Okay,there is a definition of what that height is then.
1184
1185 Perdita Holtz: There is,yes.
1186
1187 Adam Beeman: So,we're just going to go to a little side vote. Charity had a motion to approve Lamar's 1 foot. Do
1188 1 have a second for that? I just want to get everybody's opinion.
1189
1190 Beth Bronson: There's a consensus.
1191
1192 Adam Beeman: Yeah, I just want to get everybody on board saying that we're all agreeing on that 1 foot, so we'll
1193 make that change;we're all in agreement.
1194
1195 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second it.
1196
1197 Adam Beeman: Okay. All in favor of it? Okay.
1198
1199 Beth Bronson: Yes.
1200
1201 Adam Beeman: Okay. We're all in favor. Great.
1202
29
DRAFT
1203 Charity Kirk: Can we talk about the foundation plantings then? Like foundation plantings, Page 6-46, one,
1204 we're going to add an"A"stating landscaping should be planted a minimum 2 feet from the
1205 foundation.
1206
1207 Perdita Holtz: Also, I wanted to say that it should say"shall be planted" because our attorney's office is very
1208 diligent about not having discretionary language added to the UDO more than it already is. I know
1209 there are plenty of examples in there, but they don't want to see more, so if it's not a standard,
1210 don't put it in the UDO. That's what they're telling us.
1211
1212 Lamar Proctor: Can I ask one question about that real quick? So,y'all have a lot more experience in dealing with
1213 the best practices in what actually ends up on a site plan. So, in that regard for the 5 feet,what do
1214 you see? Do you see most site plans it's clear that they are taking all that into account and they're
1215 using best practices in putting these plantings in their locations?
1216
1217 Perdita Holtz: Yes. I mean,we don't have a whole lot of non-residential structures going in, in Orange County,
1218 and normally when it's a commercial building going in,those people are working with a
1219 professional landscape architect to do some of their plans and such.
1220
1221 Lamar Proctor: Thank you.
1222
1223 Beth Bronson: I will say that that was my only comment was that I don't see a lot of enforcement with the non-
1224 residential. And what I see with the non-residential is, yeah,they may say that they're using a
1225 local company or that they're using a professional landscaper, but the quality of their plants are
1226 not in any way meeting the needs of these standards, and you see a lot of death of those buffer
1227 plants within the first year, 2 years. I'm not saying that they're going to be replaced, or I'm not
1228 saying that they're not going to be replaced, but I will say that watching non-residential,which is
1229 normally larger parcels, try to adhere to these landscaping development standards, it really shows
1230 what the bare minimum is, I think. Like it just doesn't,they don't look good. And it's not that they
1231 don't look good. It's just like they don't look healthy. They don't look well attended. Like they
1232 don't look like good specimens to begin with. And I like the idea of adding native and drought
1233 resistant. I guess too,this section doesn't really address enforcement. That's the only other thing
1234 that I noticed.
1235
1236 Cy Stober: This is the simplest part of our ordinance to enforce. We can enforce this. We enforce it almost
1237 every week. And you can thank your colleague, Ms. Kirk,for all the work she did with our new
1238 planting guide,which is enforced by the staff, and you must use if you're doing plantings in
1239 Orange County. It is targeted to native, drought-resistant plants, or drought tolerant. And we
1240 have shade tolerant. We have sun-loving plants in there. So, depending upon the geometry and
1241 the building orientation, you can plant different plants on the property. Thank you very much. We
1242 are putting it into action, and this is a very simple part of our ordinance. This may be the simplest
1243 part of our ordinance to enforce.
1244
1245 Beth Bronson: It seems so.
1246
1247 Cy Stober: But it does take time for them to grow back.
1248
1249 Charity Kirk: Going back to this foundation planting addition, are we okay with it? Landscaping shall be planted
1250 a minimum of 2 feet from the foundation.
1251
1252 Statler Gilfillen: I think it should be no closer than 2 feet to the foundation.
1253
1254 Charity Kirk: A minimum of 2 feet from the foundation.
1255
1256 Statler Gilfillen: Whatever legally works.
1257
30
DRAFT
1258 Lamar Proctor: I think that language works.
1259
1260 Statler Gilfillen: Great.
1261
1262 Charity Kirk: Okay, so we have those two changes. Any other changes?
1263
1264 Perdita Holtz: The table numbering.
1265
1266 Charity Kirk: Should I try and make the recommendation.
1267
1268 Chris Johnston: You got this.
1269
1270 Charity Kirk: I make a motion to approve the statement of approval and consistency,Attachment 1, and the
1271 proposed ordinance and LIDO text amendments,Attachment 2,with the following changes.
1272 6.8.4.B.2 changes from 24 inches or greater diameter to 12 inches. 6.8.5.A.8 also changes to
1273 greater than 12 inches diameter from 24 inches. Section 6.8.6.J Foundation Plantings shall add
1274 Item (a) under Item No. 1, being landscaping shall be planted a minimum of 2 feet from the
1275 foundation. And then the table which was 6.8.6.1-1 should be relabeled.
1276
1277 Perdita Holtz: The table's that's currently 6.8.7D should be relabeled 6.8.6H.
1278
1279 Charity Kirk: What she said: 6.8.7.D should be relabeled 6.8.6.H.
1280
1281 Adam Beeman: Do I have a second?
1282
1283 Beth Bronson: I second that motion.
1284
1285 Adam Beeman: All in favor?
1286
1287 Whitney Watson: Oh, do we have a second?
1288
1289 Adam Beeman: Yes, Beth seconded.
1290
1291 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to approve the statement of approval and consistency with amendments. Seconded by Beth
1292 Bronson.
1293
1294 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1295
1296 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
1297
1298 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Chris Johnston.
1299
1300 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1301
1181 The meeting adjourned at 8:48 PM.
31
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 4, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. 7
SUBJECT: Orange County Land Use Plan 2050
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Memo from Clarion Associates with Tom Altieri, 919-245-2579
Attachments Cy Stober, 919-245-2592
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation from Clarion Associates and provide comment.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Board received its last presentation on the Land Use Plan 2050
project from staff at its September 4, 2024 meeting, which included a short status report on
consultant deliverables, followed by a deeper dive into the purpose, intent, and approach to draft
land use alternatives.
Tonight's presentation from Clarion will include a briefing on:
• Project progress;
• Preliminary outcomes of the second community engagement window, "Testing the Land
Use Alternatives"; and
• Initial recommendations for the draft Conservation and Growth Framework.
Additional information is provided in Attachment 1. A PowerPoint presentation will be provided at
the meeting.
Community Engagement Window (CEW) #2 — CEW #2 provided for public response to four (4)
modelled land use alternatives and concluded November 3. The Clarion team assisted Planning
staff with survey development and administration, preparation of engagement materials, and
meeting facilitation. A third engagement window will be held to collect feedback and input during
the final plan drafting process, anticipated for Spring 2025.
To promote the project and collect feedback, County Planning staff tabled at area community
events such as Efland-Cheeks Community Center Back to School and Festival Latino Americano.
The Planning Department also featured the Land Use Plan 2050 project at the County Roadshow.
Community Workshops were held on September 25 and October 3 at Gravelly Hill Middle School
and the American Legion Post 6, respectively. Planning staff worked directly with community
organizations and leaders to host three community meetings in October for populations that have
traditionally been underrepresented in Orange County land use planning. Meetings were hosted
by El Centro Hispano, United Voices of Efland Cheeks, and the Jones Grove Missionary Baptist
Church.
32
Upon request and availability, County Planning staff met with Habitat for Humanity Policy and
Advocacy Committee (Affordable Housing Coalition and Affordable Housing Advisory Board as
guests); Chapel Hill — Carrboro Chamber of Commerce; and representatives of the Agricultural
Preservation Board. Planning Staff also assisted several organizations with responses to
questions, which helped to facilitate receipt of comments around the land use alternatives.
Update on Recent Board of County Commissioners Items — At its October 15 regular meeting,
the BOCC approved Contract Amendment 2 between Orange County and Clarion Associates to
extend the contract term seven (7) months from September 30, 2025 to April 30, 2026 and provide
additional services. A summary of additional services included:
• Additional BOCC briefings;
• Two public workshops;
• Up to three targeted community meetings; and
• Up to two additional meetings (one with the Planning Board and one with the BOCC) for
recommendation on the draft Plan, public hearing, and adoption (original scope included
two meetings).
The compensation for the additional work included in Amendment 2 was up to $24,760, resulting
in a maximum payable amount of $236,714.
At its November 12, 2024 Work Session, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received
a presentation from Clarion Associates, which included preliminary outcomes of CEW #2 and
Initial recommendations for the draft Conservation and Growth Framework. Following is a link to
the agenda materials from this meeting:
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/73822/Pagel.aspx
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Board:
1. Receive the presentation, and
2. Ask any questions and provide comment.
33
Attachment 1
CLARION
Clarion Associates
919.967.9188
101 Market Street,Suite D
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
www.clarionassociates.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning and Administration, Planning & Inspections
Department
FROM: Leigh Anne King, Director& Emily Gvino, Project Planner, Clarion Associates
DATE: November 1, 2024
RE: Discussion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan with the Orange County Planning Board
This memorandum outlines the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)project presentation that will be conducted at
the December 4, 2024,Orange County Planning Board meeting.
1. The first objective of the meeting is to brief the Board on project progress.The presentation will provide a
brief overview of Phase 4 work that is completed and underway.The graphic below provides an overview of
the Land Use Plan 2050 phases.
Phase 1. Phase 2: - - - Phase 5:
Launch Identify NewDevelopI Adopt the
Project Issues and Plan
Opportunities
Fad2023 Fa112023 Sprang -a12025
_ummer 2e2a to
2023 to Winter to Winter c Soring
2024 2024 Fa112023 r 2026
Community Engagement Window# Community Engagement Window#2:
Confirming Community Aspirations Testing Growth and Conservation Framework
Community Engagement Window#3:
Unveiling of Draft Plan
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
2. The second objective is to brief the Board on the preliminary outcomes of the second Community Engagement
Window:Testing the Land Use Alternatives. During this period,the hypothetical land use alternatives and the
draft Vision Themes and Goals were shared with the public for their feedback. Several opportunities were
provided for the public to participate and share their reactions to the four alternatives, including in-person
meetings and through online activities starting September 18, 2024, and ending on November 3, 2024.
A summary of publicity efforts,workshop participants,engagement activities, and a list summarizing outcomes
from the meeting will be shared in a full report,called the Community Engagement Window#2 Summary Report.
Si Q
*-*4 0 * Q0
Planning I Zoning&Land Use I Sustainability&Resiliency
Page 1
34
3. The third objective is to share initial recommendations for the Draft Conservation and Growth Framework
and status report on drafting of the plan. The Board will be able to ask questions about the overall approach
and direction of the plan.
Planning I Zoning&Land Use I Sustainability&Resiliency
Page 2
35
ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 4, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. 8
SUBJECT: Planning Board Annual Report/Work Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Annual Report / Work Plan Form Cy Stober, Director, (919) 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director, (919) 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 17. Proposed activities are to be consistent with the
goals of the BOCC, which are reflected in the County's Strategic Plan.
The attached Annual Report / Work Plan form has been completed by staff for Planning Board
review and comment. Some topics of prime interest include:
• Continuing progress on the Orange County Land Use Plan 2050
• UDO Amendments pertaining to conservation subdivisions
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), primarily on applicant- and staff-initiated amendments to the
adopted UDO and Zoning Map. 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 progress being
made towards realizing development on the Greene Tract.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board:
36
1. Review the attached document prior to the meeting.
2. Discuss members' ideas about any additional activities to be worked on in 2025 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 8, 2025 meeting in
order to meet the January 17 due date.
37
Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT/ WORK PLAN
Board/Commission Name: Planning Board
Report Period: January 2024-December 2024
The Board of Commissioners appreciates the dedication of all the volunteers on their
boards and commissions and welcomes input from various 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.
Person to address the BOCC and contact information: Adam Beeman, Chair, (919)
563-0463, abeeman4784@yahoo.com (Note: the Planning Board elects a Chair and
Vice-Chair every January; if the Chair changes in January 2025, the 2025 Chair would
be the presenter)
Primary County Staff Contact Person: Cy Stober, Planning Director; secondary
contact: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director— Long-Range Planning &Administration
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 2024, the Planning Board accomplished the following:
38
• Reviewed and made a recommendation on the following applications:
■ Agricultural Support Enterprise - Conditional District rezoning "The Treeist"
on Millhouse Road
■ Master Plan Development— Conditional District rezoning, Comprehensive
Plan text and FLUM amendment, UDO text amendment - "Fiddlehead
Corner" (multi-part application) — Morrow Mill Road in Bingham Township
■ General Commercial Conventional District Rezoning — Ruritan Club in
Efland
■ Rural Residential Conventional District Rezoning — Frazier Road in
Cheeks Township
■ Watershed Overlay District Amendments — two applications
• Reviewed and made a recommendation on the following UDO Text Amendments:
■ Tobacco and Hemp Retail Use
■ Regulatory Reform Compliance and Conformance
■ Landscaping Standards
• Reviewed and took action on the following major subdivision Concept Plans:
■ Williams Glen (Lawrence Road in Eno Township)
■ Stonewall (Miller Road in Hillsborough Township)
• Reviewed and made on recommendation on the following major subdivision
Preliminary Plats:
■ Williams Glen (Lawrence Road in Eno Township)
■ Stonewall (Miller Road in Hillsborough Township)
• Briefings and input on the Orange County Land Use Plan 2050
• Briefing on the Climate Action Plan
• Discussion of Public Notification Requirements contained in the UDO
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
39
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, particularly as described in the County's Strategic Plan.
Describe the collaboration relationship(s) this particular board has with other
advisory boards and commissions.
In 2024, certain other boards/commissions were invited to a Planning Board meeting to
hear a briefing on the Land Use Plan 2050 project from the consultant, ask questions,
and provide comments.
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2025 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 2025 BOCC retreat. The following list is not
in priority order:
1. Orange County Land Use Plan 2050: Work on this plan is on-going and
expected to continue into 2026.
2. UDO Amendments: In response to a petition by a BOCC member, Planning staff
anticipates bringing forward UDO amendments pertaining to conservation
subdivisions in early 2025.
3. Legislative Changes: Amend regulations as necessary in response to legislative
changes at the State level.
4. Continue Training for Planning Board Members: Planning staff will continue to
offer training to Planning Board members on an as-needed basis (including the
5-module training for newly appointed members). Suggestions on additional
topics for training are welcome.
5. 2025 BOCC Retreat: Any priorities that emerge at the January 2025 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. 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
40
pursued to ensure residents have a better idea of future plans and growth areas.
3. Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement Map
Amendments / Reconciliation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM)/Zoning Lines:
There are discrepancies in these maps that should be addressed. The County
should 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.
The Town of Hillsborough is anticipated to initiate an update to the WASMPBA to
ensure consistency with their adopted plans.
4. 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.
5. Rural Enterprises: As part of the analysis for the Land Use Plan 2050, 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 existing Comprehensive Plan and the
UDO to better enable retail services or other uses in identified RANs.
6. Transportation Issues: As part of the analysis for the Land Use Plan 2050,
determine if rural "transit oriented development" could be hubs of transit located
in the rural community nodes. Focus should be on transit dependent populations
and their connection to other transit infrastructure, and account for
implementation of the North-South Bus Rapid Transit line between Hillsborough
and Chapel Hill.
7. 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.
This could serve both economic development and affordable housing concerns.