HomeMy WebLinkAbout2_5_25 ORC Meeting Summary Approved 4.9.25
1 SUMMARY NOTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 FEBRUARY 5,2025
4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
5
6
7 NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
8
9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair),
10 Hillsborough Township Representative;Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Beth Bronson,At-
li Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Meg Millard, Little River Township
12 Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel
13 Hill Township Representative.
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning
16 &Administration; Jack Moran, Planning Technician.
17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
19 Meeting began at 7:15 PM.
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—SUBDIVISIONS- To review BOCC-and
22 Planning Director-initiated amendments to the LIDO pertaining to Subdivisions.
23
24 PRESENTER: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director
25
26 Mr. Stober gave a presentation on the proposed amendments and explained the process by which they are initiated
27 by the BOCC and Planning Staff.
28
29 Beth Bronson raised a question about the relationship between the proposed amendments and the upcoming
30 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Stober explained that the amendments were in part proposed to coincide with
31 expected changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
32
33 Mr. Stober further explained the rationale behind the amendments and that he was interested in hearing Committee
34 feedback on specific topics such as conservation and agricultural subdivisions, density-related incentives, and
35 administrative versus legislative approvals for different subdivision types.
36
37 Charity Kirk, Statler Gilfillen, and Chris Johnston discuss the enforceability of agricultural and farming requirements
38 as part of the subdivision standards. Mr. Stober explained the likelihood of requiring an easement for conservation
39 and
40 explained the relationship between Bona Fide Farms and agricultural subdivisions. There was a question on what
41 could be enforced under state law in relation to Bona Fide Farms.
42
43 Adam Beeman asked if there are any other ways to incentivize conservation subdivisions outside of density bonuses
44 such as expedited review or amended fees.
45
46 Statler Gilfillen, Perdita Holtz, and Mr. Stober discussed the average lot size of subdivisions in Orange County.
47 Perdita Holtz explained that a number of years ago it was around 2.25 acres and was largely limited by the well and
48 septic capabilities of lots. Statler Gilfillen raised concern around the ecological impact of subdivisions and single-
49 family housing and proposed a European village style change.
50
51 Mr. Stober discussed considerations for incentivization and requested Committee feedback on thresholds for density,
52 lot size, number of lots, and conservation requirements.
53
Approved 4.9.25
54 Adam Beeman and Mr. Stober discussed shared septic and the extension of public water and sewer into the county.
55 Mr. Stober explained potential changes as part of the comprehensive plan with Mr. Beeman stating his concern for
56 housing issues and restrictions on development linked to well and septic requirements.
57
58 Adam Beeman and Charity Kirk shared their concerns for unpermitted work in the county, and structures exceeding
59 Environmental Health standards and regulations.
60
61 Statler Gilfillen inquired about approval timelines for subdivisions and emphasized simplicity and swiftness as
62 priorities.
63
64 The Committee discussed whether it is necessary to see proposed subdivisions and approve them, and Mr. Stober
65 informed the Committee of the intention to remove required Planning Board approval from preliminary and final plats.
66
67 Charity Kirk, Chris Johnston, and Mr. Stober discussed the ordinance criteria for subdivision approval prior to
68 Planning Board review and the Planning Board's role in creating the criteria.Adam Beeman clarified his position, that
69 the role should be to create the criteria ahead of any meetings or board approvals, at which point all criteria has
70 already been met.
71
72 Chris Johnston noted the importance of seeing subdivision proposals as a tool for educating the Board before making
73 decisions regarding the regulations and development standards.
74
75 Mr. Stober informed the Board of the County's active developments page and the subdivision postings, and also
76 offers an administrative newsletter to inform them of new developments at staff discretion.
77
78 Adam Beeman, Charity Kirk, and Mr. Stober discussed duplex,triplex, and multifamily options regarding residential
79 density.
80
81 Dolores Bailey emphasized the need for affordable housing and how it relates to residential density.
82
83 Adam Beeman reiterated the need for water and sewer extensions in order to serve higher density and warned
84 against privately owned shared systems.
85
86 Mr. Stober asked the committee for feedback on the County's future definitions of open space and how they relate to
87 subdivision requirements. Charity Kirk spoke to the importance of collaboration with DEAPR, Erosion Control and
88 Stormwater, and Environmental Health staff when defining open space.Adam Beeman emphasized that open space
89 should be accessible and available to use for recreation and should not include areas such as stormwater control
90 measures.
91
92 Mr. Stober outlined the future timeline for the comprehensive plan, subdivision amendments, and upcoming Planning
93 Board meetings.
94
95 AGENDA ITEM 5: ADJOURNMENT
96 The meeting adjourned at 9:01 PM.
97