HomeMy WebLinkAbout5_7_25 Planning Board Minutes Approved 6.4.25
1 MEETING MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 MAY 7,2025
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lamar Proctor(Chair) Cheeks Township, Chris Johnston (Vice-Chair) Hillsborough Township,
7 Meg Millard, Little River Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative;
8 Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative; Charity Kirk,At-Large Representative;Whitney Watson,
9 At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large Representative; Venkat Yendapalli, Cedar
10 Grove Township Representative; Jonah Garson,At-Large Representative.
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township
13 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&Administrative Division;
17 Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director—Development Services; Jack Moran, Planner 1
18
19 OTHERS PRESENT: Albert Benshoff, Lydia Lavelle, Liz Hill
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
22
23 The meeting began at 7:02 PM
24
25 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS
26
27 Lamar Proctor reviewed the upcoming Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners meeting calendars.
28
29 Emergency Services Director Kirby Saunders gave a special presentation on the County's Hazard Mitigation Plan
30
31 Kirby Saunders: I appreciate the opportunity to present to you and certainly will take any questions that you have.
32
33 Lamar Proctor: Statler?
34
35 Statler Gilfillen: Starting about 1810 with the Boston Building Code to after the Chicago Worlds, or Chicago Fire in
36 the 19th century, the building codes moved to require masonry or fireproof construction in the
37 urban areas. Moderately successful in this century. If I'm hearing what you're talking about,the
38 forests now have the same danger that Boston had when it was all wood framed back in 1810,
39 and it's burning them down. Are we at a time whereas a society we should look at making the
40 building codes now for construction be masonry or concrete and not wood frame anymore?
41
42 Kirby Saunders: That's a really good question. I'm not the expert on that but I would, my gut instincts would be no.
43 The reason for that is in comparison to the risk that is posed by wildfire,for specifically an
44 example, I think it would outweigh the consequences of requiring a resistant building construction
45 in our community. I can't say that for every community, but in our community, requiring resistant
46 building materials, like concrete or masonry for all residential structures would, I think, prohibit
47 development, and prohibit affordability,for example. We feel pretty comfortable that the materials
48 that are constructed today in our community meet our risk by the North Carolina Building code.
49 We do not see examples in occurrences of increased risk when people adhere to the building
50 code when they're properly followed, and I think that's the caveat is, that's why the building code
51 exists. So, my initial reaction, again is, I think that would be prohibitive and it would reduce the
52 availability of affordable housing by doing so which would be an indirect consequence.
53 Chris Johnston: This is just a point of clarity, in regard to the subdivision recommendations, is that not already on
54 the books that we have a requirement for minimum widths for emergency services and that sort of
55 thing in subdivisions?
Approved 6.4.25
56
57 Cy Stober: It's a hot topic. We have Class A and Class B roads for private subdivisions and if you have more
58 than 12 lots you must build your road to NCDOT standards, which are class A. Our A standards
59 are nearly the same, and the intent is if you have more than 12 lots that the road will be taken over
60 by NCDOT for maintenance. That's a 50-foot right-of-way,which is more generous. The Class B
61 roads,which are two to five lots, are more challenging and really are the ones that Director
62 Saunders, I think, along with our legacy road network,which really,those are the 12-foot graded,
63 but not fully surfaced access roads, driveways, etc., that were built 50 years ago, and we still have
64 and may have an easement likely due, maybe part of the private road network but don't meet our
65 current standards, and we seek to improve them whenever we can. The pressing matter is that
66 the NCDOT in December issued,without request for comment, a new turnaround standard, so
67 you get to a cul-de-sac or a T turnaround at the end of a private, or a public road, and it does not
68 conform with the fire code. It is much smaller. It would not accommodate an apparatus, and it
69 would be challenging from what Kirby's shared with me for even your standard ambulance to turn
70 around on that cul-de-sac. It's a 60-foot diameter, and the fire code requires 96 foot in width, and
71 we've submitted a formal comment letter to DOT at their request now, and the division engineers
72 are getting together with the Board of Transportation to see how they can resolve the matter with
73 DOT.
74
75 Chris Johnson: So, in a conflict between a DOT and a fire code, or whatever the case may be, is there one group
76 that outweighs the other in regard to these sorts of things? When DOT comes and says, hey,we
77 only require this, and fire code says this,what are we expected to adhere to?
78
79 Cy Stober: I have a professional opinion, but I think that what, right now my opinion is that the office of the
80 State Fire Marshal needs to be asked by DOT to reconcile the concern and, but I would defer to
81 what is more protective of human safety and preservation of life.
82
83 Kirby Saunders: Yeah, I think the 96,to answer your question right now,what it's requiring us to do is take each
84 development on a case-by-case basis. So,when we do review a development, it doesn't meet the
85 standard,the fire code,we will ask for or redesign or alternative design to review and get as close
86 as we can to that 96 foot, and we will have to assess it on a residential development. The risk,
87 what fire district it's in, is that acceptable to the County, is it allowing us enough opportunity to
88 make a turn around and evacuate and do a calculation on a case-by-case development basis
89 which it would maximize the best we can to ensure safety and response and access within some
90 reason as close as we could to that 96 feet. The issue with 96 feet is we don't have a long wheel-
91 based firetrucks like we used to have a long time ago. The challenge in a residential
92 neighborhood and why 96 foot is so important is because if that were a completely empty cul-de-
93 sac, 96 feet would be more than enough. We know in reality those cul-de-sacs get filled with cars
94 and basketball goals and children and bicycles and other things and so we have to account for
95 that when we have a response, and on our end, it's the response side, mainly with the fire code
96 and emergency management is we also want to make sure the people can get out of that
97 neighborhood if they had to evacuate. Regardless of fire, it could be hazardous material. It could
98 be something else, but if they need to evacuate out of that neighborhood,we want them to have
99 the best chance at success while simultaneously,we're responding into the neighborhood.
100
101 Charity Kirk: And you're assuming evacuation is going to be by car.
102
103 Kirby Saunders: By car, by walk. How ever they can get out of there. We would assume that most people if there
104 was orderly evacuation and enough sufficient time and resources,they would probably drive.
105 Yes, ma'am.
106
107 Dolores Bailey: You mentioned educating the most vulnerable populations. How are you all doing that?
108
109 Kirby Saunders: That's a great question. We are working directly with community leaders, El Futuro as an
110 example, is a community organization supports a lot of the work in the Carrboro and Chapel Hill
Approved 6.4.25
111 area,we work directly with them. We have a Triangle Disability Awareness Council that we're
112 integrated with. The Safe Kids Network that we're integrated with, so we do a lot of partnership
113 with community organizations to reach those vulnerable populations, and we usually do that in
114 partnership, so it's not a solo effort. We will partner with the department of aging, for example,to
115 reach the aging population. We will partner with El Futuro if we're trying to reach a combination of
116 those, as one example. We do a lot of outreach with faith-based communities directly. We know
117 those are hubs and centers of support and encouragement and sustainability for a lot of people at
118 increased risks in our communities, so we do a lot of work with faith-based organizations,
119 churches and faith-based communities.
120
121 Dolores Bailey: Just really quick,for the folk who live in the woods.Are you able to reach them somehow?
122
123 Kirby Saunders: That's,that's a good question. I would say that's a challenge. Folks who live in the most rural
124 portions of the county, those are all challenges. So,we use an opportunity where we can do
125 community center education, if they can get there. We also work very closely with our fire
126 departments. We find that the fire departments, particularly in the rural areas, are the community
127 centers. It's either there or the churches. Right? And so,while we don't do target direct door-to-
128 door outreach to places in the rural community,we do work with the Ruritan clubs and the, again,
129 churches, and the fire departments to host activities, and so we'll support the fire department in
130 their support of educating their communities.
131
132 Kirby Saunders: Thank you.
133
134 Charity Kirk: What is your education and outreach? Is it mostly about fire alarms or what,what is the breadth
135 of it?
136
137 Kirby Saunders: So, we cover a variety of education outreach. It depends on our division and topic. We usually
138 cover the same populations,fortunately. So, everything from hands only CPR,from an EMS
139 perspective to disaster preparedness in multiple languages. The fire safety front includes both
140 education as well as smoke alarm and risk assessments. We work very closely with our
141 community paramedic division,for example. They work hand-in-hand with our Fire and Life
142 Safety Division. The Community Paramedic Program is doing a lot of the stay up, stay active in
143 our aging programs and those who are what we would call on the fringes of society, slipping
144 through cracks so, those who have substance use disorders, or opioid use disorders,that is the
145 team that is directly engaged with those communities. They do risk assessments in the home or
146 anywhere they can, and they will bring resources to that property on a case-by-case basis or a
147 larger community. As far as fire risk reduction activities, it's largely aimed at first identifying what
148 the cause of fires are and the risks are in trying to educate those communities there. It can also
149 be insulation, like I mentioned, smoke alarms. It could be a fire safety evaluation of a home or
150 property, even if it's not owned. A rental property would be an example that we can do those
151 outreach initiatives. I would say the bulk of our education and community education is largely
152 aimed at just that education and offering the support to do things like smoke alarm installations.
153 Bringing awareness, raising awareness to the risk and the hazards in general for fire, that
154 encompasses the large amount of what we do and focus on, and we reach about 8,000 individuals
155 a year doing, using that approach. In 2024, we installed,you know, roughly 200 smoke alarms in
156 200 different properties in Orange County. We can always do more of that. The challenge is
157 building the trust and rapport and reaching the audience that needs to hear it. So,we use every
158 strategy at our disposal to try to get that message across. If there are communities that you're
159 aware of or would like us to communicate with or your partner with an organization or member of
160 an organization,we would love to, to work more closely with them, if you're aware of any.
161
162 Whitney Watson: So, I'm curious about how you guys look at the density of residential development, particularly, in
163 the western part of Orange County where it seems like routinely there are 150, 250 dwelling unit
164 proposals approved and under construction. And you may not be able to influence that, but I am
165 curious about how you look at that.
Approved 6.4.25
166
167 Kirby Saunders: You're exactly right. I'm probably not the most equipped to prepare to answer that question. I can
168 do it in my best professional opinion here and I think the correlation between density and the wild
169 and urban interface is really the focal point. Where those two areas meet and match. Particularly,
170 in areas that don't have setback distances or there are encroachments on a large tract of
171 forestland that's not managed. That would be a high priority area of high concern.We're not
172 seeing a lot of multi-family structures built without due regard to the existing regulations and
173 requirements or if they are closer than desired,they are in an area that's well protected. So,they
174 have a quick response plan, so the Mebane area would be a good example. I think the more
175 pressing concern, if we would start to see some of that development particularly occur in other
176 areas that may not, if something were to change drastically and they would start putting multi-
177 family dwellings in Cedar Grove,for example,that might be a little more concerning, because we
178 have a different topography. We have a different threat risk. I don't see that in the foreseeable
179 future. Changing things to permit that, but that would be an example. So,we monitor that as
180 closely as possible through the development process with our Safety Division. Our fire marshals
181 monitor that on a weekly basis with planning and inspections. I can't answer the question of how
182 that risk is calculated. The map you saw- I don't have the exact formula per se. But I would say
183 that in our assessment,there are not a lot of multi-family structures that are in a high risk wild and
184 urban interface area. We don't have that many wild and urban interface areas in Orange County,
185 and that is direct correlation of density and correlation to a forested area, a vegetative area.
186
187 Whitney Watson: As a kind of a follow-up to that is Orange County is undergoing a future land use planning process
188 now, and I'm wondering how planning is sharing the information about potential areas of greater
189 risk, lesser risk, resource allocation.
190
191 Cy Stober: We've used the same census data in our fact book that you saw in the risk assessment that
192 Director Saunders presented. We're using the data to guide our land use process for different
193 purposes, perhaps? But I think that what we're looking at are the same high-risk populations,
194 whether it's, we're talking about food access, access to employment centers, or accessibility of
195 affordable housing for rent or for ownership. Unfortunately, they correlate closely with where the
196 highest risk for an emergency is,where those populations have the least means to access a car,
197 access transportation to evacuate in a situation and, outside of the fire exposure,which is largely
198 in Northwestern Orange County, most of those same concerns are applicable to a lot of the other
199 land use concerns that we have about a community that is equitable, a community that is going to
200 serve everyone in the community and be accessible to those regardless of their income.Wish 1
201 had a different answer, but we're using the exact same data but to different ends.
202
203 Whitney Watson: Thank you.
204
205 Kirby Saunders: And we use that land use plan, in a working close relationship with our partners in planning to
206 inform our strategic plans in the future of where we need to develop and grow resources, and we
207 look at,we model that land use plan in correlation to our demand data,where the demand is
208 coming from as we have emergent threats and changes in what we see in the emergency medical
209 services setting,from a population health perspective with Department of Health partners, that all
210 is layered together, and they match up, unfortunately, relatively closely, but we look at that quite
211 frequently as far as our future development and growth of the services we provide.
212
213 Lamar Proctor: Any other questions?
214
215 Beth Bronson: Yeah, I just had a quick question. Considering to that point,what comes to mind,we were talking
216 about the road widths. If there's a change in the turnaround in the cul-de-sac, has there not been
217 a change in the parking requirements recently through NC General Statutes?
218
219 Cy Stober: No, I heard that story on NPR. That's House Bill 765, and it's in committee, and it hasn't even
220 made it to crossover, but that is the land use bill that is making its way through the general
Approved 6.4.25
221 assembly this summer. It has not been taken to the floor for a vote nor has it been taken up by
222 the senate.
223
224 Beth Bronson: That's for municipality parking. Is that correct?
225
226 Other Speaker: It's an effort to eliminate parking minimums in primarily municipalities.
227
228 Beth Bronson: And so what I'm thinking about is for subdivisions specifically, reducing parking minimums, or a lot
229 of the plans that I've seen in the past 4 years have grossly underestimated or under-reported the
230 average daily car use. So,while you may have those standards set roads, or Class A roads, you
231 still have two rows of cars on either side. I guess I just want to confirm that you guys are a part of
232 that discussion, like the development advisory committee. And so that is something that you guys
233 consider when you see that and what that might mean and, specifically,while there isn't
234 necessarily a huge level of wild and urban interface as a result of a lot of the land being managed
235 around here, if those requirements were to go away or, thinking about the new use of ADUs in the
236 rural areas so you may have a house that's accessible, but you may have an ADU that is
237 inaccessible. And does that get reviewed during the permitting process for emergency services.
238
239 Kirby Saunders: Is that a question? I just wanted to make sure.
240
241 Beth Bronson: Yeah.
242
243 Kirby Saunders: What I heard you asking is-are we a part of the development advisory committee? In the
244 process,we absolutely are. We're members of the table, and we look at those accessory dwelling
245 units or something that,we would look at closely and make sure that we have access and working
246 with our planning partners as well, and we're limited by the enforcement of the fire code,
247 unfortunately, so we cannot create new codes and ordinances from our perspective, but we can
248 enforce the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code, and we do have representation on those code
249 committees that help inform future codes of the North Carolina Fire Prevention Code.
250
251 Beth Bronson: Thank you.
252
253 Kirby Saunders: In Orange County, I would say just to close out, it is very proactive, we adopted Appendix D which
254 gives us the authority right now to enforce the turnaround radius. Without adoption of that,we
255 would have no ability to enforce that turnaround radius, and so we did that a number of years ago.
256 The new fire code is supposed to automatically incorporate Appendix D in the general fire code.
257 So, right now, in the State of North Carolina, it's a smorgasbord of what the turnaround radius is,
258 which I can understand from DOT's perspective, they need consistency about roads they're going
259 to pick up to maintain. It's not consistent across county to county right now in North Carolina. We
260 lean towards a safer approach to ensure that we have access of egress, ingress, routes. That's
261 not true for every county in North Carolina.
262
263 Lamar Proctor: Charity?
264
265 Charity Kirk: I have a question about your fuel reduction activities and the priority of those activities. Personal
266 experience, we have at least 5 acres of pine forest right off Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road
267 which looks like it's right near that area where you've had death, and we talked to the fire service
268 about reducing the pine straw because we don't manage it, and it was going to be difficult and a
269 lot of work on our part to get like all the neighbors on board and signed off, and there was no
270 support beyond that assessment. Like do you care about small properties like that, and how do
271 you get people like me on board? I've not been, no one's outreached to me, and I have a trailer
272 park on one side and a neighborhood on the other side. So, is that a priority since we're not too
273 concerned about that. Like people like me that have those unmanaged areas that are full of
274 pine straw, how do you handle us, and what's your thought about us?
275
Approved 6.4.25
276 Kirby Saunders: Yeah, I would,just to answer your question first of all, yes, I care about you, and I care about
277 those landowners. Unfortunately, that would be the forest service really does that outreach, and
278 I'm not sure if you spoke fire department locally or the forest service.
279
280 Charity Kirk: Through the forest service.
281
282 Kirby Saunders: Okay. That would really be more a question to ask them about how can we reengage what that,
283 and you're welcome to contact me or AK, and I'm willing to help support that and advocate for you.
284 1 don't have answer. It's not something we do in emergency services. The forest service does
285 that outreach and assessment, as well as the forest management plans, and they can work with
286 you. And if you're having struggles there,we can definitely, I would love to hear about it how we
287 can support that and advocate for you.
288
289 Charity Kirk: Me and my partner are proactive, and I imagine that there's a lot of not proactive people out there.
290
291 Kirby Saunders: Certainly.
292
293 Charity Kirk: And so, if we fell off then I can imagine people who don't even think about it are going to
294 not even pursue it.
295
296 Kirby Saunders: I agree with you.
297
298 Charity Kirk: So, is that saying that is a priority for outreach and trying to get communities to do that?
299
300 Kirby Saunders: I can't answer specifically again about the forest management. That's forestry. I can't answer
301 what their priorities are as far as where they invest forest management practices, and I don't have
302 the answer that, and I can't speak about how they do engagement or outreach related to forest
303 management and reducing the fuel loads and vegetative fuels in unmanaged forest. I can't
304 answer that. Generally, on our end, our focus is more on the home in the immediate vicinity, so
305 we focus a lot of our efforts on fire prevention within the home, basic exterior maintenance. How
306 do you prevent a fire from escaping your home or impacting your home? The forest service will
307 be the most appropriate to answer about forest management concerns, management of fuels,
308 vegetative fuels like the pine straw you mentioned in your tract.
309
310 Charity Kirk: So, even though we are attached to two other, one low-income neighborhood of people of color
311 and one sort of middle-income neighborhood, the threat to those neighborhoods, as well as our
312 house is not necessarily your concern, it's the forestry department. You sort of separate
313 yourselves.
314
315 Kirby Saunders: No,that's not necessarily what I would mean by that. What I say is we are going to put priority on
316 those people that are in the homes that are at greatest risk of losing their life over managing the
317 risk per se. We leave the risk management to the forest service-to manage the fuel risk. We
318 focus our efforts on making sure those residents who are close by at risk of losing their life or their
319 property are prepared, and that's our focus. I hope that makes a little bit more sense.
320
321 Whitney Watson: Charity,there is another alternative or another way to go. There's the Triangle Prescribed Burn
322 Association,which is run out of Orange County. If you talk to them,they can help get you get
323 signed up to be a part of the support team, and that also includes having somebody come out and
324 help do an assessment and say yes, this area really would benefit from a prescribed burn or
325 there's really not the fuel load to make it worthwhile.
326
327 Kirby Saunders: And the forest service and cooperative extension are in the same office, so those are great
328 resources. Thank you. Again, I'm happy,you're welcome to contact me if you're having
329 challenges and I can help you make the connection.
330
Approved 6.4.25
331 Charity Kirk: Well, I'm trying to bring it up as this is my personal experience, but I know to the east of me,
332 there's a lot of homes and a lot of unmanaged forests,which is in that area that you have had
333 issues with, and so it's an interesting question of like what is the forest service doing and being
334 proactive, but that's not you.
335
336 Kirby Saunders: Yeah, and those conversations I think are ongoing, and so we can continue that,we, as 1
337 mentioned on that tract or that parcel,that census track is a focus of ours and as of this week,we
338 talked about bringing the forest service. Let's look beyond just the impact and how we prepare
339 people. Let's look at the risk. How do we reduce the risk? And so, I think that's what you're
340 getting at is how do we work with landowners and adjacent to that property that's of high priority
341 for us a target to reduce risks,whether it be management of fuels or other things and do some
342 outreach there as well.
343
344 Charity Kirk: But that outreach would be the forest service?
345
346 Kirby Saunders: I think that would be the forest service in combination with us both,together.
347
348 Charity Kirk: And is, is the forest service more like public stuff,where they come and help private landowners
349 on request, but are they trying to be more proactive? Are you trying to get them to be more
350 proactive?
351
352 Kirby Saunders: I would say it's more of a partnership that we're leaning towards bringing them in. We haven't
353 done that in the past.
354
355 Lamar Proctor: All right,thank you very much. Mr. Saunders. The next item is memo on the land use plan 2050
356 process.
357
358 Tom Altieri presented the Memo and attachments on the Land Use Plan 2050 Process
359
360 Lamar Proctor: All right.Any questions for Tom? Dolores?
361
362 Dolores Bailey: Tom, can you just share a little bit what held the commissioners back? Did they have specific
363 questions?
364
365 Tom Altieri: I'll reference it in general but there's probably three pages in your packet there, and all those
366 questions verbatim are provided there, so I would encourage you to take a look at that. Some of
367 them are more like Planning 101-type questions that they've asked about, some of the things I
368 know Perdita preps the planning board with at your orientation sessions. Questions about, our
369 joint planning agreements and what they mean, our urban services boundaries and how that might
370 relate to our water and sewer management boundary agreement and map. So,they're looking for
371 information I think to get a better understanding of how things fit together.
372
373 Beth Bronson: Regarding that document and them asking questions about the ETJ overlay and the housing
374 capacity that Chapel Hill did and if other municipalities were doing so, are those the existing
375 and/or by the time that gets published, any other comp plans that have been updated, are those
376 going to be overlaid onto Orange County's future land use to indicate that Mebane has a growth
377 area, Durham has a growth area, Carrboro has a growth area? Is that going to be visible?
378
379 Tom Altieri: So, some of the growth areas are reflected. They were reflected in the alternatives that we took
380 out to the public. For example, Mebane's urban services boundary was part of one of the
381 alternatives. We also used Hillsborough's urban services boundary to construct some of the land
382 uses that were suggested in those alternatives around the Hillsborough fringe. As far as the
383 housing study goes, I think it was primarily related to Chapel Hill.
384
385 Lamar Proctor: And, Tom,what would be the next thing that comes our way from the process?
Approved 6.4.25
386
387 Tom Altieri: As we present this information to the County Commissioners, we're happy to share those agenda
388 items and materials with the Planning Board and can do that. We do have meetings scheduled,
389 one a month, beginning in September. We'll be on the commissioner's agenda, a 30-minute
390 presentation, allowing 30 minutes for their questions. That'll be September, October, November.
391 There's also a half-day retreat that has been scheduled for mid-November with the board and our
392 clerk is polling the board to try to find another day for a second half-day retreat. We may even
393 look at,for the second retreat,trying to have some type of a meeting facilitator that might help
394 staff and help the board get through the material. One thing I'll emphasize is that the next step is
395 to take the draft out to the public and collect information from the public in a similar way that has
396 been done with our consultant's assistance before, surveys, meetings, et cetera, and then we'll
397 need to look at what are we going to change in the draft plan based on public input to develop
398 what would then become the public hearing draft. We still have a ways to go and a couple of
399 series of drafts to get through, and so we want to keep everyone engaged, the Planning Board
400 included, as well as the County Commissioners and we want to keep the public engaged as well
401 on this process.
402
403 Lamar Proctor: Well,thank you and I encourage all of us to check the website and reach out for additional
404 information and stay abreast of this thing. Any other questions for Tom? All right, thank you.
405
406 Tom Altieri: You're welcome. Thank you.
407
408 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
409
410 Lamar Proctor: Do I have a motion to approve the minutes for the ORC notes from April 9th of 2025? Well, first,
411 any additions or corrections? All right. Hearing, now, do I have a motion to approve?
412
413 Statler Gilfillen: I'll make a motion to approve.
414
415 Lamar Proctor: All right. Second?
416
417 Meg Millard: Second.
418
419 Lamar Proctor: All right. Thank you for the second. All in favor say aye, raise your hand.
420
421 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the minutes from the April 9th ORC meeting. Seconded by Meg Millard
422
423 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
424
425 Lamar Proctor: All opposed? Seeing none,those minutes are approved. As to the regular meeting minutes from
426 April 9th, do I have any additions or corrections? I'm seeing none. Do I have a motion to approve
427 those minutes?
428
429 Statler Gilfillen: I also move to approve.
430
431 Meg Millard: Do I have second?
432
433 Lamar Proctor: Second, thank you. All in favor of approval of those minutes, raise your hand. Any opposed?
434
435 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the April 9th meeting minutes. Seconded by Meg Millard.
436
437 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
438
439 Lamar Proctor: Seeing none,those are approved.
440
Approved 6.4.25
441 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
442
443 None.
444
445 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE
446
447 Lamar Proctor read the Public Charge.
448
449 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS
450
451 Lamar Proctor: I don't have any comments so I think we can move to the next agenda item,which is the UDO text
452 amendment on telecommunication facilities. Pat,thank you.
453
454 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES-
455 To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments
456 to the LIDO pertaining to telecommunication facilities. This amendment was reviewed at the April
457 9, 2025, ORC meeting. The anticipated BOCC public hearing date is June 3, 2025.
458
459 Patrick Mallett: Good evening.You probably got an email from me today, apologies, but I set out some hard
460 copies at each of your desks. They're color-coded for you. I'm just going to walk you through
461 those before I jump into the presentation. These are essentially replacement items for the
462 abstract and then adding statements of consistencies for Action Items Number 7 and 8. Seven is
463 the telecom and then eight being the solar amendment. Both of these items should be familiar,for
464 those of you that attended last month's meeting,we briefed it at the ORC, noticed at the last
465 minute that we really need to include the statement of consistency, so my apologies for that late
466 breaking change. The first attachment is a replacement on page,just so you can follow along
467 and, and cross-reference in your agenda packet,that's the abstract for the telecom replaces
468 Pages 42 and 43 of your agenda packet. The statement of consistency for that text change is
469 Page 94 of your packets. You also have a letter from the Brough Law Firm, our consultants with
470 the telecom RFP responding to industry comments including the CTIA letter that's right behind it,
471 and then with the solar amendments, Pages 95 and 96,we've going to have replacements to the
472 abstracts, and then Page 107,the statement of consistency, the very last page of your agenda
473 packet. Like I said, I think this is pretty familiar to most of you because you saw it last month, and
474 I'm going to be quick, and then we can follow along with more detailed questions if needed. The
475 first one is Agenda Item Number 7. This is the telecommunications standards, Section 5.10 of the
476 ordinance, and summary of the text amendment telecommunications, elements of the LIDO have
477 not been changed since April 5th, 2011,the adoption of the ordinance. Since that adoption,there
478 have been a quite good number of federal state laws pertaining to telecommunications that have
479 changed. Our ordinance isn't consistent with current federal and state law in many respects.
480 Technology has changed. The current roles and procedures don't really align with the public
481 need. There was a gap in coverage and an equity issue, especially in the rural areas, and it
482 doesn't currently meet all of the current public safety needs, as Kirby can attest. Next two slides
483 are just maps that show where we stand today. These are the existing telecommunications tower
484 sites by type. They're color-coded. It's hard to see the little dots, but you can see that they're kind
485 of spread out and the density largely follows the urban corridors,the highways in the urban areas,
486 and as you get out to the northern part of the county, they start to become almost nonexistent.
487 This is another map that's'also available on our website. It's a telecommunications plan map.
488 This is a bit misleading, but essentially what this map shows are sites where property owners
489 have raised their hands, brought it to the commissioners and said I am willing to locate a site in
490 this area, but you can see even with people raising their hands and the differences between these
491 two,there's still a lot of white, a gap in large part to dumb it down, gaps in coverage. Summary of
492 the proposed amendments, I'm going to go through these very quickly. At the end of this, I'll ask
493 Al Benshoff and Lydia Lavelle, our consultants,to give sort of a summary of the changes, but the
494 gist of it is that this amendment would repeal in whole the existing UDO Section 5.10 by the time
495 you start putting a scalpel to it and trying to align it with federal and state laws,there's more
Approved 6.4.25
496 revisions than not, so we decided let's just repeal the entire thing and replace it with a better
497 product. There are also revisions to Section 5.2,the table of permitted uses, better definitions and
498 an alignment of the permitted use, and then Section 10,the definitions. We're trying to continue
499 the trend to allow for lower impact towers and streamline the approval process and completed the
500 mandatory statutory definitions. We coordinated with the likes of Kirby,with EMS,with IT and
501 AMS to integrate this effort, and this is part of a,what we see as a continuum as a cross-
502 collaboration between our departments and thank you Kirby for participating in this effort.
503 Continue to update long range plans. We will look at possibly aligning fees and other fee
504 structures in accordance with federal and state laws. We will improve community and industry
505 access to communicate telecommunications data and information. The amendment process
506 we've gone through has been briefed several times through the DAC process. We were not
507 required to have a community neighborhood information meeting,yet we did. Two folks attended,
508 Liz Hill with American Towers among the folks that attended, another person named Joey Nelson
509 with AT&T attended. They gave comments and were very insightful, gave follow-on comments
510 and then we received industry comments from the CTIA in that letter that you saw. We feel like
511 we've addressed all those questions and incorporated those into the product. It was briefed last
512 month. Technical revisions and clarifications were made based on the meetings and the follow-up
513 commentary from the industry and then today, I made those changes to those replacement items.
514 The recommendation:the planning director recommends the board review and discuss the
515 proposed LIDO text amendments, consider the planning director's recommendation and make a
516 recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency, Attachment 3, and the proposed
517 tax amendments. And with that,Al might have a few brief words to say.
518
519 Albert Benshoff: Good evening. My name's Albert Benshoff. I'm an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel
520 Hill. This is Lydia Lavelle. She's also an attorney with the Brough Law Firm in Chapel Hill. I have
521 worked on telecommunications zoning questions since 1986. 1 also was a planner for 15 years
522 before I went to law school to get into a line of work where I'd be more popular. I want to thank
523 the County for giving us this interesting project to do and thank the staff, thanks Cy, Patrick, Jack
524 and Kirby for their input and their help. I can give you a brief presentation about what we did and
525 why we did it, but before I do that, I'd like to say I would prefer to answer questions so I talk about
526 what you would like to hear about rather than what I think you need to hear about. So, are these
527 any questions this early?
528
529 Lamar Proctor: Well,just as a general question,what did you seek to accomplish and what did you think were the
530 benefits to be gained by an overhaul of this section of the UDO?
531
532 Albert Benshoff: Well,the staff, the county put out an RFP to do this work and we responded to it, and I've done a
533 fair amount of this work around the state. The jurisdiction closest is Carrboro. A few years ago, 1
534 worked on their zoning ordinances about cell towers, about wireless telecommunication facilities.
535 1 think I can answer your question, Mr. Proctor,with some of my prepared remarks. Yes,the
536 ordinance was last amended by Orange County in 2011 but in total, it reads like a state-of-the-art
537 1988 ordinance, and since 1988,the technology has changed,the laws have changed, and the
538 US Code and the North Carolina General Statutes require that local governments do certain
539 things about cell towers in their zoning ordinances, so some of these changes are mandatory.
540 The Federal Communications Commission also has jurisdiction, and they issue orders and rules,
541 and they're mandatory. So, some of this is trying to rationalize all the things that the county has to
542 follow because they don't necessarily agree with each other. So,we did that. Another goal was to
543 take feedback from the staff about what worked in the ordinance that you have now, and there
544 were things that seemed like a good idea in the 20th century that either weren't used or didn't
545 work out the way they were intended. For example,there's a provision in your current ordinance
546 that the planning staff and the industry all get together and have a meeting every year to talk
547 about where towers are needed,where they'll be built in Orange County,what's going to happen
548 in the next year. That's not mandatory. That's kind of died on the vine. That was deleted. That's
549 an example of things that came out. So,what's changed is the number and kind of structures and
550 towers that staff can improve are increased, and that's because the federal government and the
Approved 6.4.25
551 North Carolina Legislature have established deadlines for approvals, and some of the deadlines
552 are so tight,that means that the staff has to approve things. The number of towers that require
553 special use permits has been reduced and now special use permits are only required for towers
554 215 feet or taller, and it looks like there won't be very many of those in the future because the
555 technology is going to smaller towers to accommodate increased bandwidth for the 5G networks.
556 There are incentives for disguised towers,for stealth towers,for monopoles in terms of the
557 procedures are somewhat streamlined if you ask for those. The procedures are somewhat
558 streamlined if you build a tower on publicly owned property. Some, some new uses were added,
559 particularly small cell wireless facilities which are a mandate from the General Assembly. A few
560 years ago, North Carolina adopted a model ordinance for 5G structures, and it was adopted in 19
561 or 20 other states last time I looked, probably more now. The idea was that there would be a big
562 quick build-out of small 5G towers. That didn't happen. So,there is a provision in here which is
563 required by general statute that the staff will approve pretty quickly any small wireless cell
564 structure up to 50 feet tall located in a public right-of—way. This has made a lot of consternation in
565 places like Carrboro because they don't want to have their right-of-way full of 50-foot towers
566 necessarily. Luckily,the county doesn't own roads, so that's not the county's problem. That's
567 DOT's problem. In the general statutes,there's three pages of rules about siting small cell
568 wireless in counties and in cities, and cities own roads, counties don't. There's one paragraph for
569 DOT, and it says DOT will allow this. DOT will make some rules, make with happen. So that's in
570 here because it has to be in here, but I don't think it will have much of an effect on Orange County.
571 The aversion of the federal and state deadlines which are called shot clocks in the industry are in
572 a table in the ordinance. The ordinance includes the definitions from the general statutes almost
573 verbatim because those are terms of art. We could write new definitions that would just confuse
574 everybody, so the general statutes definitions are in here. We got in feedback from Liz Hill from
575 American Tower and made some changes that she suggested. We have feedback from the CTIA,
576 the Industry Association. You have their letter. You have our response. We made changes in
577 response to their comments, and I think that six amendments are made all together. We think we
578 have addressed that. I want to thank, since Liz is here, I want to thank her for her,for her input
579 and, again, I'm happy to answer any questions.
580
581 Lydia Lavelle: I just want to say,this is an area of law that was new to me. I've had a crash course the last
582 9 months at the foot of the master here, and I do think that,when you look at the old ordinance
583 and the way it's been rewritten and streamlined, as one who has spent time looking at this over
584 the years, I think it's much more logical, it's not only equivalent now with North Carolina law and
585 federal law, but it's just a lot easier to follow in the way it's all laid out.
586
587 Lamar Proctor: Okay, great. Does anyone have any questions?
588
589 Beth Bronson: I was just wondering about the maintenance and inspection because you were saying that one of
590 the leftovers from the 1988, or in the 2011 LIDO was that there would be an annual meeting to
591 decide what the needs were. Did you create any kind of ordinance that would keep or make
592 mandatory, any kind of periodic review that was maybe, say 5 years versus annually?
593
594 Patrick Mallett: Let me preface that by saying I came to the County 12 some odd years ago. Prior to that, I was in
595 the private sector fresh out of grad school in the early'90s. My first job, the City of Burlington was
596 ripe, the first telecommunications ordinance I agree with Al and Lydia. What we have now is not
597 too dissimilar with what I spat out years ago. There are some distinctions that the balloon test
598 requirement which we were deleting,which is redundant and not necessary, this annual meeting
599 is redundant and not necessary. It's a classic example of having the idea to have a grand
600 convention. Not everybody has the time or the willingness to come, or the ability to come. And
601 technology is such that people can provide us real time input about the need. Whether it's people,
602 community leaders or industry folks.
603
604 Beth Bronson: And so, in the last 12 years here, how many of those meetings ever occurred?That you were a
605 part of?
Approved 6.4.25
606
607 Patrick Mallett: We would have some sort of meeting to have a meeting but if I'm honest every year in some
608 shape or form, either with the Planning Department or with IT, but participation was some years
609 heavy some years not so heavy. I would also add that in the timeframe that I've been here,we've
610 had on average, over 3 dozen co-locations and switch outs on existing towers, and we do a lot of
611 little stealth towers. We've only had one special use permit, new tower. We've had a lot start and
612 then pull out and withdraw the request, but only one new tower 10 years. That's kind of
613 extraordinary. And we're realizing that if you weed through the co-locations and the switch-out,
614 we're kind of reaching a point where saturation is probably occurring and there is a need for new
615 towers if you want to provide incentives for people to go out to say the Hurdle Mills area and
616 service that.
617
618 Beth Bronson: You have to create friendly regulations.
619
620 Patrick Mallett: Not a cart blanche open door, but a minimal amount of barriers to entry.
621
622 Beth Bronson: Understandable.
623
624 Patrick Mallett: That's what we're trying to achieve is that balance that's not intrusive.
625
626 Beth Bronson: Out on New Sharon Church Road,there's an AT&T tower. It's been abandoned for however
627 many years, but it hasn't gone anywhere, or is it still managed by AT&T?
628
629 Patrick Mallett: I think they still have one antenna there. If they have no antennas,they have to take it down.
630
631 Beth Bronson: I guess enforcement of abandonment.
632
633 Patrick Mallett: Sure. But that can be achieved outside of an annual meeting.
634
635 Beth Bronson: For sure, yes, separate from the meeting.
636
637 Patrick Mallett: You've heard this before. We have a new Energov central permitting system that, the tracking
638 ability for this is ten times better than it was years ago.
639
640 Cy Stober: One thing I would add is that the original texts that we are proposing to amend and replace
641 presumes that planning is the primary point of contact on this land use matter. Well,wireless
642 communications is much more of a public service than it was when this was adopted and we,
643 Kirby is in regular communication for emergency services purposes, our information technologies
644 directors and regular communication as part of the Lumos project, as well as above-ground
645 facilities that are being installed to support that. So the County, much more broadly than our
646 department and the UDO, is in dialogue with the providers on a very regular basis and having
647 conversations about emergency services and reservation of facilities for public need and
648 particularly for the sheriffs office and emergency services to be able to respond to calls
649 throughout the County and there are some struggles currently, so as Pat said,we are likely going
650 to be seeing a few new towers in the next 10 years go up to respond to that need. But this is
651 larger than a planning matter at this point. It's a public service and emergency matter, and so we
652 don't need an annual meeting because we're in regular conversation with the providers.
653
654 Beth Bronson: Okay. But there was no consideration for something that was, like, 5 or 10 years and I would
655 agree with you that I feel like this is something that would be more appropriately added to
656 something like a comprehensive plan or long-range goals.
657
658 Cy Stober: I am very pleased with the language that Al and Lydia had provided with us for enforcement of
659 retired and abandoned facilities, and I think we have a clear path of action both through the
660 enforcement and remedies but also through civil litigation if we have to go that approach. We have
Approved 6.4.25
661 a clear path to assessment,which is a much faster remedy than trying to endlessly take folks to
662 court and I appreciate that.
663
664 Beth Bronson: Thanks for everybody's input.
665
666 Chris Johnston: Charity.
667
668 Charity Kirk: I have some nit-picky stuff, but I'll follow up on that question with the replacement of towers, like
669 removal. I only saw deadlines shall be 180 days for small micro wireless facilities. I didn't catch
670 everything so, excuse me if it's in here, but I didn't catch it, but the bigger towers, how do those
671 get removed?
672
673 Patrick Mallett: All right. The deconditioning part is,there's a built-in part of that which is,there are only a handful
674 of tower providers around nationally, and definitely in our region. Three or four. Typically, if those
675 tower providers have a facility on a property, they don't own the dirt. There are a few where they
676 actually own the dirt. The vast majority of them, they have a lease. And so, my experience has
677 been the decommissioning is kind of a built-in process from a liability perspective. They don't
678 want someone to get hurt or the property owner,they no longer have a lease. They want to take
679 that tower down pretty quickly. You'll see the scant ones that have one antenna, or the lease isn't
680 up and they're keeping their options open, but that's a built-in mechanism.
681
682 Charity Kirk: So you don't have anything in here about removal of those towers.
683
684 Albert Benshoff: It's Section 5.10.8. Which refers to all wireless support structures.
685
686 Charity Kirk: It's 30 days and then it's 180 days, so it's generally 30 days and then it's 180 days for small micro
687 wireless facilities.
688
689 Albert Benshoff: No, it's 180 days for everything. Because that's the standard law in North Carolina about non-
690 conformity, a use is deemed non-confirming and may be abated if it's abandoned for 180 days.
691
692 Charity Kirk: So, 5.10.8.(C)says 180 days for small micro wireless facilities. But where is it 180 days for all
693 facilities?
694
695 Albert Benshoff: Well, it's probably because the general statutes had that in there and I'm not sure that shouldn't be
696 changed to just say the deadline is 180 days, period. That would be fair.
697
698 Charity Kirk: Okay.
699
700 Chris Johnston: Perdita has a question.
701
702 Perdita Holtz: Well, I'm just confused because (A)clearly says remove an abandoned wireless telecom facility
703 within 30 days of the date it is deemed abandoned. So,when I read the plain language about
704 that, it's 30 days. For some reason, small and micro wireless facilities are 180 days, and 1
705 presume that's because of the special legislation they have.
706
707 Patrick Mallett: Yeah.
708
709 Charity Kirk: Well, abandonment above was saying not used for 180 days. So, it's 180 days for abandonment
710 and then another 30 days to remove it.
711
712 Albert Benshoff Right, because and that's standard zoning law in North Carolina and has been for decades that
713 people don't say oh, I'm abandoning this property, this use. They just stop and leave and, so, if
714 the county can prove that the use has stopped and people have left, in 180 days, it can be abated.
715
Approved 6.4.25
716 Charity Kirk: So, all towers have to be removed 180 days plus 30 days from the end of use. 180 days is fluid
717 depending on when someone notices it.
718
719 Albert Benshoff: The short answer is yes.
720
721 Charity Kirk: Okay.
722
723 Albert Benshoff: It gets, it gets technical.
724
725 Charity Kirk: Well, I just, I just didn't understand it, so I'm trying to understand it.
726
727 Pat Mallett: That's common, 180-day mark is common for lots of uses.
728
729 Albert Benshoff: I'm trying to remember that the general statutes. I have them, but I don't want to stop and look
730 that up. I think there was a provision in there, a special provision in there that says you can tell
731 the company to take it down.
732
733 Charity Kirk: I feel like something should be in here about when you remove everything and it's most clear
734 about small micro wireless facilities, but as long as the planning board understands 180 days.
735
736 Albert Benshoff: Let me say just by way of background. That sort of thing is going to creep in because the
737 legislature treats small cell wireless differently, and they've carved that out as a discreet land use
738 that must be treated by itself and, so,that's why there's a section of special rules for small cell
739 wireless that don't apply to that,to other kinds of wireless support structures because it's in the
740 general statues.
741
742 Chris Johnston: That's fine. I think Charity's point, and I apologize if I'm misconstruing is this specifically states
743 that the small cell tower has a specific carve out for 180 days. Correct?
744
745 Albert Benshoff: Correct.
746
747 Chris Johnston: Okay. If that's a general statute requirement or said along those lines, cause I, 1 do notice that
748 there are footnotes all up and down this thing and in regard to GS-160D-931 or whatever the case
749 may be. If this is a specific carve out, specifically because of some statute, it might make it
750 clearer to either call that out or to say all towers, rather than specifically the cell towers. Is that an
751 accurate representation? We need to say it's for everything or we need to say the reason we're
752 calling this out is because of statutes.
753
754 Charity Kirk: I'm just unclear. I'm trying to understand. I feel my comments are nit-picky like I said, and this is
755 something I didn't understand, so as long as you all are clear.
756
757 Chris Johnston: But I'm not sure, because from Perdita I heard 30 days and now I'm hearing 180 days, plus 30
758 days, so I'm not sure it is 100 percent. Sorry. Cy.
759
760 Cy Stober: Yeah, I think I can help. So, 5.10. 6 is about cessation. So, that's the operations of the facility as a
761 use. We would then go to Subsection 7 you can have abandonment,which means that the owner
762 has completely abandoned a structure and its operations. Perhaps even abandoned the vendors
763 who are using that structure. Those are separate things. 5.10.8 would be our next plinko down
764 from 5.10.6 where we go from cessation of operations to removal and that's the enforcement on
765 their end. We have the 180-day for small micro wireless there, but there's the 30-day notice of
766 abandonment and then to Mr. Benshoffs comment abatement is empowered to the county. So,
767 that means that we can order the demolition and we can place an assessment on the property or
768 even take other legal actions to assess the owner of the facility. So, in Subsection B, Item B,the
769 county's empowered to abate the use, so, more immediately within 30 days to Perdita's point,then
Approved 6.4.25
770 personal micro wireless facilities. So,the empowerment's there. It is worded less directly, but it's
771 all there.
772
773 Charity Kirk: Thank you. That was what I wanted to know.
774
775 Cy Stober: To give you the big picture,we've only had two decommission sites, towers in 12 years and in
776 both instances the property owner didn't like the deal they had with the tower provider. They
777 terminated the lease. The tower provider immediately said we're taking this thing down and then
778 new tower providers said well, I'm going to move in right next to it and under the provisions
779 reconstructed a new tower.
780
781 Charity Kirk: So, is now a good time to make amendments?
782
783 Lamar Proctor: Well, I would just say I think this is dangerous territory just as an attorney because this is a very
784 specialized area.
785
786 Charity Kirk: I have a grammatical amendment.
787
788 Lamar Proctor: Sure, a grammatical amendment, sure.
789
790 Charity Kirk: But I also have a few more questions that I might as well do. You mentioned under 5.10.2.(1).(4),
791 facility should contain a sign no larger than 4 feet square to provide adequate notification to
792 people in the immediate area of the presence of RF radiation or to control exposure to RF
793 radiation within a given area. Like does that mean the sign could be 2 inches? Because there's
794 no minimum set. But are there expectations for signs being big enough?The Feds take care of
795 that, Miss Kirk.
796
797 Charity Kirk: Okay. This is my first.
798
799 Albert Benshoff: No, I mean it, it's very confusing, it's very technical. There's no problem with your questions.
800 There's how much do you copy; how much do you repeat from what the FCC says and how long
801 do you make it. The county has an interest in not letting people put a Drink Coca Cola sign on
802 their cell tower that's 100 square feet.
803
804 Charity Kirk: And this is a bad result of just trying to clarify.
805
806 Albert Benshoff: Sure.
807
808 Charity Kirk: And then, 5.10.4, standards and procedures for administrative of approvals of wireless support
809 structures, substantial modifications, co-locations, and eligible facility requests. D., monopoles.
810 It's more a statement, like what does this mean,what does it mean that monopoles at a minimum
811 monopole-wireless support structures shall be structurally designed to accommodate as many
812 antennae rays as a tower is designed to carry. How does that relate to standards and procedures
813 of administrative approval? Does that mean that the monopole design that staff is approving has
814 to have, it has to be designed, like how does that relate to monopoles in it. Why is it under that
815 section?
816
817 Albert Benshoff: Monopoles have to do everything that's listed in 5.10.4.(A)except for the carve outs and then
818 following Subsection A,there's standards for the different kinds of wireless support structures.You
819 get down to monopoles and there's not much new to say.
820
821 Charity Kirk: Oh,you know what, I'm sorry. I do know that I am in the wrong section. I have put that under the
822 wrong section. So, never mind that fact. 5.10.2.(E).(2),well E is a site plan and site plan
823 application meeting. It's trying to say what's all required and you say elevations.A map, a site
824 plan, but 2 is all utilities at a facility shall be installed underground, but what are you wanting them
Approved 6.4.25
825 to provide? A site map or a site plan?Like you have elevation,the site plan and site plan
826 application meeting, so you say you want elevations, and you want a map, and you want a site
827 plan, but you don't say what you want with all utilities at a facility site shall be installed
828 underground. Do you want a map of where the facility's installed?
829
830 Cy Stober: That's a requirement of 2.5,which is not in the packet. All private utilities must be provided on a
831 site plan. That's sealed and delivered to the county. So, that is not proposed for amendment.
832 That's just identifying that all electrical and, in this case,fiber and should there be any other
833 utilities, such as gas, on site,they'd have to be shown on the site plan,whether they are public or
834 private. So, if there's an OWASA sewer line going through there, it must be underground. There
835 cannot be any aerials and no above-ground utilities are permitted on the site.
836
837 Charity Kirk: Well, you've stated with 1, 2, 1, 3 and 4 exactly what you want,which is an elevation, 3 is a map,4
838 is a site plan, 5 is a landscape plan, but 2 is just a statement. So, you might say,for consistency's
839 sake, how you want that to be given to you.
840
841 Albert Benshoff: We need to check the site plan section, which is not before you tonight.
842
843 Beth Bronson: I think the plan is in Section 2.5. It is outlined.
844
845 Charity Kirk: It's an inconsistent use of the bullets.
846
847 Beth Bronson: But on top of E, it does say application meeting Section 2.5. So, you do have to refer to Section
848 2.5, in which case all utilities public or private must have an accompanying site plan that would
849 indicate where those utilities are underground.
850
851 Charity Kirk: So,then why does 4 have a site plan of the wireless support structure showing all of the
852 following?
853
854 Beth Bronson: Because it's above ground and not part of 2.5.
855
856 Charity Kirk: No, that's not a part of 2.5. If you all are happy with it, I'm just saying it's inconsistent. That's the
857 only one of 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 that does not clarify what document format you want it to take. That's
858 all.
859
860 Cy Stober: That's because those are different documents an elevation is a profile of what the tower would be
861 like.
862
863 Charity Kirk: I know what elevation is.
864
865 Cy Stober: That's separate from the site plan. A site plan is a two-dimensional drawing. The utility
866 requirement is a layer that is an additional standard for what utilities may be done on the site plan.
867 The map is a Iocational map. It doesn't have to be as precise as the site plan. It doesn't even
868 have to be scale. The site plan comment in Item 4 is identifying additional requirements of that
869 site plan. It is redundant with language in E, but the others are not the same drawings as the site
870 plan itself of the property and its boundaries. So, I think the utility comment is an additional layer
871 of regulation beyond our site plan regulations. I'm comfortable with it.
872
873 Charity Kirk: You're comfortable with it. Okay.
874
875 Statler Gilfillen: I have one question on this. When those plans are submitted, they have to be done by a licensed
876 engineer, right, or an architect? Okay. As an architect,those are pretty standard presentations.
877 You can argue about nit-picking which way and what, but if they're not clear, the inspector at the
878 other end is going to send them back to the engineer and they're going to get it done properly.
879 That's tradition.
Approved 6.4.25
880
881 Patrick Mallett: That's a good point and I would offer if we can keep it as is. We're comfortable with it, or strike it
882 in its entirety.
883
884 Charity Kirk: I don't think you need to strike it. I'd just change the language to be more consistent. I told you
885 these were nit-picky comments.
886
887 Patrick Mallett: That's why we're here.
888
889 Charity Kirk: Okay. But the last one is 5.10.1.(A).(1),where all the bullets are. Encourage, minimize, create,
890 minimize, establish and the first one is protection of where it really could just be protect.And then
891 it would grammatically be more consistent for the bullet points. So, I would make amendment, a
892 nit-picky amendment, to 5.10.1.(A).(1), you remove protection of, and you change it to protect.
893
894 Statler Gilfillen: I will second that motion.
895
896 Chris Johnston: I think at this point we're still making sure that we don't have any additional comments.
897
898 Lamar Proctor: Do we take a motion on amendments separately or do we move to approve the statement of
899 consistency with the amendments and go through them individual before we take the vote?
900
901 Cy Stober: It's up to your discretion, but more commonly it's the second approach that you mentioned, to add
902 the amendment when the motion is made for the whole package.
903
904 Chris Johnston: Okay. Not to be that guy. Do we need to check, because half the table has had comments. 1
905 didn't know if we needed to verify if anyone else needed to weigh in.
906
907 Lamar Proctor: I think we've resolved everything with the exception of that one.
908
909 Chris Johnston: That's perfectly fine. I didn't know, like I said, if this side of the table needed to chime in.
910
911 Venkat Yendapalli: One question. More like a procedurally question. Once we go through this amendment language,
912 how long does it take to get a cell tower there? I live in Cedar Grove, and it is very spotty. How
913 long does it take to see a cell tower go up there in that area? Areas that they can't reach,
914 emergency services, or if they're in this spot or they can't get cell tower.
915
916 Patrick Mallett: I would say that the conservative, assuming it's an administrative approval for a new cell tower,
917 you're looking at about 60 days. It would go through Jackie Hicks,who was also heavily involved
918 with this package. She's our telecommunications consultant. She's the one that knows all the
919 technical co-location information. She has to review it, give a recommendation. We review it. It
920 goes through the DAC.About 60 days.A special use permit going to the Board of Adjustment for
921 approval,you're looking at anywhere from 4 to 6 months to get that processed.
922
923 Venkat Yendapalli: Thank you.
924
925 Lamar Proctor: Any other specific questions or amendments. I understand Charity's point. It's a grammatical
926 thing. It's not in line with the other numbers.
927
928 Charity Kirk: Lady of the company, did she want to talk?
929
930 Liz Hill: I'm really just here to answer any questions that she might have.
931
932 Charity Kirk: Okay.
933
Approved 6.4.25
934 Patrick Mallett: She had some very insightful questions and suggestions. We took those to heart and
935 incorporated them.
936
937 Charity Kirk: Are you happy with this?
938
939 Liz Hill: It's definitely an improvement. We appreciate the effort very much.
940
941 Charity Kirk: Okay.
942
943 Lamar Proctor: I had a motion to pass the statement of approval with Charity's modification to 5.10.1.(A).(1),the
944 grammatical correction of protect in lieu of protection of. Correct?
945
946 Charity Kirk: Thank you.
947
948 Lamar Proctor: And I heard a second. Right?
949
950 Charity Kirk: I didn't, yes, I'll make a motion. I do what you say, or you can just make the motion.
951
952 Lamar Proctor: Well,you made the motion. He seconded it.
953
954 Charity Kirk: Well, I made the motion to make it an amendment. Can I make a new motion?
955
956 Dolores Bailey: Why don't we leave it?
957
958 Lamar Proctor: Well, let me just ask this. Cy, does it have to be approved verbatim or are you allowed for
959 grammatical corrections like that, even after we adopt the statement.
960
961 Cy Stober: Oh no. Well, Orange County is fairly conservative about any sort of inline corrections needing to
962 go through hearing, so, if there are grammatically corrections that are needed,we are not
963 empowered as staff to make administrative corrections to things like missing semicolons or
964 plurals, etcetera, per the attorney's office.We've been provided by guidance that we shouldn't.
965
966 Dolores Bailey: There's a motion on the table. Are we asking her to restate it?
967
968 Lamar Proctor: Yeah,just restate it for clarity purposes., I, 1 think what you're doing is you're moving to approve
969 the statement with the modification to 5.10.1.(A).(1),for protect.
970
971 Charity Kirk: Yes. I make a motion to approve the unified development ordinance's text amendment as
972 contained in Attachment 2 with the amendment and the statement of approval and consistency,
973 indicating text amendments are reasonable on Attachment 3 with the amendment of changing
974 protection of to protect as shown in 5.10.1.(A).(1).
975
976 Lamar Proctor: All right. Do I have a second?
977
978 Statler Gilfillen: I will second to that.
979
980 Lamar Proctor: All right. All in favor of adopting the statement of approval consistency with that modification may
981 say, raise your hand or say aye.All opposed?
982
983 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to approve the statement of consistency with amendment to section 5.10.1.(A).(1). Seconded
984 by Statler Gilfillen
985
986 MOTION PASSED 7-3: Dolores Bailey, Jonah Garson, and Beth Bronson opposed.
987
Approved 6.4.25
988 Lamar Proctor: We have however many ayes,three opposed. The ayes have it, so it,the statement of approval is
989 passed with that modification.
990
991 Cy Stober: Typically, in a split vote,we have a reason for the opposition, so we can document that for the
992 board.
993
994 Beth Bronson: I just do not find there would be a need for it.
995
996 Jonah Garson: I don't find there to be a need for it either and I just don't feel it's appropriate.
997
998 Charity Kirk: What is it?
999
1000 Beth Bronson: The change.
1001
1002 Jonah Garson: The grammatical change.
1003
1004 Dolores Bailey: And the same for me.
1005
1006 Chris Johnston: Thank you. To confirm, the problem is with the amendment, not with the process of amending, in
1007 other terms is it changing the word protect or the entire process?
1008
1009 Dolores Bailey: In the word protect. I don't think there's any reason to change it from protection of to protect.
1010
1011 Jonah Garson: And,for me, it's the same, but also, I do think we should be having motions on amendments.
1012
1013 Beth Bronson: There was no motion on the statement of consistency I didn't think.
1014
1015 Jonah Garson: I think we need two. I think I would like to see going forward two separate motions.
1016
1017 Lamar Proctor: Didn't you tell us before we needed to incorporate those into one motion?
1018
1019 Cy Stober: You have either option. Historically,we've done the latter where they've been incorporated.
1020
1021 Lamar Proctor: Right, that's been the practice. Jonah is recommending that we split that for clarity purposes.
1022
1023 Statler Gilfillen: I mean if we can in the future, I would agree with that.
1024
1025 Venkat Yendapalli: I think maybe, Jonah,you're looking at like do we even need it. Do the rest of the board support
1026 that amendment. Right?
1027
1028 Lamar Proctor: Yes. All right. So, this will have to be slightly modified?
1029
1030 Cy Stober: Yes, and until it is adopted at the hearing to up to that second. All of this, even though it is
1031 informed by federal and state regulations, can be modified without the whole process. We're
1032 already ready in the process, so if there are other comments you wish to make, you're welcome to
1033 make them in the interim to the board or to me.
1034
1035 Lamar Proctor: Sorry for any confusion. I'm trying to incorporate the planning board's input. I know that you all
1036 worked a long, hard time on this stuff, and I know it's very specialized.And that's a nit-picky thing,
1037 but future generations when they read that ordinance won't get offended by that grammatical
1038 indiscretion.
1039
1040 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ARRAYS-To
1041 review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments to
Approved 6.4.25
1042 the UDO pertaining to residential solar arrays. This amendment was reviewed at the April 9,
1043 2025, ORC meeting. The anticipated BOCC public hearing date is June 3, 2025.
1044
1045 Patrick Mallett: Next item on the agenda, as I said before, Pages 95 and 96 are replaced. That's the abstract and
1046 107. This is the solar array amendment, in large part it's the standards within UDO, Section 5.9.6.
1047 So,we have the need for the amendment. Our amendments of the UDO have not been amended
1048 or updated since November 8, 2012. Those parenthetically were amendments to deal with public
1049 utility, solar arrays, and nothing to do with the actual amendments before you tonight. It's the
1050 adoption of numerous best practices and technology changes have occurred in the solar industry.
1051 The Orange County strategic plan identifies the environmental protection and climate action as a
1052 first priority strategy. We're revising 5.9.6, solar array and Article 10 definitions. What we're not
1053 revising is the public utility. That would be what used to be referred to as Solar Farms,the large
1054 public utilities,this is just pertaining to solar arrays, roof-mounted or ground-mounted as an
1055 accessory use, like powering the dam turbines at the OWASA facility out at Cane Creek or a solar
1056 array that's mounted on your house roof or on your property or on farms. It addresses overly
1057 complex text and improves on the interpretation and the application for both staff and the
1058 applicants. This was sort of brought forth to us in partnership with sustainable developments and
1059 one of our partners, Solar Smart, and the industry pointed to some needs for some minor
1060 clarifications. This is by no means as complicated or as extensive as the telecom one. So, on
1061 future efforts,this too is a continuum to look at fast-tracking the permitting process for some solar
1062 array permits. The fees,we'll look at revisiting those to give some incentives possibly for
1063 residential stuff, solar permits, and then also,we're also conducting work with solar, and EV
1064 located on government facilities. That's strictly EV charging stations and we have a consortium
1065 with both,with this part of Solar Smart and NC State and numerous other institutions that we're
1066 working on, and this is just one part of what they would like to see and what we feel like the
1067 industry wants and residents, of course, as well. These are just a few slides that Amy Eckberg
1068 was able to provide with regard to the climate action plan. She was not able to attend today's
1069 meeting because she's in a conference in Richmond. Like I said this is a major element that
1070 aligns with the climate action plan and Orange County sustainability efforts. With that greenhouse
1071 and gas emission reduction goals to reduce by 50 percent by 2030 and reduce 100 percent by
1072 2050. This just shows the distribution and the fair share. This was an interesting slide to me,the
1073 amount that's dedicated in terms of emissions to electricity, 30 percent. Overall breakdown. All
1074 energy was responsible for 54 percent of Orange County's greenhouse gas emissions, that was a
1075 pretty amazing statistic to me. And by adding solar energy, we can cut those emissions. It's in
1076 the climate action plan as identified. The manner of process they decided to brief at the ORC.
1077 You heard this item last month in your April meeting where additions were made, based on the
1078 ORC comments and comments received under courtesy and peer review. The item is recording
1079 and refined in conjunction with sustainability programs and smart initiatives and then today, as
1080 with the other one, the replacement items in your packet. Recommendation. Review and discuss
1081 the LIDO text amendments; consider the planning director's recommendation and make a
1082 recommendation to the BOCC on the statement of consistency,Attachment 2, and the proposed
1083 text amendments.
1084
1085 Lamar Proctor: All right. Any questions?
1086
1087 Dolores Bailey: Can you go back about 3 slides.
1088
1089 Patrick Mallett: There?
1090
1091 Kirby Saunders: You said with solar added to it, it would do what?
1092
1093 Patrick Mallett: So that would fall under this energy category here.
1094
1095 Beth Bronson: It would reduce it.
1096
Approved 6.4.25
1097 Patrick Mallett: And not entirely obviously, but it would offset some portion of that, but I think the point of this
1098 graphic is to show that I would not have guessed that that was 30 percent of our overall
1099 emissions.
1100
1101 Lamar Proctor: Just a general question. So,these amendments,what's the practical effect? Like what will it do in
1102 terms of these solar arrays for which they cover.
1103
1104 Patrick Mallett: We feel like the language aligns with the model ordinances that NC State has, that Solar Smart
1105 has that they've identified. I really wasn't driving this amendment. It was Amy and that initiative
1106 and that collaboration with working with her group and others to make it more understandable,
1107 transparent, and less fluff and requirements that are not necessary. To give you an example,
1108 there's a requirement for a roof load. You have to get a structural engineer to approve that it
1109 meets the supports. That's covered in the building code. We don't need it in the ordinance. It's
1110 another layer of documentation and bureaucracy that's already there.
1111
1112 Beth Bronson: I have one question. For Page 103, it says standards for farm related solar arrays. If you had
1113 bona fide farm status,you were allowed to develop solar arrays? Would having a solar array
1114 create bona fide farm status?
1115
1116 Patrick Mallett: No. Completely separate. And part of that, I'll add a parenthetical to this that that was included at
1117 the request of Solar Smart initiative and Amy Eckberg, also economic development. There's a
1118 movement called photo-aggro-voltaics and that's the placement of solar arrays on farms and
1119 studying the impacts, the temperature on a farm and the moisture composition.
1120
1121 Beth Bronson: It's called innovative farming.
1122
1123 Patrick Mallett: It's probably a good idea.
1124
1125 Beth Bronson: Yeah, it is and I don't mean anything to doubt it. I just didn't know if you were able to create a
1126 solar array farm and then say that you're making money off of it.
1127
1128 Patrick Mallett: I don't want to get too far down the utility rabbit hole, but in all instances our state, is pretty
1129 definitive about power,who can create power.Who cannot create power,who has the ability to be
1130 able to.A farm can't be a public utility, a subdivision can't be a public utility.
1131
1132 Beth Bronson: Did Orange County want to manage that, or they couldn't? Well, not Orange County, but if a utility
1133 company wanted to manage that solar array on a bona fide farm.
1134
1135 Patrick Mallett: They'd have to get a special use permit to do that.
1136
1137 Beth Bronson: Okay.
1138
1139 Lamar Proctor: Any other discussion about the specifics of the language or any discussion about proposed
1140 amendments to any of the language covered by this agenda item?
1141
1142 Beth Bronson: Is there any reason that the solar array shouldn't be available at every type of land use?So,within
1143 R-1, R-2, R-8. Is there any reason that there was no exception or exemptions for locations for
1144 solar arrays?
1145
1146 Patrick Mallett: No, because it's also covered with what it's supporting. Whether it's to a non-residential use.
1147 Theoretically this could come up in any of the districts with performance standards. And does
1148 anyone have any other questions before we make a motion. I do want to draw your attention to
1149 one item. If you turn to the table of permitted uses on Page 98, you'll see land use item sited on
1150 the table of permitted uses. Item No. 73. The county attorney's office, has of course, seen this.
1151 We always vet this through legal. He had pointed out,we don't necessarily call out accessories
Approved 6.4.25
1152 uses in the table of permitted uses, and my rebuttal back to him was this one is fairly unique and
1153 specific and does need to be called up in my opinion. My last communication with James was I'm
1154 not opposed to removing the word accessory and it's in this table, but I think it's important. 1
1155 haven't heard back from him. In your motion, I would just ask that we have the ability to modify
1156 the terminology of land use, Item 73, as currently proposed, so long as it is consistent with staff
1157 attorneys'guidance.
1158
1159 Chris Johnston: I would like to make a separate motion.
1160
1161 Dolores Bailey: Before you make your motion.Where are you talking about?
1162
1163 Chris Johnston: Page 98. Up there is Line 73, that's above 71 and 72 and it has the word accessory in it,though it
1164 doesn't necessarily need to.
1165
1166 Dolores Bailey: I see it. Thank you.
1167
1168 Chris Johnston: Do we care that 73 is above 71 and 72?
1169
1170 Patrick Mallett: As we discussed earlier,words matter, but I do know that that could go one way or another.
1171
1172 Beth Bronson: He's saying that the row was inserted above Row 71.
1173
1174 Chris Johnston: And then you're saying that because it's got an A at the start of it, it may be at the top, or it may be
1175 at the bottom.
1176
1177 Patrick Mallett: Yes.
1178
1179 Chris Johnston: I apologize,would you mind repeating your request, so that I might verbalize right back at you.
1180
1181 Patrick Mallett: Yes, the motion could point to that page in this packet and No. 73 as presented in this packet.
1182 That's one way to do it.
1183
1184 Chris Johnston: Sure. I make a motion that we provide staff with leeway on editing 73 to either include accessory
1185 or not based on the recommendation of the staff attorney.
1186
1187 Statler Gilfillen: I second it.
1188
1189 Lamar Proctor: All right. We'll take a vote on whether to add this amendment as a separate item before we
1190 approve the statement of consistency.All in favor of that amendment, raise your hand and said
1191 aye.
1192
1193 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to allow for revisions pending comments from the Staff Attorney. Seconded by Statler
1194 Gilfillen.
1195
1196 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1197
1198 Lamar Proctor: Hearing none opposed. Now, I'll take a motion on approving the statement of approval and
1199 consistency with that amendment.
1200
1201 Statler Gilfillen: I so move.
1202
1203 Lamar Proctor: Statler moved. Would you like to second?
1204
1205 Chris Johnston: I would like to second that one.
1206
Approved 6.4.25
1207 Lamar Proctor: All right. Having a second, all in favor raise your hand or say aye.
1208
1209 MOTION BY Statler Gilfillen to approve the statement of consistency with the previously approved amendment.
1210 Seconded by Chris Johnston.
1211
1212 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1213
1214 Lamar Proctor: Let the record reflect seeing none opposed, it passes with that amendment. Do I have another
1215 motion?
1216
1217 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT
1218
1219 Dolores Bailey: Motion to adjourn.
1220
1221 Beth Bronson: Second.
1222
1223 MOTION BY Dolores Bailey to adjourn. Seconded by Beth Bronson
1224
1225 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
1226
1227 Lamar Proctor: All in favor? None opposed.
1228
1229 The meeting adjourned at 9:21 PM