Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8_7_24 Planning Board MinutesApproved 9.4.24 MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 AUGUST 7, 2024 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor (Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Steve 8 Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Chris 9 Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative; 10 Marilyn Carter, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large Representative 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large Representative 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long Range Planning & Administration; Patrick Mallett, Deputy 15 Director – Development Services; Lauren Coffey, Planner I; Jack Moran, Planning Technician 16 17 OTHERS PRESENT: Jamie Cox, Brian McGuire, Jerry Blanchard, Tammy McGuire, Becky Laskody, Lucas Babinec, 18 Douglas Jones, Linda Ridenhouse, Jessica King, Frank Cohen 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 The meeting began at 7:00 22 23 Adam Beeman: I now call the meeting to order. 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 26 27 Adam Beeman: I've got a couple of information items. Next week is a Board of Adjustment meeting, and then 28 that's it for the month of August. We'll be back at it right here at the beginning of the month in 29 September on the 4th for our planning board meeting, and it looks like there's a whole bunch 30 going on between the Board of Adjustment and the Board of County Commissioners next month, 31 so it's going to be a busy month in September. 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 34 35 Adam Beeman: I need a motion or any changes to the minutes from July. 36 37 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen 38 39 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 42 None. 43 44 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 45 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 47 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 48 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 49 development law of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish 50 coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers 51 Approved 9.4.24 the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive 52 process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall 53 County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and 54 quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 55 56 PUBLIC CHARGE 57 The Planning Board pledges this respect to all present. The Board asks those attending 58 this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, 59 county staff and Board members. At any time, should any member of the Board or the 60 public fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order in decorum. 61 Should it be impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the 62 meeting until such time a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The 63 Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cellphones, pagers and computers 64 should be turned to silent or vibrate, and please be kind to everyone. 65 66 Adam Beeman read the public charge. 67 68 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 69 70 Adam Beeman: I don't have any comments. We have a couple folks that would like to speak on a couple 71 different agenda items, so as we go through it, we'll call you up, and we can hear what 72 you have to say about the agenda item. 73 74 AGENDA ITEM 7: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (CONVENTIONAL DISTRICT) - To review and make a 75 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant-initiated zoning atlas amendment to rezone one parcel totaling 76 +/- 112.17 acres from MPD-CD (Master Plan Development – Conditional District) to R-1 (Rural Residential). 77 The parcel is located at 1031 Frazier Road, Mebane within the Cheeks Township (PIN: 9835 -74-8573). This 78 item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 5, 2024. 79 80 Adam Beeman: First agenda item is a zoning atlas amendment for Frazier Road in Mebane, Cheeks 81 Township. 82 Lauren Coffey: Thank you, Chair. Tonight, I present to you a Zoning Atlas Amendment for a 83 Conventional District Rezoning. This is a Conventional District Rezoning, so standards 84 must be uniformly applied throughout the county. It's not site specific and individualized 85 conditions may not be imposed. Tonight's objective is to hear from the applicant, staff 86 and public, review and discuss, and then ultimately make your recommendation to the 87 Board of County Commissioners. So, where are we at? It is at 1031 Frazier Road in 88 Mebane, North Carolina in the Cheeks Township, and it's in the Upper Eno Protected 89 Watershed. The applicant tonight is Hart's Mill. It's currently under the name Common 90 Ground, so they've gone through a little bit of a change there. The current zoning is MPD-91 CZ. This was a Master Plan Conditional Zoning District from a previous rezoning to this 92 district to the site plan that you see before you. It also has the Upper Eno Protected 93 Watershed overlay. The applicant tonight is requesting the rezoning. It's a down zoning 94 to Rural Residential which was the original zoning of the parcel and is also the 95 surrounding zoning. So, when we're thinking about a rezoning, we're looking at the 96 Future Land Use Map designation. This parcel is primarily in the 20-Year Transition. This 97 means it's land that has been identified as being in areas that are in the process of 98 changing from rural to urban. These are suitable for urban -type densities and should be 99 provided with public utilities and services within the second 10-year phase of the plan. 100 They propose no amendment to the Future Land Use Map. There's also just a very small 101 Approved 9.4.24 portion there that is designated Rural Residential, which is the zoning that they are 102 requesting. Looking at the surrounding land uses, all meet that same Rural Residential 103 type. They are either single-family residential uses or undeveloped land, some with 104 agriculture. So, requirements from the Conventional District application, they completed 105 their Zoning Atlas Amendment application. There is a map showing the land proposed for 106 rezoning that they submitted to us in the form of a plat. They provided us with a narrative 107 that was detailing their proposed zoning, Future Land Use designation and how it meets 108 that, and then also it was sent out for any other reviewing agencies. So, with the Rural 109 Residential zoning district, this is just sort of that card here about it from our ordinance . 110 The applicant is not required to define the type of development or an anticipated land use. 111 If approved, all 30 land uses within the Rural Residential zoning district could be possible 112 if their use standards are able to be met. And then I'm going to turn it over to the 113 applicant. We have representatives here from Hart's Mill/Common Ground to present 114 this. 115 Lucas Babinec: Good evening. I'll be respectful of y'all's time. I know it's valuable. I'm here with Becky 116 and Doug, our legendary farmer out there. Again, Lauren talked about the land, the 117 current zoning, and basically our request is happening because the current Master Plan 118 Zoning is just way too much of a development for what we want to do. When this 119 happened back in 2015, we weren't aware of the flexible subdivision conservation cluster. 120 We just found out about that last autumn. So, now that we know that exists and we can 121 pursue development that's in line with that kind of site plan, we want to revert back to the 122 R1 so that we can put this overlay zoning on. We're an aspiring eco village intentional 123 community project. Just living very ecologically. Having a very vibrant farm happening. 124 Growing a lot of our own food. Lots happened already and a lot of work has happened, 125 but when COVID began, prices soared, and we weren't able to go through with that 126 master plan zoning, and so there were a lot of members that left, and in the year since, 127 we've been trying to regroup. Now, we have this other flexible subdivision option 128 available, but we have got to revert the zoning to do that. Also, putting the land in a 129 conservation easement, so very much in line with what wants to happen in this part and 130 the goals for Orange County. Just more about what's happening with the current one and 131 why it's not possible for us now. A lot less of the land will be developed with the flexible 132 subdivision conservation cluster, so that's why we want to revert back. Welcome to any 133 questions that y'all have about this. Thank you. 134 Adam Beeman: Steve, any questions? Charity? Chris? Statler? Marilyn? Whitney? Dolores? All right. Do 135 I have any motions? 136 Lauren Coffey: We have a little bit more of our presentation. 137 Adam Beeman: I mean we were getting it, right, we were going right along. 138 Lauren Coffey: Just informing you that public notifications were sent out July 24th. Notices were mailed to 139 all property owners within a thousand feet. We also posted signs on the parcel and on 140 our web page. So as far as staff analysis, we evaluated that the application met our 141 requirements from our ordinance, it was consistent with the goals and objective outlined in 142 Orange County Comprehensive Plan and that the amendment is reasonable and in the 143 public interest, meets the 20-Year Transition for the Future Land Use Map. So, this is the 144 step we are at tonight in the review process at the Planning Board. We went over your 145 role and that you will then make a recommendation to the Board of County 146 Commissioners. Our recommendation from the Planning Director tonight is to receive the 147 rezoning application, deliberate on the proposal if you desire, consider the 148 Approved 9.4.24 recommendation from the Planning Director, and then ultimately make that 149 recommendation to the BOCC on the Statement of Consistency and the proposed 150 ordinance. So, if any of you have any questions for me, I am also up here as well. 151 Statler Gilfillen: I do have one question. Could this be considered in zoning a step down of less intensity 152 which we're approving tonight, or is this equal intensity, just something different? 153 Because I'm reading it and I'm listening to you, it sounds like what they're asking for is a 154 less intense situation. 155 Lauren Coffey: Correct, it is a down zoning back to their original designation from their rezoning to a 156 master plan. 157 Statler Gilfillen: Thank you. 158 Adam Beeman: The question was, we have potential to see them in the future to come back under a 159 flexible zoning, so this is just the step you have to take to get to that point. 160 Lauren Coffey: Yeah. 161 Adam Beeman: You got that? 162 Statler Gilfillen: Yeah. 163 Adam Beeman: Okay. Thank you, any other questions? All right. 164 Lamar Proctor: I move to approve the zoning change and adopt the statement of consistency as drafted 165 by planning staff and finding that the zoning change is consistent with the comprehensive 166 land use plan and reverting it back to a zoning designation consistent with the surrounding 167 parcels. 168 Statler Gilfillen: I'll second that. 169 Adam Beeman: All good? I just wanted to make sure I didn't have corrections from staff that we missed 170 something in the statement. 171 Patrick Mallett: The only thing to point out is the zoning was done several years ago, we've made 172 changes to the subdivision ordinance, they've got a workable option based on the realities 173 of economics and their need, but yeah, this is the first part of several processes that they'll 174 have to go through. I would also note that they have been in discussion with county 175 commissioners and with DEAPR on dedicating a significant amount of conservation area 176 on the property. 177 Chris Johnston: I just want to note, just so we don't appear flippant, you're requesting R1, you're 178 completely surrounded by R1, you're going conventional, so we're not going to have any 179 stipulations that we're allowed to put on it. I mean, it's pretty cut and dry as far as we can 180 tell on this. Just so you don't feel like we're sweeping you along or anything like that. 181 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, and they are fully aware that once the zoning is approved that it extinguishes all the 182 rights that they had gained with the previous zoning. 183 Statler Gilfillen: And moving forward they then have to come back to us again for approvals. 184 Patrick Mallett: Possibly, depends on whether they're a major or minor subdivision. 185 Approved 9.4.24 Marilyn Carter: And I'll just note, I support this request because it's consistent with the direction of moving 186 toward more developments that implement conservation clusters, so this is very 187 consistent with our strategic plan. 188 Adam Beeman: I have a second, all in favor? Against? 189 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen. 190 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 191 Adam Beeman: All right, motion passes. 192 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT: To review and make a recommendation to the 193 BOCC on a Preliminary Plat application for a Major Subdivision named Stonewall. The 194 Plat is consistent with the Concept Plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Board in 195 April 2024. The proposal is for an 18-lot subdivision on approximately 36.36 acres with 196 47.9% (17.42 acres) of dedicated open space. The parcel is located on Miller Road in the 197 Hillsborough Township, PIN 9875-64-5097. 198 Patrick Mallett: Next item that you have on your agenda is a major subdivision flexible development. This 199 is the preliminary plat; it's commonly known as the Stonewall Subdivision. It's off of Miller 200 Road. This was Ashley Moncado’s case but given the weather and the fact that she lives 201 far away I said I'll take this case forward for you. Unlike the previous case, this is like the 202 Lawrence Road Subdivision that you heard during the summer. It's not a zoning, it's a 203 major subdivision process. The circumstances are different, and it is meeting all the 204 requirements required in Section 7 of our UDO. That process you go from a concept plan 205 to a preliminary plan and then the final plat. The subdivision is proposing a degree of 206 open space and single-family lots. This outlines the process, this is where we are, the 207 preliminary plat, that goes on with a recommendation just like a rezoning goes to the 208 commissioners. They consider it, if approved, then a final plat is prepared with other 209 documents and recorded with land records through the register of deeds. Like I said, the 210 site is over northeast of Hillsborough off of Miller Road. This shows the pin, the township, 211 a rural site, currently it’s 36.36 acres, and the applicant is Kevin Currin, Grayrose 212 Properties. This property is actually split zoned slightly, there's, the area in green is 213 zoned rural buffer, the area in yellow is rural residential or R1. It's in the Lower Eno, 214 Unprotected watershed. There are no other overlay districts. Future land use 215 designation, rural residential, agricultural residential, this is the COCA which drives what 216 they can do in terms of service and densities. The summary of the subdivision is flexible 217 development plan, so it has a road, common open space, they're proposing a total of 18 218 lots. The average lot size is 40,012 square feet, that's just under, that's pretty close to an 219 acre. The area in open space is 17.42 acres, that totals 47.9 percent in open space. 220 There's a breakout of the open space in primary and secondary, you may recall, last go 221 round with the major subdivision we had different tiers of open space, primary open space 222 is intended to preserve naturally sensitive areas, steep slopes, stream buffers, areas of 223 historical or cultural significance and then secondary open space which can be used for 224 more active like uses. The buffers and setbacks 40 feet from the rights-of-way including 225 the new road that they would build 20 feet from the sides and the rear and a 30 -foot type 226 B buffer. There's also a perimeter building setback of a hundred feet. Access would be 227 via a 50-foot public right-of-way and it's a DOT ultimately accepted road. They'd be 228 served with individuals wells and septic systems, and they're making a payment in lieu for 229 their park and rec fee. That's pretty standard with these types of subdivisions. This is the 230 overall layout, you can see they're basically drawing a singular road, terminating in a cul-231 Approved 9.4.24 du-sac with single family lots flanking it and then open space around the perimeter and to 232 the rear, that round object at the end of the cul-du-sac is a storm water control measure, 233 an SCM that would account for their pre-post runoff in terms of water volume runoff and 234 nutrient removal. This is where we are in the planning board process. As I said, it would 235 move on to the board of county commissioners. Staff analysis is the application was 236 deemed complete. We determined the property is sufficient size, that it meets all the 237 requirements of the subdivision section, Article 7 of UDO, and staff supports the approval 238 of the flexible development option contained in Attachment 1. Plan director recommends 239 that you receive the application, recommend approval for the preliminary plat as 240 submitted. Any questions for me? 241 Adam Beeman: One person from the public wants to speak. 242 Jamie Cox: Hi again, thanks for allowing me to speak. I'm Jamie Cox, owner of the adjoining property 243 at the end of the cul-du-sac. Just wanted to mark a couple of things for the record. 244 Appreciate the additional analysis that was done on the soils for the property. I think 245 that’s very helpful. Didn't exactly answer the concern we had about the impact to the well 246 on adjoining property so just wanted again to note that for the record. The other is that 247 the preliminary plat shows the electric service that actually goes over or the overhead 248 wires and then stops. It does not show the undergrounds wires that actually takes the 249 service to our property. We had asked the developer and the planning staff to consider 250 depicting the underground utility service and providing an access and utility easement 251 over that utility service to our property. We were told that's not the planning department's 252 job, which is fine, but I bring that to you since we'd like to continue to use electricity at our 253 house. But that’s our only concern other than what we've already stated, so appreciate 254 you guys. 255 Adam Beeman: Thank you. 256 Charity Kirk: Can you clarify your concern? You're concerned about the well water capacity on the 257 adjacent property. As well as you receiving electricity because there's no electrical 258 easement noted. 259 Jamie Cox: Correct. 260 Charity Kirk: Okay. 261 Jamie Cox: Well said. 262 Adam Beeman: Let's start down this way, Dolores, do you have any questions? Whitney? 263 Whitney Watson: One quick question. I believe it was presented before was the question about the 264 easement to the circular drive along the southern border of the development. Was that 265 resolved so there is road access back to your property, is that correct? 266 Jamie Cox: It's difficult to see but our property is actually served by a private driveway that runs along 267 the southern portion of the property and it's our understanding it's not included in this 268 development application, it will continue to be maintained privately, so we don't have 269 concerns about the vehicular access. The concern that I share with you now is just 270 making sure that we have utility and electric access because it's not depicted on the pla t. 271 And what we were told is that will get worked out, don't worry about it, and that's fine, but 272 since it's going to be depicted, since this is showing electric service, we'd like the 273 Approved 9.4.24 underground line shown as well and an easement over them, so we have the assurance 274 that we can continue to have electricity. Thanks. 275 Adam Beeman: I assure you if you call Duke, they'll give you a copy of that easement. 276 Jamie Cox: It's Piedmont. I’ve asked for the contact from the developer’s engineers a couple of times 277 and haven’t received any input from that, so happy to talk to Piedmont directly. 278 Adam Beeman: I'm saying because when I had to sign up years ago back in 2008 I have a copy of my box 279 that's the Duke Piedmont easement giving the right-of-way so there's going to be a 280 document that Piedmont has in their possession that says that they have a right -of-way 281 with your property so if you're really concerned about it, I'd contact Piedmont directly and 282 see if they couldn't get that information for you. 283 Jamie Cox: Yeah, absolutely happy to do it. It's more than likely going to change since they can see 284 that electricity line is going directly through one of the lots, my assumption is it'll go to one 285 side or the other, so we'd just like to see that change depicted on the plat. 286 Adam Beeman: Marilyn, any questions? 287 Marilyn Carter: Not at this moment. 288 Adam Beeman: Statler? 289 Lamar Proctor: Just so I understand, it's just an up or down approval, right? 290 Patrick Mallett: That's right, and this is not a legislative process that you're going, this is a subdivision 291 process, so you'd have to point to an element that they're not meeting as a requirement in 292 Section 7 of the UDO. 293 Lamar Proctor: Okay. And you've reviewed it, and you don't find anything inconsistent with Section 7 or 294 Article 7? 295 Patrick Mallett: That's correct. And we have worked with Mr. Cox, and we've made that aware to the 296 developer, the surveyor does a lot of work in Orange County, and really the utility provider 297 and the owner, if something goes wrong from Point A to Point B, they're on the hook to fix 298 or rectify that situation so that it doesn't disrupt service to an adjacent owner. 299 Lamar Proctor: Who is the utility provider? 300 Patrick Mallett: PEMC, Piedmont. And then with the wells and septics they're required to provide a 301 certain level of analysis to evidence that it could be supported. As an added step the 302 subdivision process gets you to the point that you can record the lots, you still have a land 303 disturbance permit that you have to factor in, you still have well permits for all the 304 individual lots that you have to get reviewed and approved by Environmental Health, you 305 still have the septic permits that have to get reviewed and approved. They've done what 306 is typical of this type of development, it is a bit of a gamble on the developer's part 307 because they don't have those permits in hand, but they obviously feel, they've done 308 enough due diligence to feel comfortable enough to proceed with the design as they 309 proposed. 310 Chris Johnston: I have no questions. 311 Adam Beeman: Charity? 312 Approved 9.4.24 Charity Kirk: I have an aside really quick about how often do wells run dry in Orange County due to 313 new developments, because this keeps coming up, this comes up in almost everything 314 where neighbors are worried about wells running dry, so just how often does it happen? 315 Patrick Mallett: I'm not Environmental Health, but I don't know of any wells running dry. I think some of the 316 issues and concerns have been over the years, is how much pressure and is there going 317 to be an impact on my well versus your well. Orange County has the subsurface, we're 318 not like a coastal plain community, there's not a, you can take it to the bank, you dig 6 feet 319 down you're going to hit the water table and so ultimately the impact, if you drill one well 320 here and one well there, they may or may not be draining from the same water source in 321 terms of quality, volume, and I can say a fair number of wells with recent development 322 have gone deeper to ensure that they've got enough of a water source and water 323 pressure. 324 Charity Kirk: Is this a health department question or who keeps track of the aquifers in the county? 325 Patrick Mallett: The health department is in charge of the wells. 326 Charity Kirk: Okay, so the health department would be aware. 327 Patrick Mallett: Yes, they are. Part of this journey to get you to this point includes staff review in the 328 planning department. We also take it to the Development Advisory Committee. All 329 development projects go through them and then they issue their memos. 330 Charity Kirk: How often does the health department flag something as being a potential problem? 331 Patrick Mallett: I can't remember a single case where they've said no, definitely, this could be a problem. 332 Charity Kirk: So, it's very much trusting the engineers who look at these, okay, thank you. 333 Patrick Mallett: It takes a lot of money to get to this point so there is some confidence and if they're wrong 334 then they're on the hook for that error. 335 Charity Kirk: That they can provide water to this property. Okay, thank you. 336 Chris Johnston: I apologize for butting in, but if it is affected, for instance, who's on the hook for that? Is it 337 the homeowner who now has the affected well or is it the nearby property that just went in 338 X, Y, Z. Do they have to prove cause? 339 Patrick Mallett: I think that that would ultimately take a journey through civil litigation and attorneys and 340 I'm not an attorney. 341 Chris Johnston: Nope, that's fine. Thank you. 342 Adam Beeman: Any other questions? 343 Lamar Proctor: I make a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat to the Board of County 344 Commissioners as submitted finding it's in conformity with Article 7 of the UDO. 345 Statler Gilfillen: Second that again. 346 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the preliminary plat. Seconded by Statler Gilfillen. 347 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 348 Approved 9.4.24 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (OVERLAY DISTRICT) - To review and make a recommendation 349 to the BOCC on a County-initiated zoning atlas amendment to amend the boundary of the 350 Watershed Protection Overlay District on two parcels located east of Dimmocks Mill Road, 351 Hillsborough within the Hillsborough Township (PINs: 9863-09-3922 and 9864-00-2205). 352 This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on September 5, 2024. 353 Patrick Mallett: We've got two more cases on the agenda; I'll handle both of those. They're fairly similar. 354 This is different than your average duck that comes before you. I'm going to give you sort 355 of a brief overview before we start. Both of these involve a staff-initiated rezoning. In 356 both cases, what they're seeking to do and we, the staff, are seeking to do is to amend 357 the watershed boundary lines. There is a process, Orange County has an adopted storm 358 water watershed overlay throughout the county. We have the delegated authority from 359 the state and EMC to manage stormwater, erosion control, stream buffers, approve 360 limitations, whether it's impervious limits or density limits based on the watersheds. The 361 watershed boundaries were also subsequently adopted and decided to create overlay 362 districts for the protected and critical portions of the watersheds on that map. The map 363 was derived at a time when mapping was not as accurate as it is today. It needed to 364 make some general assumptions based on water courses. It is by no means perfect and 365 that's recognized by the state, it's recognized by us and several engineers and surveyors. 366 So, in these two cases it was realized by the property owners that the blue line is in one 367 location, ground truth, that line actually defies the laws of physics, the ridge line is not 368 there, it's here, the water course flows this way and that way, and the ridge line defines 369 the watershed boundaries. So that's the general overview of the two cases that I'm going 370 to go through very quickly. The first one is located off Dimmocks Mill Road, you can see 371 the red star there, southwest of Hillsborough. It's in the Upper Eno Critical watershed, the 372 majority of the property. What you see in blue on this map is the mapped watershed 373 boundary line and what you see in pink off to the left is what is certified by a surveyor and 374 an engineer as the true ridge line on that property. And this would hereby amend the 375 zoning overlay, they're not requesting and we're not requesting to change the zoning 376 districts, it would still be rural residential R1, it would just change the boundary and the 377 distinction between what is in the Upper Eno Critical watershed and the Lower Eno. 378 Future land use designation, agricultural residential, rural residential on the 10-year 379 transition. Our request is to modify that boundary to the area in pink. It only applies, you 380 see an odd jog, the reason being is this property owner applied for that boundary 381 amendment and then went through the process with the state and that, prior to getting 382 here, included a petition by the property owner to us with a survey indicating, with a 383 registered surveyor's seal, recorded this is the ridge line I'm certifying that this is the ridge 384 line that's been recorded. We notified the state about that request. We also notified the 385 Board of County Commissioners, they received that request, it was then passed on to the 386 state and then passed on to the EMC. The state has acknowledged that boundary 387 change so as far as the state is concerned, that pink line is the ridge line. We're going 388 through the semantics of quite honestly just amending our overlay district to correspond 389 with that line. 390 Lamar Proctor: I had a quick question. 391 Patrick Mallett: Sure. 392 Lamar Proctor: Why just this property, why not the adjoining parcels and make it correct all the way 393 through? 394 Approved 9.4.24 Patrick Mallett: Where do you stop? I mean, it would keep going and we need to have the process start 395 with the property owner and a surveyor. You have to have a surveyed boundary and a 396 surveyor attesting to the fact that that's the ridge line and it could keep going, we have 397 some adjacent property owners and I think one of them is going to contemplate whether 398 it's worth it for him to go through the same process. It's the property to the south of this 399 one. 400 Lamar Proctor: What's the practical result of moving it in terms of property use? 401 Patrick Mallett: It's simple but nuanced. Simple question with a nuanced answer. I think for larger 402 properties, not too much. In the second case you're going to see it had a direct impact on 403 that property owner and what she wanted to do. In this case, I think it has more to do with 404 the engineer pointing out if there's any development activity on this property or the smaller 405 lot, Lot No. 2 on this survey, there are implications that would apply in terms of impervious 406 to Lot No. 2. Ultimately the land disturbing activity on these properties would require a 407 land disturbance permit, a storm water analysis and so it has more to do with, from the 408 engineer's perspective, in that analysis I want to show pre and post-development, which 409 way the water's breaking and do my analysis accordingly versus running that analysis on 410 an arbitrary line that defies the laws of physics. 411 Lamar Proctor: Got it, thank you. 412 Patrick Mallett: Staff has determined the application is complete, staff reviewed the considerations of the 413 request, and it adheres to the principles of the Orange County 2030 comprehensive plan. 414 We went through the notifications like we would with other rezoning requests, signs, 415 notices, and put it on our website. And this is where we are. We went through planning 416 staff review, the DAC review, comments from other departments, and then this would get 417 referred on like other zoning cases to the board of county commissioners. We 418 recommend that you receive the rezoning application deliberate on the proposals desired, 419 consider the planning director's recommendation and make a recommendation to the 420 BOCC on either a statement of consistency or statement of inconsistency in the proposed 421 attachments. Our hope is to get this before the BOCC in time for September the 5th. The 422 next case, when I stop here you can ask questions about this case, then I can move on to 423 the next one. 424 Adam Beeman: We have two members of the public that want to speak on number 9. 425 Lamar Proctor: Is that the next one? 426 Adam Beeman: This one we're on right now. 427 Jerry Blanchard: I’ll decline. All of my questions have already been answered. 428 Adam Beeman: Are you Jerry? 429 Jerry Blanchard: Yes sir. 430 Adam Beeman: The only other member was Frank. 431 Frank Cohen: I also yield my time, Patrick covered everything I had to say. 432 Adam Beeman: All right, perfect. Go ahead Charity. 433 Approved 9.4.24 Charity Kirk: Clarifying Lamar's last question, the benefit of moving it is for future development 434 purposes and it's better that it's in one watershed versus the critical watershed. But this is 435 the correct boundary. 436 Lamar Proctor: That's right, from the surveying perspective, from a reality perspective and quite honestly, 437 the way that this works, they're entitled to that ridge line that was adopted by the county 438 commissioners and affirmed by the state, so this has more to do with helping staff not 439 have an inconsistency between the boundary line and an action that's already been taken. 440 Charity Kirk: But we can just change the line without surveying every single property along it. Okay. 441 Patrick Mallett: It unfortunately needs to be on a case-by-case basis as requested. We do provide some 442 relief to the property owner in the sense that this is more of our issue on the zoning 443 amendment of the overlay and it’s a staff-initiated zoning. We're not asking them to pay 444 for what boils down to a mapping need. 445 Lamar Proctor: And I interpret your response and your answer to mean that effectively you help property 446 owners in terms of not creating some weirdly inconsistent engineering requirements for an 447 arbitrary line that doesn't follow the realities of water flow and would create headaches in 448 terms of civil engineering of any development on that particular parcel. 449 Patrick Mallett: Yes. 450 Chris Johnston: When we have a new applicant that comes before us, do they also have the survey team 451 go out to check and see where the water line actually is. 452 Patrick Mallett: That’s what happened. Prior to the zoning or that train leaving the station . 453 Chris Johnston: So, any new development that comes before us is going to amend that little line. 454 Patrick Mallett: Record it as surveyors attesting that is the true ridge line. And then we notify the state and 455 then it goes to the county commissioners on an agenda so that they can re ceive that 456 information and accept it. 457 Chris Johnston Gotcha. So, the line will fix itself as time moves on. 458 Patrick Mallett: Yeah. You're going to see probably more of these. Not a huge amount, but I can say in 459 the years that I've been here, we've run across this, this is not uncommon to see a line 460 that's like, this clearly is an error. 461 Chris Johnston Okay. 462 Patrick Mallett: In years past the path to resolve that was fairly ambiguous and muddled. I think now the 463 state is pretty clear on what they want, what we legally need to do to fix these things, so I 464 think you'll see a few more of these. 465 Chris Johnston And then my follow-up question was, so this is by a surveyor who has sealed it which I 466 assume means that they have attested by their honor or whatever the case may be, in 467 what realm would we push back on something like that? At what point would we say, no, 468 we don't think this is right because this line looks goofy or whatever? And if there would 469 never be an opportunity or reason for us to push back, why would it come to us? 470 Patrick Mallett: Because we have an overlay boundary that needs to be amended. 471 Approved 9.4.24 Chris Johnston: I see, so it's not something that could be handled by staff, it has to come before the 472 planning board, and we have to take time to review it. 473 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, we can't administratively change the watershed boundary lines. 474 Chris Johnston Okay, thank you. 475 Marilyn Carter: Is there, given that we can anticipate some more of these to happen, is there a financial 476 impact to the county that we should be planning for in supporting these changes? 477 Patrick Mallett: I guess the financial impact would be the alternative, which is something that's not exactly 478 consistent with reality and therefore gives you a skewed image of the development 479 requirements. 480 Marilyn Carter: Got it, so the county doesn't have to expend funds to correct this line. 481 Patrick Mallett: No, this is just staff time to process them. We obviously have the time, we're busy, busy, 482 busy, but this is something that needs to be done and we're doing it. 483 Marilyn Carter: Got it. Thank you. 484 Statler Gilfillen: As I'm reading and listening to the discussion, this is a little bit of the bureaucratic issue, 485 kind of a Catch-22 where you're caught. Is there not a practical solution somehow that 486 can minimize the bureaucracy of this, since it's, what I'm hearing, this is relatively cut and 487 dry. It's going to be done, but the bureaucracy is requiring a lot of your time and then 488 coming before the boards, is there a way to simplify that process? 489 Patrick Mallett: Not without exhaustive time and expense on the county's end to essentially go out and 490 systematically review the boundaries for every critical and protected watershed, and that 491 would extremely expensive. 492 Statler Gilfillen: Would it not be possible to do something so that you can just do it internally? 493 Patrick Mallett: We don't have registered surveyors. 494 Whitney Watson: Patrick, I think part of the question is you mentioned that this is not something that can be 495 administratively corrected within the planning department? What would need to happen 496 for it to be possible for planning to make these changes administratively rather than 497 having to prepare a packet and bring it before the planning board? 498 Patrick Mallett: That too, would be a radical change, so we, the county, when we adopted our watersheds 499 and we adopted them as overlays, there would have to be some consideration to change 500 that status and make it something different. That too, could be time-consuming and 501 costly. You're talking about notifications county-wide for the most part. And in the end, 502 we'd have to derive some rationale and a firm feeling that that's the right way to do these, 503 so we know what we know at this point. 504 Perdita Holtz: I was just going to put in a couple of sentences that watershed protection overlay districts 505 would have to be removed from the zoning ordinance, the UDO, as overlay districts and 506 be a standalone ordinance that doesn't require the process of planning board review and 507 a public hearing and a BOCC decision in order to amend a boundary that has been 508 surveyed. It would a big effort to take those out of the UDO, but then it would be done 509 also. 510 Approved 9.4.24 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, so it is possible, but you also have to keep in mind that even if we did do that the 511 state process requires that a registered surveyor survey the ridge line and attest to the 512 boundary, so it relieves some of the bureaucracy in terms of planning and zoning, but it 513 doesn't provide much relief for the property owner, they would still have to get a surveyor, 514 take it through, we'd have to notify the state, put it on a BOCC agenda to amend. That 515 process is above and beyond the zoning boundary. 516 Lamar Proctor: So, Perdita, what I hear you saying is to do something like that you'd have to basically 517 overhaul the UDO and the comprehensive plan, or the FLUM and change the whole 518 scheme in order to do something different. 519 Perdita Holtz: Yes, and it would be a big job. It wouldn't necessarily require notification to all property 520 owners in the county if the board of county commissioners agreed to do what's called a 521 large-scale map amendment that requires just large newspaper ads, but it would still be a 522 big effort. It would be more than 10 minutes at the planning board meeting. 523 Lamar Proctor: Thank you. And should we handle these separately? 524 Patrick Mallett: Separately, they're separate cases. I can move on and brief the other one then you'll need 525 to act separately on each case. 526 Lamar Proctor: Should we do a motion on this one? 527 Chris Johnston: Dolores still hasn't had an opportunity. 528 Dolores Bailey: No, I was just going to say, we probably need to go ahead and take a motion on this one. 529 Adam Beeman: I would prefer to settle this one and we can deal with the last one. 530 Chris Johnston: I make a motion to recommend approval and adopt the statement of consistency by 531 planning staff on Attachment 6 and the proposed ordinance and send it to the Board of 532 County Commissioners. 533 Dolores Bailey: Second. 534 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Seconded by Dolores Bailey . 535 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 536 Adam Beeman: All right, approved. 537 538 AGENDA ITEM 10: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (OVERLAY DISTRICT) - To review and make a recommendation 539 to the BOCC on a County-initiated zoning atlas amendment to amend the boundary of the 540 Watershed Protection Overlay District on a parcel located at 711 Faith Way Road, Mebane 541 within the Cheeks Township (PIN: 9835-67-1605). This item is scheduled for BOCC public 542 hearing on September 5, 2024. 543 Patrick Mallett: Because of the similarities, I'm going to skip over some of the steps here. 544 Adam Beeman: I just have one person from the public that signed up, so when we get to that point. 545 Jessica King: I’ll wait and listen to what you have to say. 546 Patrick Mallett: Okay, property owner? 547 Approved 9.4.24 Jessica King: Yes. 548 Patrick Mallett: You can correct me if I get your story wrong. This property is located on 711 Faith Way, 549 it's the Cheeks Township, it's an amendment between the Back Creek Protected and 550 Upper Eno Protected watersheds. Baseline zoning is R1 and would remain R1, the area 551 in blue is the existing overlay boundary, the area in red depicts the new boundary change 552 and with the other case it takes it to the property line then ties it back into the current 553 mapped overlay. Land use designation rural residential, this is a good point to 554 communicate what brought the property owner to here. She was essentially maxed out 555 with her impervious as it was prorated for her property for her driveway and her house. 556 Her desire was to build a modest garage and then there was the realization, well the ridge 557 line is not here, it's over here, and that change alone would allow for enough impervious 558 surface to do a small garage. Because of the way the legalities of this work, she too, just 559 like the previous case, we're already gone through that state process, the notification of 560 the board of commissioners, they've accepted it, we have since approved because we 561 legally have to accept that for permitting purposes, the true ridge line. Her garage, we 562 have signed off on that permit. The mapping that was done is kind of hard to read but it 563 basically corresponds to the previous map. Staff analysis is the application was complete, 564 the staff review, the application is considered request consistent with the Orange County 565 2030 comprehensive plan. The proper notifications were made via mail, sign postings 566 and listed on our active development web page. With the planning board level, just like 567 the other case, would get referred on with a recommendation to the Board of County 568 Commissioners. The planning director recommends to the board to receive the rezoning 569 application delivered on their proposal as desired, consider the planning director’s 570 recommendation, and make a recommendation to the BOCC on either the statement of 571 consistency, Attachment 6 or the statement inconsistency, Attachment 7, and the 572 proposed ordinance, Attachment 8 in time for the September 5th, 2024, BOCC meeting. 573 Adam Beeman: Anybody have any questions? 574 Chris Johnston: Does it matter that that line goes all the way down back to the originating line and so that 575 whole side there, does that matter in the slightest? 576 Patrick Mallett: It's the same circumstance. 577 Chris Johnston: I guess that's fair. It would be assumed that it would. 578 Patrick Mallett: The ridge line and the survey went beyond that slightly, but the reality is legally we can 579 amend it on her property, then we take it from there, but either property owner to the north 580 or south, if they felt like it benefited them and there was a need, it's a pretty compelling 581 reason to keep amending that to correspond with the ridge line. 582 Chris Johnston: I guess what I'm saying is this property owner wouldn't need to come back and then move 583 that red line back to the new line because it's along the property line, does that make 584 sense? 585 Patrick Mallett: Yeah, I understand what you're saying, there's no impact on the property owner. It's a 586 mathematical calculation and her impervious limits based on the watershed are based on 587 the amount of area on her property so, you're not going one way or another. 588 Chris Johnston: Okay. Then if the next property owner over gets a survey and finds it matches up to the 589 new line, they don't, the previous property owner doesn't need to come back and revert 590 back the line or anything along those lines, it would just continue on. 591 Approved 9.4.24 Patrick Mallett: It would theoretically just pick up where the other one left off. 592 Chris Johnston: Okay, thank you. 593 Adam Beeman: Any other questions? Do I have a motion? 594 Lamar Proctor: I move to adopt the proposed zoning change and adopt the statement of consistency in 595 Attachment 5 and the proposed ordinance and Attachment 6 as consistent with the 596 comprehensive plan and the UDO and recommend approval to the board of county 597 commissioners. 598 Adam Beeman: Do I have a second? 599 Marilyn Carter: Second. 600 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Seconded by Marilyn Carter. 601 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 602 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 603 604 Adam Beeman: I believe that's everything. Do I have a motion to adjourn? 605 Chris Johnston: I make a motion to adjourn. 606 Dolores Bailey: Second. 607 Patrick Mallett: As an administrative note, I think I had mentioned in the past, we started the process to 608 revise our telecommunications ordinance. We're basically going to gut all of that section 609 of the ordinance and get it consistent with federal and state law. That process has begun 610 and at some point, you will see, the ordinance review committee, you'll see a text change 611 amendment for telecommunications. 612 Adam Beeman: Thank you. 613 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Dolores Bailey. 614 615 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 616 617 The meeting adjourned at 7:51 PM. 618