HomeMy WebLinkAbout9_4_24 Planning Board MinutesApproved 12.4.24
MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor (Vice-Chair), 6
Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Charity Kirk, At-7
Large Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Whitney Watson, 8
At-Large Representative; Marilyn Carter, At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large 9
Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Beth Bronson, At-Large 10
Representative. 11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative. 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director – Long Range Planning 15
& Administration; Tom Altieri, Senior Planner – Long Range Planning & Administration; Jack 16
Moran, Planning Technician. 17
18 OTHERS PRESENT: None. 19
20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21
The meeting began at 7:00 PM. 22
23
Adam Beeman: We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. Welcome back, Cy. I know it's only briefly. A little 24
while longer still. 25
26
Cy Stober: Yeah. I'll be back in the saddle on the 16th. 27
28
Adam Beeman: Well, congratulations on your new addition. 29
30
Cy Stober: Thank you. 31
32 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 33
34
Adam Beeman: I don't have much to say other than the Board of County Commissioners is going to be quite busy 35
for the next 2 months. The Board of Adjustment's got a couple meetings, and we have our 36
meeting in October right there in the beginning of the month on the 2nd. 37
38
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39
40
Adam Beeman: Do I have any adjustments/corrections on the minutes from last month? 41
42
Lamar Proctor: Motion to approve the minutes. 43
44
Adam Beeman: I have a second? 45
46
Charity Kirk: Second. 47
48 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the meeting minutes. Seconded by Charity Kirk 49
50 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 51
52 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 53
54
Approved 12.4.24
Adam Beeman: Moving right along. I don't have any considerations to the agenda. There's nobody from the 55
public, and so we're just going to head on to Tom. 56
57 AGENDA ITEM 7: UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN (CLUP) – To receive an update from staff on the 58
status of the “Land Use Plan 2050” project. 59
60
Tom Altieri: Good evening. Tom Altieri, Orange County Senior Planner. My presentation this evening is 61
probably a little bit over 20 minutes. I have quite a bit to cover with the board. My presentation 62
will include a briefing on the progress of the project, and we'll be discussing the land-use 63
alternatives, which will be a part of our outreach during Engagement Window 2, which is right 64
around the corner, starting the end of the month. And then conclude with next steps and so forth. 65
Jumping right into project progress, we're currently in Phase 4, which happens to be the longest 66
phase of the project. The purpose of it is to develop the draft plan. It includes both the second 67
and third windows of outreach during the project. The diagram here shows the entire project 68
spanning approximately 26 months. We are currently working with Clarion Associates on a 69
contract amendment to extend the project to 31 months. This is to accommodate some additional 70
outreach we are anticipating during that third engagement window when we'll have a draft plan, 71
and then also to better fit the county's calendar; primarily, the summer Board of County 72
Commissioners meeting break, but also around the holidays and so forth. So, it will last a little bit 73
longer than the original contract, and a little bit more on that later. This slide shows the work that 74
has been completed and that that is underway. The consultants' last report to the planning board 75
was back in February, and it did include an update on the Phase 2 and Phase 3 deliverables, so 76
those should probably sound a little bit familiar. And of course, work underway, which would be 77
new to the board, would be the planning for our next engagement window, development of 78
framework, vision, and goals. The draft land-use and development recommendations report, 79
which is a new deliverable that has just been posted on the project website; I'll have more on that 80
in just a moment. And then drafting plan policies and actions; again, all leading up to the input 81
that we will receive during the next engagement window. The Community Engagement Window 1 82
summary report, you have seen that. It does provide the foundation for our work during the 83
current phase, Phase 4. It is on the project website, as are all of the consultants' deliverables. 84
The new issues and opportunities report that includes, or rather, it synthesizes the critical issues 85
and opportunities identified during the first three phases of the project, also providing the 86
foundation for our upcoming work in development of the plan. And then the fact book, which 87
shares the data and the trends on community planning topics and future planning influences that 88
are important considerations for developing the planning policies. And it includes the data 89
analysis that was shared during our first engagement window and the workshop, so you've seen 90
that and are familiar with it. The land-use alternatives evaluations report, this is the report I 91
mentioned which is new and has been posted on the website. It has not been presented to the 92
county commissioners yet; it will be at their work session next week. But it is available there on 93
the website. I'd encourage you to take a look at it. A little more on that coming here in a moment. 94
But it shares the methodology and outcomes of land-use alternatives, process used to 95
development policy guidance, and the conservation and growth map, and that is what we are 96
calling the future land-use map, so you'll very often see those two terms together. The report 97
describes the modeling process, technical inputs/outputs, methods of receiving feedback from the 98
public, and then how that feedback will be used to shape the final draft plan heading into public 99
hearing. So, what are the land-use alternatives? Of course, the image on the left is the future 100
land-use map that you're familiar with. It will take that map and build off of the current policies and 101
then explore alternatives, testing hypothetical future land-use policies. There are four alternatives, 102
and more on those, four maps. Essentially, I will discuss what are some of the characteristics of 103
those maps and the policies that are considered to build those maps. And then the alternatives 104
and the input that we receive will inform the selection for a preferred policy approach in the draft 105
plan. A couple key terms: Alternatives and scenarios mean the same thing. And, again, 106
conservation and growth framework, that's the thematic title for the future land-use map and the 107
categories. So, what is the purpose and intent of the alternatives? They are to model 108
Approved 12.4.24
hypothetical future land-use policy alternatives for the county's jurisdiction and assess outcomes. 109
And then share outcomes of alternatives modeling with county leadership and the public to collect 110
feedback for development of the plan. The point at the bottom in blue is important. We expect 111
that what will ultimately be the draft future land-use map will be some combination of these 112
different alternatives. So, the way that outreach is structured, we want to know what people like 113
and dislike about each of the alternatives so that we can develop one draft growth and 114
conservation framework, future land-use map. So, it's not a matter of saying, I like Alternative 2, I 115
like Alternative 4. It's going to be what we like and dislike about each of those alternatives. A little 116
about the process of creating alternatives. We looked at identifying areas where we might want to 117
see change, largely areas near municipalities outside of our water supply watersheds, maybe 118
away from some of our prime agricultural soils, for example. Explore the potential land-use 119
alternatives for those areas, evaluate outcomes of those changes, and then, again, to inform the 120
policies and land-use changes needed to support the desires outcomes. A little redundant here, 121
but maybe this graphic strikes home in a little different way. We're using a computer to model the 122
alternatives and generate outputs. We'll be sharing and collecting information from the public. 123
We use that information to refine the planned goals and policies and then adjust the future land-124
use map. So, a little on the process. Again, receiving initial public inputs on the plan, vision, and 125
goals. We've done that. Looking at existing conditions and planning influences, and that analysis, 126
developing the alternatives, collecting public input, and then ultimately developing the draft plan. 127
The approach to the alternatives is an exploratory process, and the critical community topics, 128
overwhelmingly, that we heard from the public during the first engagement window, all very 129
familiar to the planning board; natural resources and agricultural lands protection, creating more 130
affordable housing, reducing carbon footprint and vehicle miles traveled, and support for public 131
transit, and of course, economic equity and jobs creation. So, a little bit about a “key question”. 132
When people are reviewing the land-use alternatives, we want them to form their opinions and 133
provide input through a similar lens. The purpose of having a key question is to focus effort so all 134
groups involved have a common understanding of purpose and intent. It focuses analysis to 135
ensure that the testing includes a manageable number of variables and results in meaningful 136
outcomes and serves as a beacon during the development of the alternatives, when other 137
questions tend to creep in. I will share the key question that has been developed on the next slide 138
here. So, what went into identifying the key question? What specific question do we want the 139
land-use alternatives to answer? Or put another way: What is the critical land-use planning 140
question that would benefit from alternative analysis and testing with the public? So, this is our 141
key question. The county commissioners received this at their April work session so they've seen 142
it. And the question is: Which aspects of the land-use alternatives best achieve the balance of 143
sustainable development in Orange County? So, when we're asking the public to look at each of 144
these alternatives, we're trying to frame it in a way so that they could provide input, and this is the 145
question we want them to keep in their minds as they do that and look at each of the alternatives. 146
Key influences to consider during the development of the alternatives were the climate action plan 147
and our countywide strategic plan that was fairly recently completed. Also, the findings that are 148
included in the fact book, and of course data. I mentioned our water supply, watersheds earlier, 149
and other data, the prime agricultural soils and so forth. So, these are the four recommended 150
alternatives what we're calling each of them. I'll get into each of those with a separate slide, so I 151
won't read this slide. Alternative 1, that's really the no-change scenario, so it would be largely 152
continuing with the currently adopted future land-use map and our current zoning densities, with 153
just some minor adjustments; those being our current future land-use map is not a parcel-based 154
map. It's really a carryover going all the way back to 1981, and that's why you see, and we've 155
talked about, why the nodes are circles. So, we're looking to convert that map to a parcel-based 156
map. And then there are a few of the categories that are very similar and could be combined. So 157
those are some of the things that Alternative 1 would include, but largely, no change. So 158
Alternative 2 would be to enhance our agricultural and environmental protections, and the policies 159
to be tested for that alternative would be lowering densities to protect priority agricultural, 160
environmental watershed, and rural lands; the assumption that new, affordable, denser housing is 161
accommodated within the municipalities; and potentially that we could eliminate some of the rural 162
community activity nodes that are not currently developed. So, we're using the word policies that 163
Approved 12.4.24
we're testing. I think you could also say these are the characteristics of each alternative map. 164
Alternative 3: Add low-impact mixed-use neighborhoods in strategic locations. This would be a 165
focus on creating conservation subdivisions that could include a mix of housing types and possibly 166
neighborhoods serving commercial areas. As the board knows, we do have, currently, the 167
provisions for flexible developments within our unified development ordinance, so we have 168
conservation subdivisions now. What would be tested here is really a denser version, so smaller 169
lots, higher open-space requirements, and we don't currently really have an example on the 170
ground of that type of a development. I think probably the best example would be the Fiddlehead 171
Corners project as being a type of relatively higher density, mixed-use neighborhood, so that type 172
of a development is what is being communicated through Alternative 3. And then of course 173
protect key ecological viable areas of each site. Will likely require municipal utility services or 174
certainly community systems to serve such a development. And identify locations within county's 175
jurisdiction near municipalities and outside of our water supply watershed critical areas, and 176
potentially testing those locations also in the rural buffer area. I'm going to skip through this. 177
You're familiar with this. Just a graphic example showing a conservation subdivision, more open 178
space and denser development, smaller lots. So, Alternative 4 adds higher-intensity mixed-use 179
centers in strategic locations. So that would be focus on maximizing available land that could 180
include a mix of housing types and commercial employment areas; protect currently required 181
areas such as our Resource Protection Areas, RPA. They will require municipal utility services to 182
serve development. Community systems may be an option. And identify locations within the 183
county's jurisdiction near municipalities and outside of our critical areas. And, again, potential 184
testing of locations in the rural buffer. 185
186
Charity Kirk: Can I ask a clarifying question? The difference between Alt 3 and Alt 4 is more the commercial 187
aspect of it? 188
189
Tom Altieri: More the commercial aspect, and more intense. There's an example. It's an aerial photograph. 190
It's of Southern Village. So that's the example that the consultant has used as an aerial image. 191
So, Fiddlehead, Alternative 3, and a Southern Village type development with Alternative 4. 192
193
Adam Beeman: Where's the water coming from? 194
195
Tom Altieri: I'm sorry? 196
197
Tom Altieri: Where it says a lot of these options need to be close to or could use municipal utilities, so that is 198
where the public water and sewer would be coming from in that Alternative. 199
200
Charity Krik: It said community services, too. It said community services as well. 201
202
Adam Beeman: Yeah, I know, but I'm not really a fan of going down that avenue because then we have multiple 203
people dealing with sewage around the county that may or may not keep up on their task. I prefer 204
that to be a governmental operation. But I'm just curious to know if there's a plan down the road, if 205
we go that route, if they plan on increasing their capacities. 206
207
Tom Altieri: We mentioned the use of community systems. We know what those are. But to achieve some of 208
these alternatives, we'd need a public utility provider. Orange County is not a utility provider, so 209
we would need those partnerships, and they would need to agree to serve it. So, this is where I 210
said I wanted to just stop for questions. I've only got two slides after this, about what's coming 211
next, a little bit about outreach. So, additional questions on what I've presented thus far? 212
213
Marilyn Carter: Just a quick question. I know, Tom, you're going to mention the upcoming sessions for 214
community engagement. I imagine that the testing that you're talking about as part of the 215
engagement is going to happen in those sessions coming up? 216
217
Tom Altieri: It is. 218
Approved 12.4.24
219
Marilyn Carter: Okay. 220
221
Tom Altieri: It's similar in a way to our first engagement window. So have a kickoff, in-person meetings, online 222
engagement, and we will be having two surveys. If you recall, we had good survey participation 223
from those that attended our meetings and completed them in person. Participation was not so 224
hot online, and so a short survey has been developed as well, and one that's a little bit longer. It's 225
pretty detailed information on each of the alternatives, but we want to get feedback from as many 226
people as we can, so we do have two surveys, and we're also doing some tabling events, and last 227
Fridays, and festivals and that type of thing during our engagement window. We know we can't hit 228
somebody with a 15- or 20-minute survey at those types of events, so something short that they 229
can complete in 5 minutes. 230
231
Dolores Bailey: Tom, I have two questions back towards what you just talked about. Are you doing anything 232
different as you're reaching out to different communities so that you can get some response? 233
234
Tom Altieri: Yes, we are. We've got two public workshop engagement meetings that are coming up that we've 235
started advertising and that Community Relations is pushing out through county notices all over; 236
on the website, social media accounts and so forth. And you'll notice these meeting locations are 237
in kind of strategic areas, so we've had a lot of growth pressure from the west from Mebane along 238
West 10 Road in the area of Gravelly Hill Middle School, some of the developments that have 239
gone in there. And so, one of our meetings will be at that school in the auditorium. We're sending 240
out first-class mail notification to about 1,000 property owners that live within the area of the 241
school, hoping that will help attendance at the meeting. And then of course the American Legion 242
post, if you're familiar with that, that's down in the southwestern part of the county down near 243
White Cross. Again, in the area of the Fiddlehead Corners development proposal. So, we think 244
those, we know those should be pretty well attended. Hard-to-reach communities, I've been 245
working more directly with some community leaders to host meetings. I mentioned that we'd be 246
working on a contract amendment. We do anticipate doing additional meetings and have started 247
planning for those, and it's really more of a grassroots effort to notification, so it's not the model of 248
county staff advertising for a meeting in a county facility, the agricultural center for example, and 249
sending out notices to everyone and just hope and pray that someone comes. We’re working with 250
the community leaders for them to host and for them to invite the right people, those within their 251
communities, to the meetings. We’re going to have some success and we’ll be able to provide 252
more information on that shortly. 253
254
Dolores Bailey: Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I also want to make sure we're covering 255
minority communities around this area, making sure that they get their voices heard as well. My 256
second question is about the mixed housing use that you talked about. Give me some examples 257
of that, please. 258
259
Tom Altieri: This would be potentially higher density, smaller lots, a mix of residential, potentially townhomes, 260
and some services, businesses that would serve the neighboring area. 261
262
Dolores Bailey: And we're talking home ownership and rental? 263
264
Tom Altieri: Potentially. We haven't really gotten to that granular level of detail about exactly what it would 265
look like. The modeling has been primarily on putting it in the right places, on density, and then 266
for each alternative, how much capacity would we have in the county, based on land area, for that 267
development. And not just residential capacity, but also non-residential square footage. 268
269
Cy Stober: If I may, we're really focusing on the land use, and the model really focuses on the number of units 270
that would be generated, so like Tom said, that granular level of ownership model or affordability, 271
and how this comprehensive plan will integrate or interact with the adopted strategic plan and the 272
housing goals that are established in it, will be something to determine politically by the county 273
Approved 12.4.24
and how the county can participate in realizing such projects and/or by the private sector as well 274
and what type of projects are brought to the county. And, certainly, if there are some carrots out 275
there to make the type of projects that you're proposing, Ms. Bailey, with integration of more rental 276
units and affordable units – they're not necessarily the same; Downtown Durham can tell you that, 277
as can Downtown Hillsborough – that that's to be determined, and that can be spoken to in more 278
of the policy framework that could be part of this comprehensive land-use plan. But the modeling, 279
the scenarios that we're looking at right now really are focusing on the amount of square footage 280
of non-residential space and the number of residential units that could be generated if we pulled 281
really hard on these political value levers to envision the future. 282
283
Tom Altieri: If I could just tack onto that real quick. As part of the consultants' contract, they are to provide 284
some type of a tool to link the future land-use map categories to our zoning districts. We're 285
currently calling it a matrix. The new tool, we don't have that yet, so that will provide more detail 286
about the specifics and how it relates to zoning districts. 287
288
Dolores Bailey: Thank you. 289
290
Chris Johnston: I had a point of clarification, so the conservation and growth map versus the future land-use map, 291
I'm just confused a little about is that just a name specifically for this plan, or is that that we're 292
changing the terminology in terms of outside of the 2050 plan? So, the phrase conservation and 293
growth map came up a number of times, and I'm just trying to understand how that fits in and why 294
we're changing that terminology if we have to continually go in and say future land-use map. 295
296
Tom Altieri: So, we don't have to change it. 297
298
Chris Johnston: Okay. 299
300
Tom Altieri: The consultant used the term. And so, we said, well, people aren't going to relate initially to that, 301
so we better put in parentheses future land-use map so that they know what we're talking about. 302
But we don't have to change the name. 303
304
Chris Johnston: One of the things that I feel like comes up a lot in these documents is we get so acronym-y, which 305
isn't a word. We get deep into the acronyms, where we're adding these acronyms, and then we're 306
adding descriptors to the acronyms, and then part of this process feels like we're trying to make it 307
more accessible, but at the same time, we're adding layers upon layers, and it can just get 308
dangerous. One other thing I wanted to ask in regard to, the community engagement meetings 309
are both on weekdays, right. There's no weekend one that's coming up for the next community 310
engagement meetings. Are there plans to have weekend meetings for the future ones? 311
312
Tom Altieri: So, I mentioned we're doing some of the local events, fairs and some of those opportunities. 313
Some of those are on weekends. We've already had two weekend events. We went to the back-314
to-school Efland-Cheeks Community Center. That was on a Saturday. And we went to the Latino 315
Americano Festival in Carrboro. That was on a Sunday. So, we're doing weekends, too. And the 316
idea is just to kinda mix it up so we're able to work around people's schedules, and then there's 317
the online engagement survey, of course. 318
319
Chris Johnston: Okay. That was going to be my next question as well is when we had initially talked about 320
outreach and how we were reaching out to people about this, we had mentioned things like Hog 321
Day or whatever the case may be, and the issue came up that that's in the municipalities. It's not 322
necessarily if you participate in Hog Day, you may not be affected by the 2050 plan. Was that 323
decision just a necessity of trying to get additional people to be interested? 324
325
Tom Altieri: One of the first things we ask when we engage people at one of these events is, "Do you live in 326
Orange County?" If they say no, we're kinda like, well, if you're not familiar with the county, you're 327
Approved 12.4.24
probably not too interested in this. This is about a county land-use plan, blah, blah, blah, and 328
they're like, okay, thank you, cool map. And they move on. 329
330
Chris Johnston: Right. 331
332
Tom Altieri: Typically. Maybe take a piece of candy. But if they do live in Orange County, then we engage 333
with them differently and encourage them to take the survey. 334
335
Chris Johnston: Perfect. 336
337
Tom Altieri: The online survey hasn't opened yet. It doesn't open until September 18th. And since we've 338
started attending some events already, we were taking paper copies, and when the survey opens, 339
we'll just manually input those. And we did well. We got over 40 surveys at the Latino Americano 340
Festival. Half of them were completed in Spanish. We did have an interpreter there with us for 341
about half of the festival. Jack was there too, speaks a little bit of Spanish. And all of the 342
materials were available in Spanish there. And our relationship there was with El Centro Hispano, 343
and they've been very helpful. 344
345
Chris Johnston: And that was going to be my final question, and I apologize, Whitney; sorry about taking up all the 346
time. In regard to the community engagement meetings, is there going to be any kind of childcare 347
or multilingual capabilities for those meetings for people who might need those services? 348
349
Tom Altieri: So, for the targeted meetings El Centro Hispano, for example, they'll have their interpreters on 350
site. That's just part of the arrangement that we've made with them. And then for these two 351
workshop meetings, for example, that are more general public, we've advertised that if you need 352
those services to let us know, we'll provide them. So that's how that's been handled. As far as 353
daycare aspects and that type of thing, we haven't gotten into that. 354
355
Chris Johnston: That's perfect. I just wanted to clarify on that. 356
357
Adam Beeman: Whitney. 358
359
Whitney Watson: Thank you. So, I am really interested in how the consultants and how the planning staff have 360
been engaging with the leadership from the various municipalities involved and whether it's at the 361
planning department level or if it's at the council level. Because that's really different folks. 362
363
Tom Altieri: You'll recall, during Community Engagement Window 1, the consultant had stakeholder 364
interviews, and there were county elected officials, or Board of County Commissioners and 365
planning directors from the municipalities. At that point in time, there was not interviews of 366
city/town elected officials. There was an attempt at a survey that did go out. Survey from 367
Community Engagement Window 1 that was distributed to all of the elected officials of the 368
municipalities, encouraging them to participate and return a survey. I believe that went via 369
manager to managers to elected officials, and the response rate was quite low, although we did 370
get some response. 371
372
Whitney Watson: Well, to be very transparent about it, when I look at the alternative maps and see the projected 373
changes and development for the western edge of Orange County, I'm very concerned, and I'm 374
wondering if the Mebane elected officials are looking at this at all or thinking that they are perhaps 375
going to continue to go about their merry way and do what they want. 376
377
Tom Altieri: I can't speak to that. We are certainly considering the municipal plans, and they are kind of built 378
into the alternatives. We do know urban services boundaries. Town of Hillsborough has recently 379
updated its urban services area through its comprehensive sustainability plan, so we're 380
synchronizing with the outer boundary of that boundary. And also, Mebane has recently updated 381
its urban services boundary and has just engaged with a consultant to update its land-use plan to 382
Approved 12.4.24
cover the additional area, which is pretty extensive. So, we're not there yet, we'll see how that 383
goes. I had mentioned that the information that you've received tonight, our commissioners have 384
seen, and so we know that there are varied opinions, even on our Board of County 385
Commissioners about the alternatives in general and growth and so forth. But they have asked us 386
to test the policies, and so that's what we're doing. 387
388
Whitney Watson: One follow-up question about the upcoming community engagement meetings. Both of these are 389
on the western side of Orange County. The decision was made not to hold an engagement 390
meeting in the eastern portion of Orange County? 391
392
Tom Altieri: I don't know that it was a conscious decision to avoid a particular area. There happened to be 393
meeting facilities in these areas, and they're areas where we feel like there's going to be local 394
interest, as there have been people, for example your last planning board meeting, where we had 395
quite a number of people with familiarity with the area around White Cross and in the Dollar 396
General that proceeded it. We have a third engagement window, and we'll look into moving these 397
around, but when we find what works, we may have a tendency to go back. That's one thing, 398
meeting with a few of the community leaders, that I've heard, which is, "Are you coming out here 399
to see us once and then you're gone, or are you going to come back, Tom?" So that's a 400
consideration as well, but really not a deliberate attempt to avoid any particular areas. We started, 401
very early on, looking at census maps and demographics and trying to see where concentrations 402
of populations were and how that aligned with where we have meeting spaces. I wish we had 403
more meeting spaces, but we'll work with what we have. And we have noticed, again, we meet in 404
county facilities and just invite people to come. That hasn't seemed to work, so we're trying to 405
meet out in some different areas with partnering hosts. 406
407
Whitney Watson: Okay. Thank you. 408
409
Adam Beeman: Statler? 410
411
Statler Gilfillen: As an architect who's done a lot of planning, there seem to be three standards. There are four 412
standards that I've developed, but there are three of them that are most common in the zoning, 413
typically. One would be the isolated housing to the suburban development. The second would be 414
the duplex to the row housing. The third would be the apartment to the high rise, each relying 415
upon a density. The fourth one that is very difficult, often, in American zoning is based on a 416
European village concept, which is kind of a mixture of a lot of things. If I'm reading what you're 417
saying, what you're trying to promote here is actually might allow that European model to come in 418
where you can have a clustered village, fairly tight density, mixed types of uses from tiny 419
apartment to duplexes to single family, all within a clustered area, with open land guaranteed to be 420
left around it. Am I right that this would be promoting that more? 421
422
Tom Altieri: I would say yes that concept is what we want to collect feedback on. Promoting, per se, not 423
necessarily promoting any of the alternatives, but presenting them to collect input and feedback to 424
guide the development of the draft plan. 425
426
Statler Gilfillen: Perhaps I can talk to you later about that. I may have some things that can be helpful. 427
428
Tom Altieri: Certainly. 429
430
Cy Stober: Well, on that point, I just want to make clear that the most constructive input you can have is 431
commenting on the scenarios themselves, as planning board members, and providing that input 432
on what you think either formally as a planning board member or as a member of, as a resident of 433
the county. That's the most constructive way to guide this process. Please. 434
435
Charity Kirk: I have some tangential questions, because it seems like this is all about how we want to develop 436
and grow the county, which is a little bit against the rural buffer idea and keeping things in the 437
Approved 12.4.24
towns. So, are you looking at extending the municipality boundaries so that they just take care of 438
the poop, or how would you encourage a new town somewhere to focus development? Like in 439
this day and age, are new towns even possible? 440
441
Tom Altieri: These are all great questions, and we're looking for feedback on these things. And what our 442
community members think? 443
444
Charity Kirk: So, the rural buffer is under question. 445
446
Tom Altieri: Well, potentially. 447
448
Charity Kirk: Okay. All right. Thank you. 449
450
Cy Stober: I've spoken about this before, and I'll maintain my personal and professional position, but I also 451
think the county department's position. If we do not ask the question, "Is the rural buffer serving 452
the county's goals?" we as planners, we're being cowardly, and we're not doing our jobs. The 453
answer may be it is doing a great job and we need to maintain it, or may even need to expand it or 454
strengthen it. That's fine. That's great feedback. It also may be it's not working as intended and 455
needs some modification, or we want to get rid of it. I mean, those are extremes. But we need to 456
ask the question, and we need to have it documented what the answer generally is. And I would 457
also note, as Tom covered in Scenario 2, that is very much an open-space agricultural protection 458
scenario. Frankly, and then we have Scenario 1, which is the business-as-usual model, which is 459
largely the framework of growth and development in the county, and preservation and protection is 460
maintained as it is today. 461
462
Charity Kirk: Are you specifically asking about the rural buffer in your questions, or is it just sort of one of the 463
options? Because that seems to be at least sort of a thing around the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area, 464
like people know that term. 465
466
Tom Altieri: The consultant will be presenting the maps to the county commissioners at their September 10th 467
work session. The maps are in the report that I mentioned, so you'll be able to see them very 468
soon. And one of the areas that is addressed in that Alternative 4 was the mixed-use center. We 469
mentioned Southern Village as a potential example. That would be one of the areas that is shown 470
on the map as the area around Blackwood Station on new NC-86, for example. So, that area 471
would extend into what is currently the rural buffer. 472
473
Charity Kirk: Because the sewer question is a very interesting applicable question to the rural buffer area and 474
how we take care of our waste. 475
476
Tom Altieri: Right. 477
478
Adam Beeman: Anybody else have any other questions? 479
480
Beth Bronson: Tom, I apologize. I did not hear the four descriptions. I have reviewed the maps, but I did not 481
hear your descriptions, so I appreciate it. I had a question about Land-Use Alternative 3 versus 4. 482
You see, up new 86, I guess? So, it goes along 40 outside, between basically new 86 and 15-483
501. Just trying to make sure I understand. It's a rural conservation neighborhood, along, versus 484
mixed-use area in the Land Alternative 4. It's that density between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. 485
486
Tom Altieri: I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the question. And I don't have the benefit of seeing the map. 487
488
Beth Bronson: Oh, you guys don't have maps? 489
490
Tom Altieri: No, the maps aren't part of the presentation. No. 491
492
Approved 12.4.24
Beth Bronson: Apologies. I thought that that's what you were asking for feedback on. 493
494
Tom Altieri: No, that's where we're going with upcoming public outreach. 495
496
Beth Bronson: Yep. We'll get there. The only other question I had was an opportunity to let the public see that 497
you're engaging with the municipalities. And I understand emailing back and forth to managers 498
and making people aware that, Mebane letting the county know that they're hiring a consultant, 499
Orange County letting Mebane know that they've hired a consultant. However, I mean, in the 500
instance of Hillsborough or, as Charity mentioned, the incorporation of Efland, for instance. 501
Things like that, I think, seeing that type of engagement in a public forum between planning staff 502
and the commissioners, or planning staff and other municipalities, would give this opportunity for 503
the public engagement, because their officials are hearing it and receiving it on their behalf. And 504
then maybe more feedback from that. 505
506
Tom Altieri: I'm hearing the point. So is the planning director. We're working our way through a contract and 507
scope of services and a process that has been approved by our board. 508
509
Beth Bronson: Okay. So, you're saying there's no funding for going out and asking to be on the agendas of other 510
councils' meetings just for presentation, for information presentations? Okay. And that's 511
understandable. I don't know if it's common or not. Thanks. 512
513
Lamar Proctor: Just a quick question about the land-use alternatives map. How do you define, what is 514
"urbanizing residential"? 515
516
Tom Altieri: So, without the benefit of the map, I mentioned Mebane is expanding its utility service boundary. 517
It's not necessarily that they're going to be extending water and sewer lines immediately, but this 518
is the area that they could potentially see themselves growing in the somewhat distant future. So, 519
when we're thinking of our existing future land-use map, we have areas that aren't agricultural 520
residential, rural residential. They're not green, they're not yellow on the map. Transition areas. 521
So, think around, maybe around Efland, the 10- and 20-year transition areas, they're kinda the 522
khaki-orange type colors on the future land-use map. And originally it was envisioned that they 523
may have public utilities someday. So urbanizing residential would be an area in the county 524
jurisdiction that would also be potentially within Mebane's utility services area. So, it is a little 525
different from what you are all used to in terms of agricultural residential or rural residential. 526
527
Lamar Proctor: Okay, thank you. 528
529
Tom Altieri: You're welcome. Yeah, some of this will make a little more sense when we get there and you can 530
have the benefit of the maps and the descriptions, and also the criteria. 531
532
Marilyn Carter: Tom, just a quick question. You had referenced the contract discussions with the consultant 533
happening or have happened perhaps. Can you just give us a brief update? I saw in the packet; 534
we're not being asked to consider or provide input on that. That's already been decided by the 535
commissioners. Is that right? 536
537
Tom Altieri: It has not been decided by the commissioners, but they have mentioned that they wanted to do a 538
better job reaching some of the targeted communities and to try to do some things differently. And 539
so, it is to address that. It would be our second contract amendment. There's been one already, 540
and that was to accommodate additional Board of County Commissioners meetings, largely 541
bimonthly meetings, so that was done shortly after the original contract was approved. And then 542
this would be our second contract amendment, more specific to outreach. Also, testing the four 543
alternatives with the public. The original contract included the release of just one draft growth and 544
conservation framework map, future land-use map to the public, and it was decided during the 545
process that the staff team didn't want to make the decision in the narrowing of the four 546
alternatives to create one draft. So testing the alternatives with the public is now being done as 547
Approved 12.4.24
well. And then, again, I mentioned just the extension of the calendar. Additional meetings with 548
the county commissioners take preparation and feedback, and sometimes go in a little bit different 549
direction, so that equates to time as well. 550
551
Adam Beeman: Any other questions? 552
553
Beth Bronson: Are they doing another Facebook or another ad campaign that's in the included budget for the 554
second outreach, or is this second outreach part of the contract amendment? 555
556
Tom Altieri: So, the county is doing all the notification. 557
558
Beth Bronson: So, then you guys are planning to do another? I will say that when we spoke back about the 559
interactive map and I suggested leaving it up throughout this process or leaving the surveys up 560
throughout the longer period – and if you are going to be putting new online interactive maps up, 561
that's totally different. But by saying that like, by leaving up an aggregate of answers and then just 562
saying, for the purposes of these results, all answers received by August 25th were included. And 563
then at the next time, you can just include or cite a snapshot of what answers were included. Is 564
that a way to save time or energy to keep these resources up that maybe aren't being utilized very 565
much now but, in 6 months, may be heavily trafficked? 566
567
Tom Altieri: Not sure I'm totally understanding the question. There is a kickoff to the engagement window and 568
then a closing of the engagement window, and it's like September 18th the survey goes live, and 569
then it'll be shut down November 3rd. Then that's when the consultant has to consider the input 570
that's received to then use it to go to the next step and develop the draft plan and draft policies. 571
And then that would be released for the third engagement window. 572
573
Beth Bronson: Okay. So, it would just be this one. 574
575
Tom Altieri: Yes. 576
577
Cy Stober: To re-emphasize, this is a one-way trip, so the feedback we receive is on the road map. You 578
know, we're not revisiting these points. We are collecting the feedback, and we're preserving it, 579
and we are asking for the public's trust that we do have it. And it will be collected, and I think 580
we've got good evidence from Clarion that they're summarizing it in reports to the county, and 581
that's how it's being collected. There will be further opportunities for participation, but we don't 582
want to confuse the matter. We certainly want people to think that we're revisiting topics that, to 583
our minds as professionals, have been resolved and, good, bad, in between, we're moving 584
forward with. 585
586
Beth Bronson: And that does make sense. Maybe just a suggestion for the planning board that we could add it 587
as an agenda item over the next couple months after, like in between the second and third 588
engagement window, there might be an opportunity where we can talk about this as an either an 589
information topic, and I'm not requiring you to necessarily come and present on everything, but for 590
us to have a discussion about anything we've thought about or talked about. It would give a public 591
forum setting. So, I don't know if you guys are interested in that or how we would make a motion 592
to discuss that further or later with the planning staff, but having more informal and, I think, open 593
conversations in this public setting is a way that we can participate together. I just wanted to put 594
that out there. 595
596
Dolores Bailey: Tom, you mentioned earlier local leaders. Are you in touch with African American leaders, and 597
who are some of those that you are reaching out to? Clarion, right? Clarion is doing the 598
reaching? 599
600
Tom Altieri: Yeah, I'm doing that. 601
602
Approved 12.4.24
Dolores Bailey: Okay. 603
604
Chris Johnston: I'm sorry. Point of clarification, one of the subcontractors was specifically brought on board to do 605
that kind of outreach. It sounds like, are you specifically doing this outreach above and beyond? 606
I'm sorry. We're getting off topic here, and I don't mean to get into the process, but wasn't that 607
part of the process? Sorry. 608
609
Tom Altieri: First question. Renee Price has been steering me to the right people. And had a couple of 610
meetings already, and it's gotten beyond phone calls. To build the trust, you have to meet face to 611
face, which I've done a few times. And so, we'll have some success. Let's see, your question 612
again? I'm sorry, Chris. You asked about our DEI consultant, and that's a subcontractor of 613
Clarion. 614
615
Chris Johnston: Right. 616
617
Tom Altieri: They will be helping with these meetings. However, the mass emails that went out to all of those 618
that were added to the database, which was part of the sub-consultant's work was to develop a 619
database. There's hundreds of emails and phone numbers in it, and they were all notified of our 620
meetings, and it resulted in, well, little to no turnout. What we need is relationships with these 621
organizations. And it's a process. When I tried to call them or email them, I didn't always get a 622
response, so it's about trying to find the right leader to get you connected with an introduction so 623
that I can make a warm call and not a cold call. And then begin from there and why I think this 624
process is important and important to your community and worth your time, and to go from there. 625
Because it's quite a process, you know, to ask somebody, please host us. And to some degree, it 626
would put your reputation out there, invite your community to come. And that's why I said, as we 627
have success, we may go back to some of the same communities, some of the same meeting 628
locations if there's interest in us doing that so we can get additional feedback. 629
630
Chris Johnston: Right. And I don't mean to get into the process. I want to draw this back to land use because 631
that's our purpose as this board. Land use is being informed by the community, and who comes 632
to these meetings and provides their input is critical for us to be able to get that community 633
feedback, so I guess what I want to say is thank you, Tom. Right? Like it sounds like you're going 634
above and beyond the process, which was originally, and I apologize if I misunderstood, was the 635
subcontractor's role to be doing these communications and these meetings and then engaging 636
with county in order to dialogue with all the different groups that need to be brought to the table. 637
And so, I guess thank you very much, Tom, for putting yourself out there and making these 638
connections above and beyond. I think I just had a misunderstanding of the process, and I'm glad 639
you're doing that because, again, having everyone at the table is what makes this valuable from a 640
land-use standpoint. 641
642
Tom Altieri: Right, and we have had to focus, because there are a lot of different communities in Orange 643
County, and so, primarily, we're starting by trying to get input from the Black community and from 644
our Latino community. There are other languages spoken. I am told that the area around the 645
Efland-Cheeks Community Center, that there's a Burmese population within walking distance 646
there. So, in that particular case, we are going to be doing some advisement in Burmese and 647
encouraging attendance, working with a community leader at the community center who's going to 648
help me engage area communities and get the notification to the right people. 649
650
Dolores bailey: And I thank you again, Tom, for what you're doing. Let me just throw out September 19th, Justice 651
United is meeting. 652
653
Tom Altieri: Okay. 654
655
Dolores Bailey: And there are a lot of the African American leaders, some of them pastors, that go to those 656
meetings. You might be able to reach out to Julia Sendor and help spread the word about some 657
Approved 12.4.24
of the meetings or possibly have some type of spreading at that meeting. They usually have a lot 658
of folks that come out. 659
660
Tom Altieri: Yeah, I’ve been working with a pastor and that's one of the groups he has mentioned. Thank you. 661
662
Adam Beeman: Thank you. 663
664
Tom Altieri: And Clarion will be here at your December 4th meeting if you didn't pick up on that. So, thank 665
you. 666
667
Perdita Holtz: While Tom is closing out, I just want to chime in that he has really gone above and beyond all 668
summer in attempting to form these relationships that the county really doesn't have. He's really 669
hit it out of the ballpark. Thank you. 670
671
Tom Altieri: Thank you. I’ve been given the time and the trust to get out there and give it my best shot, so 672
that's what we're doing. Thank you. 673
674
Adam Beeman: Perdita, you're all set. It's all yours. 675
676 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – Landscaping Standards – 677
To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments to the UDO 678
pertaining to landscaping standards. This amendment was reviewed at the April 3, 2024, ORC meeting and is 679
scheduled for BOCC public hearing in October. 680
Perdita Holtz: Landscaping amendments for the unified development ordinance. Before us tonight is a packet of 681
proposed amendments to the unified development ordinance pertaining to landscaping. The 682
purpose of the amendments is to clarify language, some of the language that's currently in there 683
can be difficult to interpret or enforce; to incorporate current best practices and standards; to 684
resolve some concerns that were addressed in a lawsuit that the county was involved in; and to 685
hopefully have better achievement of county goals. You may recall that this was presented at the 686
April 3rd ORC meeting. It has been a little while ago since then, so I am going to walk you 687
through with a bit more detail than we might have done had this been last month and it was more 688
fresh in your heads. There are minor updates in Articles 3 and 5. Basically, these are just section 689
reference updates and an update to the type of buffer. The meat of the amendments, if you will, is 690
going to be in Section 6.8, which is landscaping, buffers, and tree protections. Several of the 691
proposed amendments in the packets do have footnotes to explain the rationale, so I hope you're 692
able to take a look at those. First up in Section 8.2, we are looking to clarify that exempt and 693
expedited subdivisions are not subject to the standards. This is not a change; it's to clarify the 694
language so that it is more clear to everybody reading that exempt and expedited subdivisions do 695
not have to conform to the standards in Section 6.8. In Section 6.8.4, we're looking at some 696
language refinement for improved enforcement through the plat or plan review, and then we're 697
also looking at adding some standards for tree protection fencing. This is the fencing that you 698
often see on construction sites around trees - it's usually orange - to help protect trees during 699
construction. In Section 6.8.5, we're looking to clarify standards and also incorporate best 700
practices to modernize some of the language, and there is also a relocation of standards from a 701
different section that have been relocated into this section to hopefully flow a little better and make 702
a little bit more sense on where they're located. In the landscape buffer section, we're looking to 703
refine language to better distinguish the purpose and placement of these required buffers between 704
different land uses, also amending a table to exclusively focus on buffering between different 705
zoning districts, and then amending a table that would eliminate one of the type of buffers, Type 706
C, which is currently required in only four instances. There is also a creation of a table, street 707
trees and planting requirements, to require buffering on public and private streets, and this table is 708
one that the amendments of the table that I just spoke of, it took streets out of it and made it its 709
own separate table. I do want to point out on this one that I discovered an error in the numbering, 710
and you'll see here on the screen that it's 6.8.7.D is crossed out. The correct numbering is 711
Approved 12.4.24
6.8.6.H, and in your motion, if you could please address that, and I am going to remind you of that 712
as well. In screening, we're seeking to clarify that the purpose and application of screening 713
standards is to obscure foundations and equipment of multi-family or non-residential structures 714
from public view. And then the landscape and tree preservation plan section clarifies when the 715
plan is needed and the format of that plan. And then finally in the section dealing with additional 716
standards for the economic development districts, we’re proposing to eliminate the standards that 717
refer to scenic views, which is an undefined term in the UDO, and it's effectively unenforceable 718
during review processes. So, as is contained in the abstract, the planning director's 719
recommendation is for approval of the statement of consistency, and also the text amendments 720
that are in Attachment 2. And the recommendation for tonight is to review and discuss the 721
proposed amendments, consider the planning director's recommendation, and then make a 722
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on the statement of approval and 723
consistency in Attachment 1 and the proposed ordinance and UDO text amendments in 724
Attachment 2, hopefully in time for the October 1st BOCC meeting. And, once again, when 725
making the motion, if we can address the table identified on Page 40 of the packet needs to be 726
labeled differently. That would be great. 727
728
Statler Gilfillen: This may be just my understanding of the language. On Page 6-39, Item No. 5, "Landscaping 729
shall not be located in any portion of public or private drainage or utility easement." Now, does 730
that mean no grass or any growing materials in those areas. My understanding of landscaping 731
would include grass, so I'm not sure it makes sense to me. 732
733
Perdita Holtz: Well, the landscaping doesn't exactly include grass. The landscaping that's talked about 734
throughout this section is about shrubs and trees, not grass. 735
736
Cy Stober: I would refer to the materials identified in the tables that describe A, B, C, now E and F type 737
buffers. 738
739
Statler Gilfillen: As I read through it, it's a language issue of making sure that I understood what was acceptable. 740
The second question on 6-46, where it refers to foundation plantings in the 5-foot landscape area, 741
my experience is that when you're planting landscaping within the first 2 or 3 feet of a foundation, 742
unless you're very careful, that can conflict long term between the landscaping and the building. 743
I've dealt with that many times, and I don't know if there's anything in there that refers to that. 744
When I was doing some checking online with other recommendation from organizations, the 745
agriculture urban forestry group made some references that seemed much more clear and 746
definitive following what I've just said here, about how close you should be to a foundation of a 747
building. 748
749
Perdita Holtz: Okay, so are you suggesting that the current standard of having a 5-foot landscaped area around 750
the perimeter should be more? 751
752
Statler Gilfillen: Possibly a little wider, and possibly it should at least allow a couple of feet out from the foundation. 753
754
Perdita Holtz: Okay. If you want to, if the board wants to make that recommendation, you're welcome to work 755
that into your motion. 756
757
Adam Beeman: I think item No. 2, it's not possible to plant, you can put planters and other such things to block the 758
view, so that gives you an out right there. 759
760
Statler Gilfillen: I'm not sure that it may or may not be covered in the language, but as I'm reading it, it's a little 761
confusing to me. 762
763
Perdita Holtz: It's about having some bushes and shrubs, not having trees, in that 5-foot area. 764
765
Charity Kirk: How would you change it, Statler? How would you suggest? 766
Approved 12.4.24
767
Statler Gilfillen: I'm not sure at this point. That's the problem. I’m just sitting down and discussing. 768
769
Beth Bronson: I mean, there's an exception. 770
771
Statler Gilfillen: With perhaps a better use of the language. I can give you a specific example. At the location that 772
I'm at, the farmhouse, they planted Burford Hollies in the '40s, and they were planted very close to 773
the foundation of the porch and along with other plants right there. The amount of pruning and the 774
root system that goes down to the foundations is a problem around the building. 775
776
Charity Kirk: Would you suggest a minimum distance away from the foundation? 777
778
Adam Beeman The roots are going to chase to the building. That's the problem. 779
780
Charity Kirk: I'm just trying to narrow down what the suggestion is. 781
782
Statler Gilfillen: The issue I am raising is that the way the language is written, it's ambiguous. I'm not sure that I 783
have an exact solution to tell you tonight what that language should be. 784
785
Beth Bronson: Are you specifically referring to a minimum of 5-foot landscape area? 786
787
Statler Gilfillen: No. It could be wider, from my experience. 788
789
Beth Bronson: I'm asking is that the verbiage. 790
791
Statler Gilfillen: It's because it's up against the foundation. 792
793
Adam Beeman: That's the whole problem. And I'm on the page of Statler. I completely don't like anything planted 794
up against the foundation because when you work on a house, and the place is buried in bushes, 795
and you're bringing insects and all those other things in, that's a whole different argument, like 796
completely get rid of it. But I'm not at that argument, but that's what I think Statler's trying to say is 797
that he's not for planting something up against the building. 798
799
Perdita Holtz: The 5-foot-wide landscape is 5 foot from the building to let's just say the sidewalk for lack of a 800
better term. Now, you're getting into where a shrub should be planted within that 5 foot space, 801
because if somebody were to plant it 1 foot from the sidewalk, then it would be 4 feet from the 802
foundation. 803
804
Statler Gilfillen: The 5 foot is fine, but it should start 2 feet out from the foundation. You should not be putting 805
plants immediately at the foundation, as this language seems to allow. That's the issue. 806
807
Cy Stober: I suppose it could be interpreted in that very kind of heavy-handed way, but my interpretation and 808
what the intention is – and if it's unclear, we can clarify that – is that it can be 5 feet away from that 809
foundation. The intent is to screen it from view from the right of way. So, it can be 50 feet away, 810
theoretically. That's not going to be very useful, but I think, to your point, if the root zone is going 811
into the foundation, then the plantings will die, and we will then be able to issue a notice of 812
violation and require compliance with this landscaping requirement for non-residential structures. 813
So, we do have recourse should someone inappropriately plant them too close to the building. I 814
share your concern, but I believe that the intention of myself, at least – I can't speak for all the 815
staff – is that they would be placed at reasonable distance away from the foundation to survive. 816
Because survival and growth is the purpose. Screening is the purpose. 817
818
Lamar Proctor: It's a minimum of 5 feet from the foundation, right? 819
820
Cy Stober: Yes. 821
Approved 12.4.24
822
Statler Gilfillen: You could put a tree almost, a 4-foot tree almost right on the foundation, and that is structurally 823
not good for the foundation. I have a shed with an ash tree that is cracking a foundation right now. 824
825
Beth Bronson: But these are non-residential development standards, correct? 826
827
Perdita Holtz: They are. This is an existing standard. The red is the new stuff. 828
829
Charity Kirk: I mean, I do think when I was talking to Patrick about this a long time ago, he was trying to clarify 830
this for a certain amount of non-landscapers out there, well, some portion of it. So, for the non-831
landscapers that don't understand having a little bit more clarity about a minimum distance away 832
from the building foundation might be, I think, I would agree that that would probably be helpful. 833
834
Perdita Holtz: People have to submit the plan of how they're going to plant, and during staff review, I think that 835
things like that could be caught if they're saying that they're going to plant their holly bush a foot 836
from the foundation. 837
838
Charity Kirk: Yeah, it could, but it might not be caught, too, and it would be easier for people to have something 839
in writing. 840
841
Statler Gilfillen: When a plant is very small, it's very common just to put it right up against the foundation. 842
843
Perdita Holtz: I believe you should work it into your motion if you want to make this change. 844
845
Charity Kirk: So, Statler, what is the minimum distance from the foundation that you would suggest? 846
847
Statler Gilfillen: Typically, it's enough so you can walk behind, between the plant and the foundation, which is 848
about 2 feet. 849
850
Charity Kirk: So, a minimum of 2 feet. 851
852
Statler Gilfillen: Minimum of 2 feet, and then 5 or 6 feet of planting beyond that should be acceptable to control it. 853
854
Beth Bronson: Yeah, and again, I think that we're taking this as a very literal thing, and to add it to the motion is 855
going to maybe clarify, but it may actually make it more confusing, too. In that sense, it's about 856
non-commercial buildings. It's that you can't see the dirty foot from where the dirt is after they're 857
done building, and then you don't see the corners of the building going into the ground. That's my 858
understanding of what the intention here is, is that you don't just have a bar building going around. 859
Now, that said, to previously points, that could be 10, 15 feet away from the foundation because, 860
typically, some non-commercial buildings are not going to be right up on the sidewalk or within 5 861
feet of the right of way. And in something like a more dense urban area, like a municipality, I 862
could see that development standard being different or there being exceptions to that, such as 863
Part 2. 864
865
Marilyn Carter: Is there going to be a motion made? Because I have a different question I'd like to pose, 866
completely different subject. 867
868
Adam Beeman: No, we're not in motion section yet. We got a ways to go. 869
870
Charity Kirk: So, would tacking on a sentence, so vegetation of varying heights and textures shall be placed 871
along walls and fences to soften the planes. Landscaping should be planted a minimum of 2 feet 872
from the foundation. Like just tag that on at the end? 873
874
Perdita Holtz: I would suggest doing a Sub A and just saying something like landscaping should be planted at 875
least 2 feet from the foundation. 876
Approved 12.4.24
877
Marilyn Carter: Different topic and a very broad question. Perdita, you mentioned that these changes are not 878
applying to exempt or expedited subdivisions. I think I know at least one of those types, but could 879
you reprise for us what are those exempt or expedited subdivision types? 880
881
Perdita Holtz: The exempt subdivisions that you're going to be most familiar with are the ones that have at least 882
10-acre lots. Expedited are, Cy, can you help me there. 883
884
Cy Stober: Expedited are set forth in statute. They have a 6-point test, but the most important one is that you 885
have no more than 2 acres that result – no, wait, that's exempt. You have no more than 5 acres 886
that results in three lots, no new right of ways dedicated, and that that has not been done in the 887
last 10 years and that the lots comply with our ordinance otherwise. They are a frequent 888
subdivision tool of someone with, say, 10 acres or less than 20 who can't use the exempt avenue 889
to create three new lots. And, by design, the statute's very clear that we are to use a light touch 890
other than ensuring that there is road access to those new lots, that we're not to be imposing our 891
development standards upon those new properties. 892
893
Whitney Watson: Perdita, could we go back to this, the 5-foot buffer? My question is did building code or fire 894
marshal have any opportunity to review this? Because I know that there was, right after we 895
moved back to North Carolina, there was a number of newspaper articles about landscaping, 896
particularly with pine straw that went right up to the foundation of a house, and they were like no, 897
no, no, don't do that. This sounds like it's permitted, and maybe fire safety would want to say, let's 898
move landscaping away from the foundation of the house a certain amount. The other question I 899
had was when our house was placed, the contractor was very pointed in saying, yes, the ground 900
must slope away from the house on all sides for, I believe, 5 or 6 feet, which has provided some 901
problems because 5 feet out puts it at the bottom of a hill, and so that's where all the water 902
collects in a rainstorm. So, it seems like there might be an opportunity here for building inspectors 903
or code to suggest some way to mesh those two requirements of slope and vegetation planting. 904
905
Perdita Holtz: To answer your first question, the fire marshal is part of the Development Advisory Committee, 906
and that committee did review these amendments, and there was not a comment made about 907
pine straw. I'm not quite sure that something like that would go into a unified development 908
ordinance. That becomes something that then the zoning enforcement officer is enforcing 909
whether you have pine straw or not. And the 5-foot landscape area, it's for non-residential 910
structures. It's not pertaining to residential structures. 911
912
Whitney Watson: Okay, because that's confusing. The example right above this paragraph is a residence. 913
914
Perdita Holtz: Well, and then a new section starts. Section J then starts. That figure right above that is to 915
illustrate between-lot plantings, which is Section I. And then Section J starts. 916
917
Whitney Watson: I don't see where it says this is for non-residential use. 918
919
Perdita Holtz: If you read, "A minimum of a 5-foot landscape area must be planted around the entire front 920
foundation and sides visible from the public rights of way of non-residential structures to blend the 921
architecture into the site, et cetera. 922
923
Whitney Watson: Okay, sorry. I had covered that with a note. 924
925
Perdita Holtz: And I wanted to point out for Adam's benefit. I don't know if you noticed on Page 44 of the packet 926
at the very top, we did add language to try to address as much as we can within a UDO about 927
allowing for accessibility for maintenance purposes. 928
929
Cy Stober: And, Perdita, if I may, so to Mr. Watson's comment, the state building code still applies. I'm very 930
familiar with essentially the discharge requirement from all downspouts and gutters. Particularly in 931
Approved 12.4.24
urban environments, that becomes a real hassle when you have very dense townhomes or single-932
family homes how you make that happen through micro-grading. So that's going to apply here. 933
And to the point about screening, the building code will still prevail over our ordinance. It's 934
required, and we can't allow violation of the building code, whether it would compromise the 935
foundation or lead to drainage back towards the building, and I don't disagree with you that 936
drainage away can cause different problems, but that building code is intended to preserve the 937
primary building itself. That will all be addressed and layered upon this, and generally speaking, 938
the building code will take precedence and be enforced above our ordinance whenever there's a 939
conflict. 940
941
Whitney Watson: Okay. Thank you. 942
943
Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Statler. 944
945
Statler Gilfillen: Technical question on Page 6-44. As an architect, I've dealt with this constantly. There are two 946
standard measurement systems that some place it has to define which one you're using. It refers 947
to minimum width the first A then 20. I assume that that is feet and not metric, but it is not defined; 948
it's just a number. It's a very technical issue, but that's splitting hairs. It says per linear feet. It's 949
just the way it's presented is a little bit confusing when I was reading it. He just pointed out that it 950
is up there. 951
952
Perdita Holtz: Well, it's for linear feet, but when it says minimum width, when the tables say minimum linear feet 953
and we're in America where we use feet and inches and not meters. I feel it's getting a little hair 954
splitty. It's more like an overhaul of the whole section instead of the limited things that we've been 955
authorized to do. 956
957
Statler Gilfillen: I'm only raising it because I have professionally found that sometimes that confusion is not 958
clarified. 959
960
Perdita Holtz: Okay. Duly noted. And if we can rewrite the UDO, it would be wonderful, but right now we can’t. 961
962
Charity Kirk: So, would you suggest it say 20 feet and 30 feet, or minimum width and then in parentheses feet? 963
What are you suggesting? 964
965
Statler Gilfillen: That may be already covered, and I missed this. At the top in yellow, it says plant material 966
required per hundred linear feet. That would imply, in a court of law, that it is all measured in 967
footage, in the English system not the metric. 968
969
Charity Kirk: So, you think it's okay? 970
971
Statler Gilfillen: I'm okay with it. Thank you. 972
973
Adam Beeman: Go ahead, Lamar. 974
975
Lamar Proctor: All right. So, looking at Page 34 or 6-38, at the top, Sub 2, "Existing native non-invasive and 976
drought-tolerant trees having a diameter of," why are we going from 1 foot to 24 inches? 977
978
Cy Stober: It's about what is effectively the legacy tree and what we're going to prioritize for preservation. If 979
you feel that's wrongheaded or you'd like to preserve smaller trees, which is what we do today, 980
then that can be part of your motion. 981
982
Charity Kirk: What is the rationale for changing it from 1 to 2 feet? 983
984
Approved 12.4.24
Cy Stober: It's very difficult to enforce that narrow, that small of a DBH for us as staff. To get to Perdita's 985
earlier point of going out for the pine straw, for staff to go out and measure 1-foot DBH is a much 986
greater challenge than 2 feet because those are much more obvious. 987
988
Lamar Proctor: My concern on that is just doing some research as to DBH and different types of trees, the DBH 989
has to be factored in with the growth rate of the tree. But just for example, a red maple with a 990
DBH of a foot is a 37-year-old tree, so I mean my concern is, and I understand, now that I 991
understand the rationale that it's a time-intensive thing for staff, but I think raising that from 1 foot 992
to 2 feet, you're only preserving trees that are like 70 or 80 years old, and you're cutting down 993
trees that are 30 to 50 years old, depending on the tree. The trees have different growth rates, so 994
in terms of preserving native healthy trees that form an integral part of our ecosystem, I would 995
oppose increasing that to 24. I would keep it at 1 foot. Or somewhere in between. 996
997
Charity Kirk: Eighteen inches? 998
999
Lamar Proctor: I don't know how much time goes into measuring these things or evaluating in these buffer zones 1000
the tree sizes and all that. I mean, just sitting here thinking about it, it does seem a rather labor-1001
intensive process, but I don't know if you can give me some examples. 1002
1003
Cy Stober: I can. Other than anecdotes of staff of going out to sites and going, oof, okay. So that was the 1004
response, and this is a reactive amendment. It's again addressing the enforceability of the 1005
ordinance. But to get to look at the consistency with our comprehensive plan, to your point, Mr. 1006
Proctor, I could see why there would be other goals and objectives that are in that comp plan that 1007
would be underserved by reducing this. So, you're not going to hurt our feelings, but it is a 1008
formidable challenge to enforce the 1-foot DBH. 1009
1010
Charity Kirk: Would 18 inches be easier to enforce? 1011
1012
Cy Stober: Probably. Just either way we're going to have to get used to a new standard if we change it. 1013
There was not a scientific process to this. We did not do a lot of research on this. It sounds like 1014
Lamar has done more research than most of my staff, other than perhaps Patrick. 1015
1016
Lamar Proctor: Well, if y'all name a tree I can tell you how approximately, according to these calculations, how old 1017
it is based on 1 foot or a 2 foot. 1018
1019
Cy Stober: I will also add to this point, if it is a point of concern, while it is a difficult matter to enforce, it is not 1020
creating massive headaches for us as staff. It is not a formidable challenge; it is more about the 1021
clarity of what a 2-foot DBH tree is versus a 1 foot, and we can move forward in either way. 1022
1023
Chris Johnston: And to confirm, staff is doing this; it's not the applicant who then goes through and provides these 1024
numbers. Correct? 1025
1026
Cy Stober: In an ideal world, it would be the latter. It is more often than not the staff. 1027
1028
Chris Johnston: Sure. 1029
1030
Charity Kirk: Do staff mark the trees that can't be removed? 1031
1032
Cy Stober: So, we would if we have an enforcement matter or if we have a complaint or if we know of existing 1033
legacy trees, say, in a zoning matter, or special use matter, that have been identified on the site 1034
plan. We had one just recently that was a bizarre geometry and has a number of larger older 1035
trees on a commercial property with light warehousing, but the trees overhang all the warehouses. 1036
They're right on the property line, et cetera, et cetera. We did indeed go out onto the property and 1037
say, okay, they are there. We are good. And we moved on. And they were identified on the site 1038
plan, per the ordinance. And if you want credit for them, then you have to identify these, and we 1039
Approved 12.4.24
will not do that for you. You cannot pay; this is not a stream identification. The county does not 1040
have a fee for this. You need to do it yourself. 1041
1042
Charity Kirk: So, what is the downside of keeping it at 1 foot, again? What's the oof? 1043
1044
Cy Stober: It's there's more trees. There are more trees that are smaller. 1045
1046
Charity Kirk: But the developer is supposed to mark them on the map. 1047
1048
Cy Stober: Yes. 1049
1050
Charity Kirk: So, what work is needed from the planning department? 1051
1052
Cy Stober: We trust, but we verify. 1053
1054
Charity Kirk: And how have you found the verification? How off is it? 1055
1056
Cy Stober: Again, it's whether it's a full day's work or it's a couple hours work. That's the difference, but it's 1057
fine in either way. We will do what the county needs us to do. It is not a major obstacle to land 1058
use, and it just is more time intensive to keep it as it is, and that's fine. 1059
1060
Charity Kirk: And if we allowed it to be 24 inches, what do you see as the onsite effect on the ground? Not of 1061
the counting that you have to do but – 1062
1063
Cy Stober: You'll have greater clearance, and you'll get less credit for tree preservation, so you'll need to 1064
preserve more open space in order to get the preservation credit, so you could, we could achieve 1065
more open space preservation because we're crediting less. But you could end up with greater 1066
clearance as a result because folks may say I just don't want to deal with this, and just I'm going to 1067
clear it and replant. You could go either way. 1068
1069
Marilyn Carter: Given our climate action plan has explicitly set some goals for planting trees in different parts of 1070
the county, I would support maintaining it as it is and the point that Lamar brought up. 1071
1072
Chris Johnston: And I apologize; I've read this. So, in that same one, No. 8 there, I'm just having a hard time 1073
understanding and I need clarity. So, if the vegetation is removed from any reason other than in 1074
accordance with the approved landscape and tree preservation plan, the dimensions of the buffer 1075
within the impacted area shall be increased by 50 percent, and the number of required plantings 1076
shall be increased by 50 percent. I want to better understand, "The number of required plantings 1077
shall be increased by 50 percent." Where is that? Is that within the entire parcel? Is that within 1078
that particular impacted area? Like is that tied in with that? I just want to better understand what 1079
that means, just as a layman. 1080
1081
Cy Stober: The current interpretation is that it is in the impacted area and immediately adjacent areas. 1082
Particularly in the regulated area. 1083
1084
Chris Johnston: So, within that regulated area, within that impacted area, not only are we increasing the size by 50 1085
percent, but we're also increasing the number of plantings by 50 percent. 1086
1087
Cy Stober: More the latter. We don't increase, say, if you have a 65-foot stream buffer, we don't add 50 1088
percent to that stream buffer width. And we add 50 percent more plantings, and we have to also 1089
ensure that the drip lines are protected, so we frequently do exceed the buffer width, but the 1090
geometry is more about, or the math is more about, replanting at 50 percent greater than what 1091
was cleared. 1092
1093
Approved 12.4.24
Chris Johnston: That might be my confusion point then. "The dimensions of the buffer within the impacted area 1094
shall be increased by 50 percent," sounds like a size increase. Is that a misinterpretation? I 1095
apologize. Again, this isn't my forte here. 1096
1097
Cy Stober: I don't think it's a misinterpretation. It's not how it's being interpreted by staff today. I think there's 1098
ambiguity there. I could read it either way. 1099
1100
Chris Johnston: Okay. 1101
1102
Cy Stober: And, frankly, I welcome that ambiguity because it allows us to find different remedies to sticky 1103
situations. 1104
1105
Chris Johnston: Yeah, and I guess that was going to be my next point, at some level, we want to apply as quickly 1106
as possible the exact terminologies and the exact definitions or whatever, but in doing so, that 1107
does limit a little bit of the staff wiggle room in terms of interpreting X, Y, and Z. I always struggle 1108
with this balance of we want to nail it down so that there's not wiggle room on the things that we 1109
truly do care about, like the width or whatever the case may be. But at the same time, we want to 1110
not make it that everything has to be so prescriptive that it has to be listed out here. Not to pile on 1111
about pine straw and things of that nature. I'm just trying to thread that needle. 1112
1113
Statler Gilfillen: The third point would be that the law often can be written to promote helping people to know what 1114
the right way is to do it. 1115
1116
Chris Johnston: Right. 1117
1118
Statler Gilfillen: And I'm reading this, and that's a lot of what this is trying to give is guidelines. If somebody is a 1119
novice at this, if we give some good guidelines in here, then the staff has some flexibility to work 1120
with that person, we end up with a better solution for all of us. 1121
1122
Chris Johnston: And then so coming back to the splitting hairs thing, as much as possible, we're trying to make this 1123
consistent so that there's not the confusion or whatever the case may be. It's frustrating because 1124
then we go in and we're fine-tooth combing it or whatever the case is, but who the audience is for 1125
this document, you guys deal with the commercial side of things and all the big-time developers. 1126
And I think their Statler's point, it sounds like this is also a document for everybody and making 1127
sure that it's consistent and readable for people like me who go through and see extending area 1128
and think, oh, that means this or that. Just trying to nail that down. 1129
1130
Charity Kirk: So, what do we think about tree diameter? 1131
1132
Chris Johnston: I think we need to have a proposed vote on that, and then that'll shake it out. 1133
1134
Charity Kirk: What are we voting on, 1 foot, 18 inches, 24 inches? 1135
1136
Lamar Proctor: I would make a motion to keep it at a foot. Just based on my research and looking at different tree 1137
species, you're getting into at least 35-50-year-old trees at a foot, and then if it's 24 inches, then 1138
you're talking some trees are like 80, 90 years old at that point. 1139
1140
Charity Kirk: All right. I will add it to my amendment list. 1141
1142
Adam Beeman: Is everybody else on board with keeping it at 1 foot, I guess before we go ahead and put a motion 1143
on it, let's see if everybody is in agreement. Is there any objection to that? 1144
1145
Marilyn Carter: No objection. 1146
1147
Beth Bronson: No objection, as long as we're referring to these non-residential areas. 1148
Approved 12.4.24
1149
Perdita Holtz: It has nothing to do with non-residential. It's everything in this section. So, to be clear, we're 1150
looking at Page 34 of the agenda packet. Near the top, that would stay 1 foot, and then you're 1151
also looking at Page 35, No. 8 to change that 24 inches to 12 inches. 1152
1153
Lamar Proctor: Correct. I think those are the only two areas where tree width is mentioned. 1154
1155
Adam Beeman: So, everybody's on board with 1 foot? 1156
1157
Charity Kirk: I vote yes. 1158
1159
Lamar Proctor: And, obviously, this still goes to the county commissioners, where they'll discuss it and you'll 1160
highlight the changes that we recommended versus what staff initiated. 1161
1162
Perdita Holtz: And we, from what Cy said, it seems like we're just going to go with what the planning board is 1163
recommending on this. We're not necessarily going to highlight what we presented and what you 1164
all changed if we agree with it. That's not what the county commissioners want to hear at their 1165
meetings. We're just going to say this is the amendment packet. The planning board has 1166
recommended whatever you've recommended. 1167
1168
Lamar Proctor: And to be honest with you, when I read through it, that was the only thing that stuck out to me that 1169
I felt like I needed to comment on and do further research on. 1170
1171
Perdita Holtz: Yeah. I'm not going to point out that the table was mislabeled in the planning board packet. You 1172
know what I mean? 1173
1174
Lamar Proctor: Right. I understand. 1175
1176
Statler Gilfillen: I hope you can laugh at this next question, but the diameter at breast height, is that based on the 1177
human breast height from the ground? 1178
1179
Perdita Holtz: So that is actually defined in the definitions, which I do not have in front of me, but as I recall, it 1180
might be 5 feet from the ground level. 1181
1182
Statler Gilfillen: Okay, there is a definition of what that height is then. 1183
1184
Perdita Holtz: There is, yes. 1185
1186
Adam Beeman: So, we're just going to go to a little side vote. Charity had a motion to approve Lamar's 1 foot. Do 1187
I have a second for that? I just want to get everybody's opinion. 1188
1189
Beth Bronson: There's a consensus. 1190
1191
Adam Beeman: Yeah, I just want to get everybody on board saying that we're all agreeing on that 1 foot, so we'll 1192
make that change; we're all in agreement. 1193
1194
Statler Gilfillen: I'll second it. 1195
1196
Adam Beeman: Okay. All in favor of it? Okay. 1197
1198
Beth Bronson: Yes. 1199
1200
Adam Beeman: Okay. We're all in favor. Great. 1201
1202
Approved 12.4.24
Charity Kirk: Can we talk about the foundation plantings then? Like foundation plantings, Page 6-46, one, 1203
we're going to add an “A” stating landscaping should be planted a minimum 2 feet from the 1204
foundation. 1205
1206
Perdita Holtz: Also, I wanted to say that it should say "shall be planted" because our attorney's office is very 1207
diligent about not having discretionary language added to the UDO more than it already is. I know 1208
there are plenty of examples in there, but they don't want to see more, so if it's not a standard, 1209
don't put it in the UDO. That's what they're telling us. 1210
1211
Lamar Proctor: Can I ask one question about that real quick? So, y'all have a lot more experience in dealing with 1212
the best practices in what actually ends up on a site plan. So, in that regard for the 5 feet, what do 1213
you see? Do you see most site plans it's clear that they are taking all that into account and they're 1214
using best practices in putting these plantings in their locations? 1215
1216
Perdita Holtz: Yes. I mean, we don't have a whole lot of non-residential structures going in, in Orange County, 1217
and normally when it's a commercial building going in, those people are working with a 1218
professional landscape architect to do some of their plans and such. 1219
1220
Lamar Proctor: Thank you. 1221
1222
Beth Bronson: I will say that that was my only comment was that I don't see a lot of enforcement with the non-1223
residential. And what I see with the non-residential is, yeah, they may say that they're using a 1224
local company or that they're using a professional landscaper, but the quality of their plants are 1225
not in any way meeting the needs of these standards, and you see a lot of death of those buffer 1226
plants within the first year, 2 years. I'm not saying that they're going to be replaced, or I'm not 1227
saying that they're not going to be replaced, but I will say that watching non-residential, which is 1228
normally larger parcels, try to adhere to these landscaping development standards, it really shows 1229
what the bare minimum is, I think. Like it just doesn't, they don't look good. And it's not that they 1230
don't look good. It's just like they don't look healthy. They don't look well attended. Like they 1231
don't look like good specimens to begin with. And I like the idea of adding native and drought 1232
resistant. I guess too, this section doesn't really address enforcement. That's the only other thing 1233
that I noticed. 1234
1235
Cy Stober: This is the simplest part of our ordinance to enforce. We can enforce this. We enforce it almost 1236
every week. And you can thank your colleague, Ms. Kirk, for all the work she did with our new 1237
planting guide, which is enforced by the staff, and you must use if you're doing plantings in 1238
Orange County. It is targeted to native, drought-resistant plants, or drought tolerant. And we 1239
have shade tolerant. We have sun-loving plants in there. So, depending upon the geometry and 1240
the building orientation, you can plant different plants on the property. Thank you very much. We 1241
are putting it into action, and this is a very simple part of our ordinance. This may be the simplest 1242
part of our ordinance to enforce. 1243
1244
Beth Bronson: It seems so. 1245
1246
Cy Stober: But it does take time for them to grow back. 1247
1248
Charity Kirk: Going back to this foundation planting addition, are we okay with it? Landscaping shall be planted 1249
a minimum of 2 feet from the foundation. 1250
1251
Statler Gilfillen: I think it should be no closer than 2 feet to the foundation. 1252
1253
Charity Kirk: A minimum of 2 feet from the foundation. 1254
1255
Statler Gilfillen: Whatever legally works. 1256
1257
Approved 12.4.24
Lamar Proctor: I think that language works. 1258
1259
Statler Gilfillen: Great. 1260
1261
Charity Kirk: Okay, so we have those two changes. Any other changes? 1262
1263
Perdita Holtz: The table numbering. 1264
1265
Charity Kirk: Should I try and make the recommendation. 1266
1267
Chris Johnston: You got this. 1268
1269
Charity Kirk: I make a motion to approve the statement of approval and consistency, Attachment 1, and the 1270
proposed ordinance and UDO text amendments, Attachment 2, with the following changes. 1271
6.8.4.B.2 changes from 24 inches or greater diameter to 12 inches. 6.8.5.A.8 also changes to 1272
greater than 12 inches diameter from 24 inches. Section 6.8.6.J Foundation Plantings shall add 1273
Item (a) under Item No. 1, being landscaping shall be planted a minimum of 2 feet from the 1274
foundation. And then the table which was 6.8.6.H should be relabeled. 1275
1276
Perdita Holtz: The table's that's currently 6.8.7D should be relabeled 6.8.6H. 1277
1278
Charity Kirk: What she said: 6.8.7.D should be relabeled 6.8.6.H. 1279
1280
Adam Beeman: Do I have a second? 1281
1282
Beth Bronson: I second that motion. 1283
1284
Adam Beeman: All in favor? 1285
1286
Whitney Watson: Oh, do we have a second? 1287
1288
Adam Beeman: Yes, Beth seconded. 1289
1290 MOTION BY Charity Kirk to approve the statement of approval and consistency with amendments. Seconded by Beth 1291
Bronson. 1292
1293
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1294
1295
AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 1296
1297 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Chris Johnston. 1298
1299 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 1300
1301
The meeting adjourned at 8:48 PM. 1302
1303