Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-25 Work Session NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, MARCH 25, 2002PAGE 108 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a Work Session with the New Hanover County Planning Board on Monday, March 25, 2002, at 2:25 P.M. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Chairman Ted Davis, Jr.; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Commissioner William A. Caster; Commissioner Nancy H. Pritchett; County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Commissioner Boseman was absent. Planning Board members present were: Rodney Harris, Chairman; Robert Franklin Smith; Walter R. Conlogue; David C. Girardot; and Planning Director Dexter Hayes. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order and welcomed the members of the Planning Board. He requested Mr. Rodney Harris, Chairman of the Planning Board, to begin the discussion. Mr. Harris expressed appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for holding a meeting to discuss zoning issues. He presented the following report. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS AND APPEALS: The Technical Review Committee (TRC) is comprised of Planning Board members. All seven members attend some meetings but due to busy schedules, only two members have been present at a few meetings. There is no required number of members to be present at TRC meetings, but an effort is made to have as many members as possible to attend. The technical review of a subdivision approval process is not a public hearing, but a public meeting where the TRC specifically discusses the technical merits of the subdivision as presented by the petitioner and design professionals with input from the Planning Staff. Due to the complexity of recent reviews, an Assistant County Attorney has been attending TRC meetings to assist with legal issues. The TRC has allowed this public process to become more of a public hearing, which has opened the door for involvement of more issues in the subdivision approval process that are not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. Complicated cases are coming from long-standing subdivisions that have developed slowly over a period of time and are now beginning to change, which has resulted in appeals to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board is interested in reducing the number of appeals by changing the Zoning Ordinance or the TRC review process. One suggestion discussed by the Planning Board was to allow the appeal to be heard by the Planning Board as a Public Hearing where public comments could be received and a decision rendered on the technical merits of the petition. If the appellant is not satisfied with the Planning Board decision, the case could then be heard by the court without involving the Board of County Commissioners in the process. A lengthy discussion followed on the TRC review process. Mr. Harris explained that when a subdivision is being developed, the developer usually discusses the design of the subdivision with the Planning Staff before submitting a plan to the TRC. Once the preliminary design is submitted, various state and federal agencies receive copies of the preliminary design and make recommendations. When the preliminary design is received by the TRC, a packet is prepared that includes the recommendations from the various agencies and the layout and design of the plan. At the meeting the design professional is present to answer questions and the Planning Staff is available to provide input. Chairman Davis noted that currently any appeal to a decision made by the Planning Board is heard by the Board of County Commissioners. He asked if the Zoning Ordinance could be changed to include TRC appeals as part of the duties assigned to the Planning Board. This procedure would eliminate an automatic appeal to the Board of County Commissioners and at the same time provide more information on the appeal if the Commissioners have to hear the appeal at a later date. Mr. Harris responded that requiring a TRC appeal to be heard by the full Planning Board in a Public Hearing would be a possibility; however, the appeal would still have to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. Under the existing Zoning Ordinance, the only person with the right of appeal is the petitioner. The TRC process is different because the review does not include any form of zoning. The petitioner may submit one plan to the TRC and leave with a different plan because members of the TRC and Planning Staff have requested certain changes to be made in the plan before approving the subdivision. He advised that any issue approved or denied by the Planning Board is finally heard and approved or denied by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Smith reported that the Planning Board is responsible for making recommendations for changes to the Zoning Ordinance which are subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The TRC is responsible for interpreting the Zoning Ordinance when reviewing plans for subdivisions. To allow the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance to come back to the Planning Board and County Commissioners could overburden the entire system. If more authority is granted to the TRC with decisions rendered being final, the appellant can seek relief through the court system. Planning Director Hayes explained that the zoning hearing process is a legislative process that can only be NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, MARCH 25, 2002PAGE 109 enacted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board can make recommendations and staff can make recommendations, but final decisions are made by the elected officials. This authority cannot be delegated to the Planning Board or to any other board. The subdivision review approval process is purely an administrative process. Rules are established as standards to follow in approving subdivisions, and this administrative responsibility can be delegated to the Planning Board, Planning Staff, or another group. The Planning Board within its own membership established the TRC to review subdivision proposals. Discussion followed on how the City of Wilmington deals with subdivision review appeals. Planning Director Hayes explained that the City has a two-step process. The City has a Technical Review Committee comprised of staff members from the Fire Department, Police Department, and Water and Sewer Drainage Division to review subdivision proposals. These recommendations are forwarded to the Subdivision Review Board (SRB) who reviews the plan and renders a decision. If the petitioner appeals the SRB decision, the City Council hears the appeal and makes the final decision. Commissioner Caster noted that since the TRC is a technical review of subdivision proposals, this process should be turned over to the Planning Staff because they are experts in the technical merits of the design and plan for a new subdivision. This would remove the Planning Board from the process and allow this group to concentrate more on how the Zoning Ordinance can be amended to allow for better growth in the unincorporated county. He also expressed concern for the existing appeals process allowing only the petitioner to appeal a decision of the TRC without allowing the aggrieved party to appeal. Mr. Smith noted that performance residential was the area of the Zoning Ordinance creating the problem. The intent of clustering density and providing open space is good, but the policies and regulations need to be more clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance. If a developer has a large piece of land and slowly develops different phases of the project over eight to ten years and then suddenly decides to capture the density in one area of the property, the result is a project that is not even close to the original site plan. The road infrastructure is not in place to accommodate the density and the neighborhood is upset about the changes. He stressed the importance of providing clear regulations for performance residential development. Mr. Smith concluded his remarks by saying if the TRC review process is administered by the Planning Staff, it will allow the Planning Board to spend more time on planning and less time on interpreting the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Harris stated that once the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is completed, he feels more design criteria will be required before a new subdivision plan can be presented to the TRC for review. The key issue is whether the Planning Staff has time to administer the review process, which requires two meetings a month. It is important for there to be a clarification of the appeals process and performance residential development. These are issues that need to be clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Smith stated that many problems could be resolved by amending the Zoning Ordinance. At the present time, there is no written regulation to allow the TRC to require a road connector. The desire of residents wanting to live on cul-de-sacs has created major traffic problems throughout the County because each household has to use the same road for trips outside the subdivision. The Zoning Ordinance can be amended to require a certain number of road connectors to the adjoining properties. Until this is accomplished, the TRC decisions will be appealed. The UDO process has identified many of these issues but it has taken four years to get half way through the process. The Zoning Ordinance needs to be amended as soon as possible to clean up some of current issues. Mr. Conlogue informed the Board that authority could be granted to the TRC to render decisions with no appeal. The petitioner could then seek relief through the court system. Mr. Girardot suggested providing a stronger role for either the TRC or Planning Board as the final stop for appeals. With recent appeals, there is a distinct possibility that the Board of County Commissioners could be hearing about 50 percent of items now being heard by the TRC. Chairman Davis requested Planning Director Hayes to explain why the Zoning Board of Adjustment can render decisions with the right of appeal to Superior Court. Planning Director Hayes explained that when zoning enabling legislation was developed in the 1920s by the U. S. Department of Commerce, there was concern about zoning issues filling the court dockets. The solution was to create a lower court through the Zoning Board of Adjustment which actually sits as a court to hear appeals of zoning decisions in terms of variances and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The next step is the right of appeal to the courts. Chairman Davis asked if the Planning Staff could handle the responsibilities of the TRC. Planning Director Hayes responded that the Planning Staff can serve as the TRC; however, staff already processes papers that go to the TRC. There are gaps in the Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed. Debates at TRC meetings involve how the design of the development will occur on the property, such as traffic circulation, outlets, curb cuts, entrances and the overall traffic network for the subdivision. When considering performance residential NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, MARCH 25, 2002PAGE 110 development, the TRC must approve the subdivision and site plan, which involves the location of buildings, the space and distance between buildings and parking areas. Appeals will continue to be received until specific standards and guidelines are developed to require traffic circulation in new subdivisions. Further discussion was held on the fact that most appeals involve performance residential development. Vice- Chairman Greer suggested trying to implement rules and guidelines to address problems resulting from performance residential development in lieu of changing the current system. Mr. Conlogue agreed with Vice-Chairman Greer and stated that the TRC does frequently make changes that benefit all parties involved. If the TRC is eliminated, the Board of County Commissioners will receive more appeals because many items are caught and addressed during the TRC review process. Further discussion was held on performance residential development. Mr. Smith noted that the intent of density clustering has been effective because open space and natural resources are preserved; however, under the current regulations, there is no way to require road connections or where the density clustering will occur in the future. He suggested including road connectors and the location of density clustering as part of the site plan approval process. The developer will always have the right to request modification of the original site plan if situations change and the site plan needs to be amended. Planning Director Hayes noted that in some situations the boundaries of the project change through the purchase of additional land over the 10-year period. The density is calculated based on other sections of the project that have already been sold. This means that eight years later, a developer can recalculate around existing residences to accommodate more townhouses or more attached housing on the land. The developer should not be able to recalculate acreage in an approved platted subdivision where people are already living in an R-15 district. This is an example of a regulation that should be changed. Mr. Conlogue suggested placing a time limit of five years on performance residential development. A lengthy discussion was held on whether the TRC review process should remain in place. Vice-Chairman Greer suggested rewriting the regulations to address the problems that have been discussed. TRAFFIC STUDIES, ROAD CONNECTIONS, AND PROPOSED THOROUGHFARES: The Planning Board is in the process of reviewing the need to require traffic studies. The Planning Board would like to schedule a Work Session with the Board of County Commissioners to understand what is being requested before moving forward with this item. Currently, traffic studies are being reviewed by the UDO Committee, and it is felt that studies will become a standard requirement in the subdivision approval process. Mr. Harris spoke on the need to reserve rights-of-way for future corridors and thoroughfares and stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires rights-of-way to be set aside for one year. If the easements are not purchased by the NCDOT, the rights-of-way are not reserved. He urged the Board of County Commissioners to become involved with the Planning Board and UDO Committee when discussing this important issue. Mr. Smith advised that typically developers are receptive to the idea of reserving corridors and knowing where roads and thoroughfares will be located in the future. He stated that in his opinion, the County does not have to wait on a decision by the NCDOT because this can be handled on the local level by developing a grid network of collector streets. A system of this type will reduce the need for large four-lane thoroughfares. If the developer is provided direction when submitting a plan, the road connections can be made. After further discussion, Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board. Assistant County Attorney Holt Moore advised that if the Commissioners decide to change the appeals process, the Legal Department will have to be sure that a standard R-15 Residential appeal is not treated differently from a Performance Residential appeal. He also noted that allowing decisions to be made by the TRC without appeal would be acceptable. The Animal Control Division holds hearings regarding complaints about animals with recommendations to an advisory board who renders the final decision without the right of appeal. If the appellant is not satisfied with the ruling, he or she has the right to appeal through the court system. Chairman Davis requested direction from the Board. After a lengthy discussion, the Board agreed to request the Planning Board and Planning Staff to prepare recommendations showing advantages and disadvantages of following proposals: 1.Change the composition of the TRC from members of the Planning Board to members of the Planning Staff. 2.Review the appeals process from TRC rulings. 3.Review the idea of requiring documentation on the site plan for density clustering and open space. 4.Require a review of the original site plan every five years. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 29 WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, MARCH 25, 2002PAGE 111 5.Consider requiring traffic studies and road connectors in the subdivision approval process. 6.Investigate ways to work with NCDOT to reserve rights-of-way for future thoroughfares and by-passes. 7. Prohibit the recalculation of density on other sections of a development project that have already been sold which allows the developer to place more townhouses or attached housing in the project. Chairman Davis requested the County Attorney to work with the Planning Staff and Planning Board to prepare recommendations to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners within three to four weeks. Mr. Girardot expressed concern for the lack of vision in developing the two remaining entrance-ways or corridors into New Hanover County and stressed the importance of having an opportunity to develop the Highway 17 By-Pass and Carolina Beach Road corridor south of Monkey Junction in an aesthetically, environmentally, and economically viable way. With small commercial parcels in both areas, it will be difficult for property owners to meet the required setbacks and other requirements in the Landscape Ordinance. This will create numerous appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment; therefore, it is imperative for the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Adjustment to establish a policy for development of these areas. The Board agreed and requested the Planning Board and Staff to begin the process of developing a policy. In closing, Mr. Harris expressed appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for holding the Work Session and suggested scheduling more meetings to develop a better line of communication between the two boards. Chairman Davis agreed and expressed appreciation to the members of the Planning Board for the time and effort given to serve on this important advisory board. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at 3:49 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board