1-3-24 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Statler Gilfillen requested clarification on how the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County interact with each 94 other on planning-related matters. Beth Bronson asked about the connection between Orange County as a 95 landowner within the Hillsborough town limits. Mr. Stober clarified that the County as a landowner would not 96 be involved with the planning of the Town of Hillsborough. 97 98 Cy Stober: We do have in our local agreement with the Town of Hillsborough, the Central Orange 99 Coordinated Area, this came up during the Lawrence Road conditional zoning case about whether that 100 application was consistent with the COCA, as it's called and the interlocal agreement. But beyond that, we 101 very respectfully stay out of Hillsborough's way unless it's within one of those joint coordinated areas. We 102 certainly talk to them. We've got good communication with them. We are joint partners on Lake Orange and 103 which does, they're a downstream water user of the headwaters that drain from Lake Orange and we 104 coordinate on erosion control because we do all the inspections for the Town of Hillsborough, including fire 105 inspections, and we perform all the erosion control regulation as well. We’re very well acquainted with their 106 planning staff in a regulatory capacity, but it's very much functional or administrative. 107 108 Charity Kirk: I think is all fine, but you mention the UDO and for several years now, every once in a 109 while, there's a desire among board members to review notifications for the various projects going on. So, I 110 would make a request that sometime this year we kind of have a meeting where we review notification 111 ordinances and we consider the distances that we want, because that's come up multiple times. I request 112 staff come with a summary of what it is and then we can have a board discussion and maybe give some input 113 as we do. 114 115 Cy Stober: Part of that problem is that DOT controls a lot of that stuff. So, we're stuck dealing with 116 their rules and regulations for signs alongside the street. That's something that we've come up against a 117 couple of times and we've discussed signs, sizes, and all that other stuff. Not to say we can't discuss it. I'm 118 just saying that's one of the challenges and the DOT does not answer to us, so we have to take what they say. 119 So just bear that in mind, that you might not get the answer you're looking for. 120 121 Charity Kirk: I'm not interested in an answer per se. I'm just interested in having a discussion since it's 122 come up with mailing with a certain amount of radius and time ahead of mailings. Just kind of having a review 123 since it has come up multiple times in the past and also part of it would be summarizing what is allowable by 124 the DOT providing that if staff could provide that to us. 125 126 Cy Stober: Happy to provide a summary report. Just a reminder that should you all wish to initiate 127 an amendment, that does have to be approved by the Commissioners before staff can take any action to do 128 further research. 129 130 Adam Beeman asked if there are any changes coming from the State. Mr. Stober explained that the session 131 is over, but there were some significant changes to the Building Code and the Environmental Health Code, 132 with minimal changes in terms of zoning. 133 134 The Board discussed Item 3, relating to stormwater and water quality, and the proposed amendment to the 135 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). Beth Bronson asked for 136 information on local water providers. Ms. Bronson and Mr. Stober discussed OWASA’s involvement in utility 137 provision. Perdita Holtz clarified that the term “long-term interest area” in WASMPBA does not mean there 138 are plans to extend service there, but rather it refers to the first responder in a public health emergency. 139 140 9