Agenda - 10-01-2024; 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Landscaping Standards

Browse Search

31 DRAFT EXCERPT 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 4,2024 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor(Vice-Chair), 7 Cheeks Township Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township Representative; Charity Kirk,At- 8 Large Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative;Whitney Watson, 9 At-Large Representative; Marilyn Carter,At-Large Representative; Delores Bailey,At-Large 10 Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Beth Bronson,At-Large 11 Representative. 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township Representative. 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director—Long Range Planning 16 &Administration; Tom Altieri, Senior Planner—Long Range Planning&Administration;Jack 17 Moran, Planning Technician. 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: None. 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 The meeting began at 7:00 PM. 23 24 ***************************** 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT—Landscaping Standards— 27 To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director-initiated amendments to the LIDO 28 pertaining to landscaping standards. This amendment was reviewed at the April 3, 2024, ORC meeting and is 29 scheduled for BOCC public hearing in October. 30 Perdita Holtz: Landscaping amendments for the unified development ordinance. Before us tonight is a packet of 31 proposed amendments to the unified development ordinance pertaining to landscaping. The 32 purpose of the amendments is to clarify language, some of the language that's currently in there 33 can be difficult to interpret or enforce;to incorporate current best practices and standards; to 34 resolve some concerns that were addressed in a lawsuit that the county was involved in; and to 35 hopefully have better achievement of county goals. You may recall that this was presented at the 36 April 3rd ORC meeting. It has been a little while ago since then, so I am going to walk you 37 through with a bit more detail than we might have done had this been last month and it was more 38 fresh in your heads. There are minor updates in Articles 3 and 5. Basically, these are just section 39 reference updates and an update to the type of buffer. The meat of the amendments, if you will, is 40 going to be in Section 6.8,which is landscaping, buffers, and tree protections. Several of the 41 proposed amendments in the packets do have footnotes to explain the rationale, so I hope you're 42 able to take a look at those. First up in Section 8.2,we are looking to clarify that exempt and 43 expedited subdivisions are not subject to the standards. This is not a change; it's to clarify the 44 language so that it is more clear to everybody reading that exempt and expedited subdivisions do 45 not have to conform to the standards in Section 6.8. In Section 6.8.4,we're looking at some 46 language refinement for improved enforcement through the plat or plan review, and then we're 47 also looking at adding some standards for tree protection fencing. This is the fencing that you 48 often see on construction sites around trees-it's usually orange-to help protect trees during 49 construction. In Section 6.8.5,we're looking to clarify standards and also incorporate best 50 practices to modernize some of the language, and there is also a relocation of standards from a 51 different section that have been relocated into this section to hopefully flow a little better and make 52 a little bit more sense on where they're located. In the landscape buffer section,we're looking to 53 refine language to better distinguish the purpose and placement of these required buffers between 54 different land uses, also amending a table to exclusively focus on buffering between different