The URL can be used to link to this page

05-08-2025 Agenda Packet PBPERSON COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S Morgan St., Ste. B Roxboro, NC 27573 PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERSON COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 215 MEETING AGENDA May 8, 2025 7:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM B. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS Pursuant to NCGS §138A-15(e), the Chair shall remind Planning Board members of their duty to avoid conflicts of interest and to inquire as to whether there is any known conflict of interest with respect to any matters coming before the Board at that time. Does any member have any known conflict of interest with respect to any matters coming before the Planning Board today? If so, please identify the conflict and refrain from any participation in the particular matter involved. C. AGENDA ITEMS Petition RZ-02-24 – A request by the Applicant, Rhetson Companies, Inc. for Rezoning approval on 3 acres of a 44+ acre lot, located off of Boston Rd., Tax Map 64 3 from GI (General Industrial) to B1 (Highway Commercial Business). Petition TA-01-25 – A request by the Applicant, Hyco Solar, LLC for Text Amendment approval of the Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance. D. APPROVAL OF Planning Board Schedule 2025 E. APPROVAL OF Planning Board minutes from March 14, 2024 Planning Board minutes from May 9, 2024 Planning Board minutes from May 23, 2024 Planning Board minutes from June 13, 2024 Planning Board minutes from June 27, 2024 Planning Board minutes from July 11, 2024 Planning Board minutes from October 10, 2024 Planning Board minutes from November 14, 2024 Planning Board minutes from January 9, 2025 F. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of text amendments. G. ADJOURNMENT PERSON COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-02-24 is for Rhetson Companies to rezone a newly created ±3- acre Subject Property from a G-I (General Industrial) to B-1 (Highway Commercial) zoning designation. Request Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-02-24 is a request by the Applicant, Rhetson Companies, to rezone a newly created ±3-acre Subject Property, from a G-I (General Industrial) to B-1 (Highway Commercial) zoning designation. The 44.41 parent tract is owned by Newell & Sons, Inc. and the county has been provided a copy of the offer to purchase agreement for the relevant land. The Subject Property does not yet have an address, but is a part of Tax Map 64 3. The property is located between Boston Road and the railroad near Tonker Dr. and Woodsdale Rd. The 3 acres in question will have frontage on Boston Road spanning the intersections with Tonker Dr. (see Exhibit A: Aerial Photo). The parent tract is zoned General Industrial and even mix of woods and grassland. The tract is crossed by overhead powerlines in the vicinity of Woodsdale Rd. The east boundary is the rail line. No further plans have been submitted for the ±41.41 acres that are not part of this request. Existing Land Use & Land Use Compatibility The existing land use for the Subject Property is vacant. The existing land uses are consistent and compatible with adjacent land uses, as follows: • North – vacant and residential. • East – railroad and vacant. • South – vacant and residential. • West – vacant and residential. The 44.41-acre parent tract, while zoned General Industrial, is wholly surrounded by Residential zoning with a few commercial sites nearby in both Roxboro City Limits and the county. Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Consistency Person County Planning Ordinance Section 152, Zoning Permits, as well as, North Carolina General Statues (NCGS) § 160D-604 & § 160D-605 requires plan consistency and a recommendation from the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. Zoning amendment review shall also follow specific criteria, as listed in NCGS Article 7, § 160-701, as follows: Article 7. Zoning Regulation. § 160D-701. Purposes. Zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and shall be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. To that end, the regulations may address, among other things, the following public purposes: to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and dangers; to facilitate the efficient and adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements; and to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. The regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the RZ-02-24 Application Staff Report Page 2 of 3 most appropriate use of land throughout the local government's planning and development regulation jurisdiction. The regulations may not include, as a basis for denying a zoning or rezoning request from a school, the level of service of a road facility or facilities abutting the school or proximately located to the school (2019-111, s. 2.4; 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, s. 51(a), (b), & (d).) Exhibit D contains the Permitted Use Table from the Planning Ordinance to help compare the uses currently allowed on site with those that would be allowed if the rezoning is approved. This is a legislative decision, so all the uses listed in the Permitted Use Table must be considered as potential uses for the site. No conditions or limitations for particular uses or categories of use can be added with a legislative rezoning application. The Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comp Plan) includes the following Guiding Principles, with relation to this rezoning request (listed in italics): Guiding Principle No. 2 – Facilitating Sustainable Economic Growth • Guiding Principle No. 2.1 – Designate sufficient developable land and sites to support economic growth. The site does appear to have access to water service from the city of Roxboro although gravity sewer is not immediately available. Commercial zoning that allows retail and services uses may be more consistent with the surrounding residential development that an industrial user. This site is highly visible and has significant frontage on Boston Rd. Further, it is in close proximity to the Roxboro city limits. • Guiding Principle No 2.2 - 2. Identify opportunities for the adaptive reuse of legacy manufacturing / industrial sites. The site is presently zoned General Industrial but is not designated as Industrial in the Future Land Use Map. That implies some other purpose for the property is desirable. This site is highly visible and has significant frontage on Boston Rd. Further, it is in close proximity to the Roxboro city limits. This application only impacts 3 of the 44.41 acres. This site is designated Rural in the Future Land Use Plan: The Rural future land use category is intended to promote the protection of agricultural lands and natural resources while allowing low density residential development (minimum lot size of one acre). Cluster or conservation subdivisions, which permit higher density residential development while setting aside land for preservation should also be permitted in Rural areas. The Rural future land use category should permit neighborhood-scale commercial development at, and within 1,000 feet of, major intersections (examples include Timberlake, Olive Hill, Hurdle Mills, etc.). Development regulations should limit floor area of retail and similar uses in these rural commercial nodes. Agricultural and agricultural-support uses, along with other typical rural commercial enterprises should be permitted throughout these areas, without limitation. Upon review of Application RZ-02-24, the Planning Board is to advise and comment on whether the proposed action is consistent or inconsistent with the County’s adopted Comp Plan. This “Statement of Reasonableness and Plan Consistency” may be approved in a single-statement for a motion. Specifically, the Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Board of Commissioners from this single-statement addressing the Comp Plan consistency or inconsistency and any other matter, as deemed appropriate by the Planning Board. Any statement of inconsistency shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment application by the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall also adopt a statement describing whether their action is consistent or inconsistent with the Comp Plan and why that action is reasonable and in the public’s interest. State law allows for the possibility that a rezoning request may meet the intent of a community’s comprehensive plan while not necessarily meeting the adopted text or map. This is part of the purpose RZ-02-24 Application Staff Report Page 3 of 3 behind the consistency statement. It gives the advisory and elected boards the opportunity to document the consistency with the intent and legally approve a request. It is often advisable to follow-up such an action with a plan amendment. Planning Staff Analysis & Recommendation If the Planning Board finds they want to recommend approval of the Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-02-24, the Planning Board can provide a written Statement of Reasonableness and Plan Consistency to the Board of Commissioners in a single-statement potential motion, as follows: “I hereby move to approve Rezoning/Map Amendment Application RZ-02-24, for the Rhetson rezoning request on Boston Road to rezone the ±3-acre Subject Property from a G-I (General Industrial) to B-1 (Highway Commercial) zoning designation, and find it is consistent with the adopted Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan” because (please provide a description). Attachments: Exhibit A – Aerial Photo Exhibit B – Future Land Use Map Exhibit C - Zoning Map (Existing) Exhibit D – Permitted Use Table Exhibit E - Application 62624747 62 6062 60 64 1264 12 64 464 4 A58 51A58 51 6666122122 59 959 9 66 6566 65 66668585 62 4962 49 60602424 66 12966 129 666688 60 1760 17 64 864 8 62626161 59 1159 11 6666127127 62 2562 25 66 766 7 62 4862 48 66666363 66663232 62627272 62 53 162 53 1 64 1064 10 65 465 4 656588 61614343 A58 60A58 60 66 5766 57 62 7562 75 64 164 1 6666123123 6666125125 65653232 62624040 64 364 3 62624646 66668686 64 764 7 64 964 9 66 6666 66 59 859 8 656599 64 664 6 61 4461 44 61612929 61 161 1 62625050 64 1164 11 65 565 5 66 6766 67 656511 66661010 A58 193A58 193 66 12 166 12 164 564 5 66 1566 15 66 1666 16 656522 66666464 666699 65652929 626247A47A 62625353 60 1460 14 66 1166 11 66 1266 12 66 1366 13 65 2865 28 6666124124 61 3061 30 66 4266 42 65652727 A58 50A58 50 66 12666 126 62626868 A58 78A58 78 656533 59 1859 18 64 1464 14 65651010 66666262 65652525 65 3365 33 66 266 2 60601616 66668989 64 264 2 62 5462 54 62624545 66 6966 69 65651111 Wrenon Ave Lynn Dr Carver Farm Rd Tri ckl i ng Branch RdClayton St James Ave Woodsdale RdMontague Ave Mt View RdJe w e ll W re n n R d Cavel Chub Lake Rd W r e n o n A v e Boston RdTonker Dr ShadyHillCirB o s t o n R d RZ 01-2564 3Exhibit A: Aerial Photo ¯ 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet The data offered by this tool is providedwithout warranty and the user shouldconsult public primary informationsources to verify the accuracy ofthe data provided. Project Other Parcels Railroad Major Roads Minor Roads Private Roxboro City Limits 62624747 62 6062 60 64 1264 12 64 464 4 A58 51A58 51 6666122122 59 959 9 66 6566 65 66668585 62 4962 49 60602424 66 12966 129 666688 60 1760 17 64 864 8 62626161 59 1159 11 6666127127 62 2562 25 66 766 7 62 4862 48 66666363 66663232 62627272 62 53 162 53 1 64 1064 10 65 465 4 656588 61614343 A58 60A58 60 66 5766 57 62 7562 75 64 164 1 6666123123 6666125125 65653232 62624040 64 364 3 62624646 66668686 64 764 7 64 964 9 66 6666 66 59 859 8 656599 64 664 6 61 4461 44 61612929 61 161 1 62625050 64 1164 11 65 565 5 66 6766 67 656511 66661010 A58 193A58 193 66 12 166 12 164 564 5 66 1566 15 66 1666 16 656522 66666464 666699 65652929 626247A47A 62625353 60 1460 14 66 1166 11 66 1266 12 66 1366 13 65 2865 28 6666124124 61 3061 30 66 4266 42 65652727 A58 50A58 50 66 12666 126 62626868 A58 78A58 78 656533 59 1859 18 64 1464 14 65651010 66666262 65652525 65 3365 33 66 266 2 60601616 66668989 64 264 2 62 5462 54 62624545 66 6966 69 65651111 Wrenon Ave Lynn Dr Carver Farm Rd Tri ckl i ng Branch RdClayton St James Ave Woodsdale RdMontague Ave Mt View RdJe w e ll W re n n R d Cavel Chub Lake Rd W r e n o n A v e Boston RdTonker Dr ShadyHillCirB o s t o n R d RZ 01-2564 3Exhibit B: Future Land Use 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet The data offered by this tool is providedwithout warranty and the user shouldconsult public primary informationsources to verify the accuracy ofthe data provided. Project Airport Compatibility Area Campus District Commercial Growth Areas Hyco Lake Industrial Mayo Lake Residential Neighborhoods Rural Uptown Uptown Transition Urban Mixed Use Zoning:ResidentialDistrict Zoning: Rural Conservation Zoning: GeneralIndustrialDistrict Zoning: HighwayCommercialBusiness District Zoning: RuralConservation Zoning:ResidentialDistrict R-12 R-6 I-2 O/I 62624747 62 6062 60 64 1264 12 64 464 4 A58 51A58 51 6666122122 59 959 9 66 6566 65 66668585 62 4962 49 60602424 66 12966 129 666688 60 1760 17 64 864 8 62626161 59 1159 11 6666127127 62 2562 25 66 766 7 62 4862 48 66666363 66663232 62627272 62 53 162 53 1 64 1064 10 65 465 4 656588 61614343 A58 60A58 60 66 5766 57 62 7562 75 64 164 1 6666123123 6666125125 65653232 62624040 64 364 362624646 66668686 64 764 7 64 964 9 66 6666 66 59 859 8 656599 64 664 6 61 4461 44 61 161 1 62625050 64 1164 11 65 565 5 66 6766 67 656511 66661010 A58 193A58 193 66 12 166 12 164 564 5 66 1566 15 66 1666 16 656522 66666464 666699 65652929 626247A47A 606099 62625353 66 1166 11 66 1266 12 66 1366 13 65 2865 28 6666124124 61613030 66 4266 42 65652727 A58 50A58 50 66 12666 126 62626868 A58 78A58 78 656533 59 1859 18 64 1464 14 65651010 66666262 65652525 65 3365 33 66 266 2 66668989 64 264 2 62 5462 54 62624545 66 6966 69 65651111 Wrenon Ave Lynn Dr Carver Farm Rd Tri ckl i ng Branch RdClaytonSt James Ave Woodsdale RdMontague Ave Mt View RdJe w e ll W re n n R d Cavel Chub Lake Rd W r e n o n A v e Boston RdTonker Dr ShadyHillCirB o s t o n R d RZ 01-2564 3Exhibit C: Zoning 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet The data offered by this tool is provided without warranty and the user should consult public primary informationsources to verify the accuracy of the data provided. Project R: Residential B-1 : Highway Commercial B-2 : Neighbo rhood Shopping GI: General Industrial R-C: Rural Conservation AP: Airport Overlay I-2: Heavy Industrial (City) O/I: Office/Institutio nal (City) R-6 : Residential (City) R-1 2: Res Agricultural (City) Roxbo ro City L imits 116 APPENDIX C TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (Amended: 5/18/92; 11/17/92; 4/4/94; 7/11/94; 2/19/96; 6/3/96; 7/8/96; 5/5/97; 12/6/99; 5/4/2001; 12/1/2003; 6/6/2005; 11/1/2004; 11/19/2007; 11/3/2008; 12/1/2008; 4/20/2015; 9/6/2016; 10/2/17; 10/5/20, 11/16/20; 5/3/21) Districts in which particular uses are permitted as a Use-By-Right are indicated by "X". Districts in which particular uses are permitted as a Use-By-Right with certain conditions are indicated by "X" with a reference to a footnote to this Table. District in which particular uses are permitted as a special use upon approval of the Board of Commissioners are indicated by "S". See Section 153 for details in obtaining a Special Use Permit. PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Accessory Building X X X X X Accessory Uses Incidental To Any Permitted Use (*See Note 1) X X X X Adoption Services X X Advertising Agencies X X X AGRICULTURAL OR FARM USE EXEMPT FROM PLANNING ORDINANCE Aircraft Equipment, Parts and Supplies (*See Note 5) X X* X Airline Ticket Agency (*See Note 5) X X X* X Airport Operations (*Note 5 and Sections 90 & 91) S S S X* S Airstrips, (Private) /Heliport Without Commercial Activity (*See Note 8) (Added 5/7/01) X* X* X* X* X* Alcoholic Beverages Packaged, Retail Sale X X X Ambulance Service or Rescue Service S X X S X Amusement Parks S X Animal Medical Care (Including Kennel Operations) X X X Antique Shops S X X X Apparel And Accessory Sales X X X Appliance (Major) Sales and Repair X X X Appliance (Small) Sales and Repair X X X Art and Craft Supplies X X X Art Gallery X X X Auction Sales (Excluding livestock auctioning) S X X Automobile Off-Street Parking, (Commercial) X X X X Automobile Parts and Accessory Sales X X X Automobile Rentals and Leasing (*See Note 5) X X X* X 117 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Automobile Repair and/or Body Work (Excluding commercial wrecking, dismanteling, or storage of junk vehicles) Amended 12/01/2008 X S Automobile Sales, New and Used S X X Automobile Service Station Operations X X X Bank, Savings and Loan Company and Other Financial Activities X X S X Barber or Beauty College Instruction X X X Barbering and Hair Dressing Services X X X Bed and Breakfast Inns, Boarding and Rooming Houses, and Tourist Homes S X X Bicycle Sales and Repair X X X Blacksmith X X Boats and Accessories, Retail Sales and Service S X X Books and Printed Matter, Distribution X X Book Stores X X X Bowling Alley X X X Brewery (Added 10/2/17)S S Bridal Shops X X Builders Supply X X Bus Repair and Storage Terminal Activities (Amended 12/1/2008) X S Bus Station Activities (*See Note 5) S X X* X Camper/Recreational Park (Amended 8/2/2010) (See Section 155-2)S S S S Carpet and Rug Cleaning X X X Carwash X X X Catalog Sales X X X Catering X X X Cellular Telephone Sales and Services X X X Cemeteries - Church or Family X X X S X Cemeteries – Commercial S S S X Chemical Retail Sales X X Church, Temples, Synagogues X X X X X Clinic Services, Medical and Dental S X X S X Club or Lodge S S S X Commercial Modular Building (Adopted 5/5/97) X X X 118 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Construction, Trades (*Building, heating, electrical, plumbing, fire sprinkler and others) (Excluding outside storage of equipment or supplies) (Amended 11/19/2007) S X X X Construction, Trades (With outside storage of equipment or supplies) X X Contractor, General (Excluding outside storage of equipment or supplies) X X X Contractor, General (With Outside Storage of Equipment or Supplies) X X Convenience Stores S X X X County Governmental Facility (Adopted 2/3/97) S X X X Curio and Souvenir Sales X X X Day Care Center S X X X X Distillery (Added 10/2/17) S S Dry Cleaning and Laundry X X X Dwelling, Single-Family X X X X Dwelling, Two-Family and Garage Apartments X X X X Dwelling, Multiple-Family (See Section 80)S S S X Eating and Drinking Facilities (Amended 12/1/2008) X X S Electrical / Electronic Equipment and Supply Sales X X X Employment Agencies X X X Equipment Rental (Amended 11/16/20) X X X X Event Center (Amended 09/09/2019) S X X X X Exterminating Service X X X Family Care Home X X X X Farm Machinery Sales and Servicing S X X Farm Supplies Merchandising (Excluding Farm Machinery) X X X Fire Station And Law Enforcement Operations S X X X X Floor Covering Sales X X X Flower Shop X X X Funeral Home S X X X Furniture Retail Sales X X X Game and Sports Facilities (Amended 5-18-92) S S Glass Sales and Installation X X X Golf Courses S X X X Grocery Retail X X X Grocery, Wholesale X X Group Home for Developmentally Disabled Adults X X X X 119 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Gunsmith X X X Hardware, Paint and Garden Supply Sales X X X Health Spas, Fitness Center (Amended 2/7/2011) X X X Historical Preservation Commercial Use S X X X Home for the Aged S S X X Home Furnishings And Appliance Sales X X X Hospital or Sanitarium Care (Except for the Insane, Feeble-Minded and Addicted) (Amended 12/1/2008) S X S Industrial, Light (See Appendix C Note 2) (Amended 11/16/20) S X X X Industrial, Heavy (See Appendix C, Note 2) (Amended 11/16/20) S X Insurance Agencies X X X Interior Decorator X X X Janitorial Service X X X Jewelers X X X Karate and Other Martial Arts Instruction X X X Kennel Operations, Care S X X Landscape Contractor X X X Library S X X X Livestock Sales and Auctions (Amended 12/1/2008) S S Locksmith X X X Manufactured Home for Temporary Dwelling During Construction of Permanent Dwelling (Adopted 5/5/97)See Note 7 Manufactured Home (Individual) for Residential Occupancy - Class B (Rev. 5/5/97) See Note 3 Manufactured Home (Individual) for Residential Occupancy - Class A (Rev. 5/5/97) See Note 6 Manufactured Home Supplies and Equipment Sales S X X Manufactured Homes Under the Hardship Class A and B See Note 4 Marinas X X X Mobile Home Park but Excluding Any Mobile Home Sales (Amended 11-17-92, 7/11/94) S S S S Mobile Home Sales and Service X X Modular Homes (Amended 11-17-92) X X X X Monument Sales X X X Motel, Hotel or Motor Court Operations X X Movies, Video Sales and Rentals X X X 120 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC Moving and Storage Operations (Amended 12/1/2008) X S S Musical Instrument Sales X X X Newsstand Sales X X X Nonhazardous, Non-Toxic Solid Waste Disposal (Adopted 5/18/92) S S S S S Nursery Operation (Plant) - Agricultural X X X X Nursing Home S S X X Office and Professional Office (Adopted 12/6/99) S X X X X Office Supplies and Equipment Sales and Service X X X Painting Contractors X X X Paving Contractors (Amended 12/1/2008) S Pawn Shop X X X Pet Sales, Excluding Kennel Activities or Outside Storage of Animals X X X Pharmaceutical Sales, Retail X X X Photography, Commercial X X X Planned Building Group (See Article Viii, Section 80) (Added 12/1/03) S X X S Post Office X X X X Private Recreation Club Or Swimming Club Activities Not Operated As A Business Or Profit (Amended 12/1/2008)S S S S S Private Recreation Facilities For Profit (Amended 5/18/92, 7/8/96) S S S S S Public Recreations (Such as Community Center Buildings, Parks, Museums, Playgrounds, and Similar Facilities Operated on a Nonprofit Basis) S X X X Public Utility Station, Bulk Station or Substations (Amended 12/1/2008) S S S S S Radio or Television Studio Activities Only X X Radio, Telephone and TV Transmitting Tower (See Note 9 and Article VII & IX) (Amended 11/6/95)S X X X S Railroad Station Operations (Amended 12/1/2008) S S S Railroad Yard Operations S X Real Estate Agencies X X X Reception Centers for Recycling S X X Reducing Salon Care X X X Rest Home S S X X Retailing or Servicing Operations S X X Salvage Operation/Junkyard - Commercial S S Second Hand and Swap Shop Sales X X X 121 PRINCIPAL USES ZONING DISTRICTS R B-2 B-1 GI RC School, Private or Public (Elementary, Secondary, or Higher Level) (Amended 12/1/2008)S S X X S Solar Energy Systems (Added 10/2/17; Deleted 10/5/20) See Person County Solar Energy System Ordinance Sport Shops X X X Stables, Horse (Amended 4/4/94) X S X Stereophonic and High Fidelity Equipment and Supply Sales X X X STORAGE, HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE NOT PERMITTED IN ANY DISTRICT Storage, Household and Commercial S X X Storage, Open (Amended 5-4-01) S S S Tanning Salons X X X Taxicab Stand Operations (*See Note 5) X X X* X Teaching of Art, Music, Dance, Dramatics, or Other Fine Arts S X X X Temporary Construction Building (Amended 6/6/2005)X X X X X Theater Productions S X X X Tire Recapping X X Tire Sales Centers X X X Tobacco Sales X X X Travel Agencies (*See Note 5) X X X* X Truck Stop X Truck Terminal Activities Repair and Hauling and/or Storage X Variety, Gift and Hobby Supply Sales X X X X Winery (Added 11/1/2004)S X PERSON COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Text Amendment TA-01-25 for adoption of the amendments to the Solar Energy System Ordinance. Request Text Amendment TA-01-25 is a request by Hyco Solar, LLC to approve amendments to the Solar Energy System Ordinance for the purpose of allowing solar energy systems larger than 100 acres if located within 4 miles of the shared line with the Commonwealth of Virginia or Caswell County. Introduction The proposed text amendment, TA-01-25, requests the adoption of amendments to the Solar Energy System Ordinance. The accompanying adoption ordinance, titled “An Ordinance for Person County Official Text Amendment Application TA-01-25 to amend the Solar Energy System Ordinance for Person County” is consistent with North Carolina Planning enabling legislation. NCGS § 160D-914 only applies to solar collection for individual residential purposes. Local governments may apply regular land use regulation authority to solar energy systems, i.e., utility-scale solar collection or solar farms. The entire text of the Solar Energy System Ordinance is included with proposed language written in and highlighted as amended are throughout the ordinance. A summary memo of the changes is included, as well as a map showing the 4-mile buffer are along the shared north and west county lines. Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Consistency Person County Planning Ordinance Section 152, Zoning Permits, as well as, NCGS §160D-604 & § 160D- 605, requires plan consistency and a recommendation from the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. Zoning amendment review shall also follow specific criteria, as listed in NCGS Article 7, §160-701, as follows: Article 7. Zoning Regulation. § 160D-701. Purposes. Zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and shall be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. To that end, the regulations may address, among other things, the following public purposes: to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and dangers; to facilitate the efficient and adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements; and to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. The regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the local government's planning and development regulation jurisdiction. The regulations may not include, as a basis for denying a zoning or rezoning request from a school, the level of service of a road facility or facilities abutting the school or proximately located to the school. (2019-111, s. 2.4; 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, s. 51(a),(b),(d)). Planning & Zoning Department Staff Analysis & Potential Motion The Solar Energy Ordinance currently limits solar farms to 100 acres. A handful of sizable farms exist around the county, but none of the solar arrays exceed 100 acres. A quick read of the draft Unified TA-01-25 Application Staff Report Page 2 of 2 Development Ordinance that has not yet been approved indicated the 100-acre limit would have remained in effect. The text is a negotiated outcome starting with the applicant’s request in November and ending with the version included in the packet. The amendments propose a fourth type of solar farm. By and large, a Type 4 system is proposed to be added that allows the area occupied by the solar panels to exceed 100 acres. The Type 4 system would need to meet the same criteria and submit the same information as a Type 3 system (equal to 10 acres but less than 100 acres in total panel area). The draft does not currently include the mile spacing requirement between Type 4 systems that is currently required for Type 3 systems. The Planning Board may wish to consider that additional language. The Type 4 system is proposed to be allowed in every zoning district, but limited to land within 4 miles of the shared line with the Commonwealth of Virginia or Caswell County. A Map is included showing this area. GIS staff calculates this area as 35.5% of the total county area. Staff have found an additional text change needed for the amendments to be internally consistent: Section 1.5.h, the definition of a Solar Energy System, needs to have the word “three” changed to “four” in the final sentence, where the types are identified. Staff further recommends three related amendments be included, if the text is recommended to the Board of Commissioners: 1. Section 1.3, Authority and Grant of Power, should be amended to refer to Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes (rather than Chapter 153A). 2. Section 1.4, Jurisdiction and Applicability, should be amended to refer to Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes (rather than Chapter 153A). 3. Section 2.3, Height and Size Limitation. The members should discuss whether the 1-mile spacing requirement currently required for Level 3 systems should also be required for Level 4 systems. Based on the above, Planning & Zoning Department staff states that the amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Board could adopt a written Statement of Reasonableness and Plan Consistency to the Board of Commissioners in a single-statement potential motion, as follows: “I hereby move to approve the ordinance, titled “An Ordinance for Person County Official Text Amendment Application TA-01-25 to Amend to the Solar Energy System Ordinance”, and find the documents reasonable in the public’s interest and consistent with the Person County & City of Roxboro Joint Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” Attachments: Exhibit A: Text Amendment Ordinance with full text of Solar Energy System Ordinance, with proposed changes highlighted Exhibit B: Summary of Revisions Memorandum Exhibit C: Map of Person County showing a 4-mile buffer along the north and west county lines Exhibit D: Text amendment application form submitted. Summary of Amendments TA 1-25 – Solare Energy Systems Ordinance Section 1.5, Definitions: Create & reference a Level 4 Solar Energy system that is ground mounted and greater than or equal to 100 acres. Allow Type 4 SES in all zoning districts (with further limitations described later in the ordinance). Table 2.1, General Regulations Add Level 4 systems to the table. Designate as a Conditional Zoning for Residential and Rural Conservation parcels, Special Use Permit or Conditional Zoning for B-1 (Highway Commercial) and GI (General Industrial) parcels. Table 2.2, Setback Requirements Add Level 4 systems to the table. Require 200; setback for all the districts in which a Level 4 SES can be pursued. Add Reference to Level 4 systems throughout Section 2: 2.3.a, Height & Size Limitation 2.4.b, Buffers 2.5.b, Aviation Notification 2.6 Decommissioning & Abandonment Add Section 2.7, Limitation on Location of Level 4 systems, to define an area 4 miles wide parallel with the shared line with the Commonwealth of Virginia and Caswell County as the constraints on applying for a Level 4 SES. Article 3.1.E, Add Level 4 systems to the requirements specified for Level 2 and Level 3 systems when a SUP or Conditional Zoning is required. Article 3.1.G and H – add reference to Level 4 systems in the steps required following approval of an SUP or Conditional Zoning. £¤158 £¤501 ")157 ")57")49 ")57 ")49 DD ee nn nn yy ss SSttoorree RRdd SSeemmoorraa RRdd RRaallpphhWWiinnsstteeaaddRRddBBoossttoonnRRddOOxxffoorrddRRdd VViirrggiilliinnaaRRddBBuurrlliinnggttoonnRRddOOlldd AA lllleenn ss vv iilllleeRRddLLeeaassbbuurrggRRdd DDuurrhhaammRR ddNNMMaaiinnSSt tCC UU NNNNIINNGG HH AAMMRR DDHHuurrddlleeMMiillllssRRddGG uu eessssRRddHHee sstteerrssSSttoo rr ee RR dd DDiirrgg iiee MMiinneeRRddPP ii xxllee yy PPrriittcc hhaarrdd RRddBB ooww mm aannttoowwnn RRdd CC hh uubbLLaakkeeRR dd GG oorr dd oo nnttoonnRRddMMccGGhh eeeess MM iill ll RR dd MMttHH aa rrmmoonnyy CC hhuurrcchh RRddAAlllleennssvv ii ll ll eeRRdd AAnn ttiioocchhCC hh uu rrcc hh RR ddSS aa tt tt eerrffiieellddRRdd RRaannggeeRRddHHaalliiffaaxxRRddHHeelleennaaMMoorriiaahhRRdd PPeeeedd RRdd Halifax CountyPerson County Durham CountyPerson CountyOrange CountyPerson County Granville CountyPerson CountyPerson CountyCaswell CountyPerson Countyareas within 4 milesof the Caswell Countyand Virginia Border Caswell and Virginia Boundary Areas within 4 miles Railroad Highways Major Roads Local Roads Roxboro Lakes 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles ± The data offered by this tool is provided withoutwarranty and the user should consult primary informationsources to verify the accuracy of the data provided. Person County Text Amendment Request Executive Summary Cypress Creek Renewables is seeking a text amendment request for Person County to allow for solar projects above 100-acres to be submitted as new “Level 4 projects” while still adhering to all other ordinance requirements. The Level 4 projects would only be allowed in a 4 x 4-mile area in the northwest corner of Person County adjacent to the Commonwealth of Virginia and Caswell County, NC. The current ordinance restricts any projects above 100-acres to not be allowed in Person County. The ordinance change is being requested because of the need for additional energy sources as a product of House Bill 951. This House Bill requires the utilities to take an “all of the above” approach to procure new energy sources, including solar energy. The minimum size of these projects is 40MW in Duke Energy Progress, resulting in a need to allow projects larger than 100-acres to be submitted to Person County. For any Level 4 projects that were to be submitted to Person County, they would still be required to proceed through open legislative decisions from the Board of Commissioners with public participation and feedback. This ordinance change strives to keep the mix of rural areas of Person County as they are, while also allowing some limited areas for development to produce tax revenue without requiring significant county resources. The proposed area where this would take place has the lowest population density and is not designed for future development according to the Person County Land Use Plan like other rural areas of the County. This area is also ranked the lowest for suitability of agriculture, conservation, and traditional development. The requested ordinance change does not open Person County to a large number of new solar development. For any new projects, there are two main requirements: 1) access to the transmission grid and 2) large parcels of land that are available. While Person County is home to many of these areas, restricting where these projects can be built helps preserve the agricultural character of the County. Hyco Zoning Narrative Purpose: Crafting a narrative to share with the Person County Planning Board and Planning Staff. To be like a staff report submitted to the County. Current Solar Ordinance The current Person County Solar Ordinance includes three different levels of solar projects, or “solar farms.” Level 1 is defined as being “Roof-mounted or any code-compliant structure, Ground mounted less than ½ acre, Covered permanent parking lots and other hardscape areas, and Building integrated solar (i.e., shingle, hanging solar, canopy, etc.).” Level 2 is defined as “Ground mounted systems greater than or equal to ½ acre and less than ten (10) acres in all Person County Zoning Districts.” Level 3 is defined as “Ground mounted systems greater than or equal to ten (10) acres in all Person County Zoning Districts.” Within the level 3 solar energy system, the system shall also “not exceed one hundred (100) acres as measured around the exterior perimeter of the panels (outside of the buffer area). No level 3 solar energy system shall be located within one (1) linear mile of an existing level 3 solar energy system.” Summary of Ordinance Change Request The proposed application would incorporate one additional level to the solar energy ordinance, a “Level 4” project. A Level 4 project would allow for projects to be submitted to Person County that are above 100 acres, but much still adhere to all other provisions (such as 200’ setbacks and 150’ vegetative buffer) of the Person County solar energy ordinance. Each Level 4 project that would be submitted to Person County would still be required to go through a “Conditional Rezoning” which would be a legislative decision by the Board of Commissioners. The public hearing during a rezoning process also allows for public participation and feedback. The ordinance change request does not allow for any solar energy system to be built without direct approval from the Board of Commissioners. The area in which this ordinance change would allow for projects to be submitted is in a 4x4 mile border in the Northwest corner of Person County along the County line of Caswell and the state line of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This area was identified as being near the existing Hyco Duke Plant where transmission lines are already in place. Why this Ordinance Change is being requested Since the passing of the bipartisan House Bill 951 and the growing load forecast that the utilities in North Carolina are projecting, additional energy sources are needed. This House Bill not only allows for the utilities to build/upgrade natural gas facilities but also procure and provide opportunities for Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to submit bids for the projects they develop. The opportunities for 3rd party producers are limited to solar energy and solar plus storage projects but must be a minimum of 40MWac with a maximum size of 80MWac in the Duke Energy Progress territory. From 2010 to 2020, the cost of large scale solar has decreased approximately 82% (source: NREL Documenting a Decade of Cost Declines for PV Systems). Given that new projects will be utility scale projects, projects can expect to see cost savings through the economies of scale when compared to traditional residential solar. Every energy source being considered has a downside: fossil fuels are subject to price fluctuations, must be centrally located, and near a body of water; nuclear energy is subject long lead times for construction, requires storage for hazardous material and cost billions of initial capital; solar requires larger amounts of land to produce comparable energy and faces variability and uncertainty from the weather. All these different energy sources are being procured through the House Bill, with solar energy projects being the cheapest form of new energy that can be produced [see Exhibit A1 & A2– Levelized Cost of Energy for Various Energy Sources]. What does this ordinance change request not do? The requested change in the ordinance is not to allow solar projects to be sited across Person County; the request is to 1) allow projects larger than 100 acres located in a specific area of the county to be considered for zoning approval and 2) ensure that the Board of Commissioners maintains full discretion to approve or disapprove projects about 100 acres, which encourages a transparent, collaborative approach by any developer of a project to wish to be considered. This ordinance change strives to keep the mix of rural areas of Person County as they are, while also allowing some limited areas for development to produce tax revenue without requiring significant county resources. This ordinance change could promote innovation that benefits the local community, including agriculture, as local Person County entrepreneurs have begun sheep grazing at solar projects as a primary source of vegetation maintenance. The sheep grazing for a project of Level 4 could allow a local farmer to expand their operation, buy local, and support their own farm. The proposed area already has the lowest population density in the entire county and is not designated for future development according to the Person County Land Use Plan like other rural areas of the county [see Exhibits B through E – Person County Suitability]. Designating this area for solar facilities larger than 100 acres also confirms that this area could be used for agricultural purposes in the future once a facility is decommissioned as solar can be a form of land preservation when proper construction practices are employed. According to the 2022 USDA Census report, Person County is home to 364 farms that total 88,571 acres across the entire County. An 80MWac project (the largest allowed to be owned by an IPP) would take a minimum of 560 acres of solar equipment, depending on the topography and other features of the land. This would represent less than 1% of the total farmable acres in Person County (0.08%). Why does the proposed area make sense for solar development? Land Use Person County from 2012-2022 saw a 6% reduction of farmland throughout the County [Exhibit F – Person County Land Cover Change]. This includes farmland being converted into residential, commercial, or other uses such as conservation purposes. The proposed 4x4 mile area where this text amendment would be applied to also saw a decrease in farmland from 2012-2022 (13%). However, most of the difference can be attributed to farmland being changed to “other” uses which includes conservation of wetlands, horticulture, or other land uses besides typical Development [Exhibit G – Person County 4x4 Land Use Cover Change]. The 4x4 mile portion of Person County makes sense for this development type as this area’s suitability rating for Agriculture, Conservation, and Development is on the low end of the grading criteria put together by the Person County GIS Data [Exhibit B – Person County Suitability Overview] Agriculture The 4x4 area showing the Agriculture Suitability for Person County is on average a 6.24, from a scale of 0 (low) to 13 (high). There are some areas of agriculture use in this area, but the main area of agriculture suitability is in the south of Person County [Exhibit C – Person County Suitability Agriculture]. Conservation The 4x4 area for consideration is ranked on average an 11.15 from a scale of 1 (low) to 44 (high). The areas here that would be considered for conservation would be surrounding wetlands and other bodies of water. This type of development does not impact the hydrological features and provides buffers from those features. The main areas identified for conservation are within the south portion of Person County [Exhibit D – Person County Suitability Conservation]. Development The 4x4 area for consideration is ranked on average 10.62 from a scale of 1 (low) to 38 (high). The area here for consideration is largely in the low category with some small areas for development that could be considered [Exhibit E – Person County Suitability Development]. For this purpose, development is considered low intensity development, medium intensity development, and high intensity development that you would find in a typical town center. The development of a solar project is not considered a permanent development as after the lifespan of a project is completed, the land is restored back to its original condition, agricultural in this instance. Transmission For any solar project that would be connected to the Duke Energy Progress grid the main considerations are 1) enough usable area and 2) proximity to transmission lines. When considering all parcels in Person County that are 1) above 100 acres and 2) within 1 mile of a transmission line, there are many options for the development of a solar facility [Exhibit H – Person County 100-acre Parcel and Transmission Lines]. When considering increasing the acreage to be 400 acres or more for a parcel, the number of options for the development of a solar facility significantly decreases [Exhibit I – Person County 400-acre Parcel and Transmission Lines] though, there are still numerous options that could be considered. For this reason, the proposed 4x4 mile area would not allow for the development of a solar facility in the rest of the County areas that could theoretically be sited for solar. This is to keep with Person County’s values of preserving the agricultural character of the County while allowing for the development of solar that the County deems suitable. List of Exhibits Exhibits A1 and A2 – Levelized Cost of Energy for Various Energy Sources Exhibit B – Person County Suitability: Overview Exhibit C – Person County Suitability: Agriculture Exhibit D – Person County Suitability: Conservation Exhibit E – Person County Suitability: Development Exhibit F – Person County Land Use Change Exhibit G – Person County 4x4 Land Use Change Exhibit H – Person County 100-acre Parcel and Transmission Lines Exhibit I – Person County 400-acre Parcel and Transmission Lines 167699600.1 EXHIBIT B AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PERSON COUNTY SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ORDINANCE Section 1. That Section 1.5(h), Solar Energy System, is hereby amended by: changing the sentence reading “A system fits into one of three system types: Level 1 SES, Level 2 SES, and Level 3 SES” to read “A system fits into one of four system types: Level 1 SES, Level 2 SES, Level 3 SES, and Level 4 SES;” changing subsection 1.5.(h)(3) to read “Level 3 Solar Energy System (SES) – Ground mounted systems greater than or equal to ten (10) acres and less than one hundred (100) acres in all Person County Zoning Districts;” and that a new subsection 1.5(h)(4) is added to state: “Level 4 Solar Energy System (SES) – Ground mounted systems greater than or equal to one hundred (100) acres in all Person County Zoning Districts.” Section 2. That Table 2.1, General Regulations for Solar Energy Systems in Person County, is hereby amended by inserting a new row with “Level 4” listed in the first column, and with “SUP/CD” in the Highway Commercial (B-1) and General Industrial (GI) and “CD” in the Residential (R) and Rural Conservation (RC) columns. Section 3. That Table 2.2, Setback Requirements for Solar Energy systems in Person County, is hereby amended by inserting a new row with “Level 4*” listed in the first column, and with “200’” in the Highway Commercial (B-1) and General Industrial (GI) columns. Section 4. That Section 2.3, Height and Size Limitation is amended to replace “Level 1, 2, and 3 ground mounted systems” with “Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 ground mounted systems.” Section 5. That Section 2.4, Buffers and Landscaping, is amended to replace “storage for Level 2 and 3 systems” with “storage for Level 2, 3, and 4 systems.” Section 6. That Section 2.5, Aviation Notification is amended to replace each instance of “Level 2 and 3” with “Level 2, 3, and 4.” Section 7. That Section 2.6, Decommissioning and Abandonment, is amended to replace “Level 2 and 3” with “Level 2, 3, and 4.” Section 8. That Section 3.1(E), Level 2 and 3 Solar Energy Systems Requiring Special Use Permits or Conditional District Rezonings, is amended such that the section shall be titled “Level 2, 3, and 4 Solar Energy Systems Requiring Special Use Permits or Condition District Rezonings,” and the text in the body of this section stating “Level 2 and 3 solar energy systems” is replaced with “Level 2, 3, and 4 solar energy systems,” and that a new Section 3.1(E)(1) be inserted, with the existing subsections Section 3.1(E)(1) and (E)(2) being renumbered accordingly to follow thereafter, and state: “Limitations on Location of Level 4 Systems: “Level 4 systems shall be located only within both four (4) miles of the border between Person County and the Commonwealth of Virginia and four (4) miles of the border between Person County and 167699600.1 Caswell County, and no Level 4 systems shall be permitted outside of this geographic restriction.” Section 9. That Section 3.1(G) is amended to replace each instance of “Level 2 and 3” with “Level 2, 3, and 4.” Section 10. That Section 3.1(H) is amended to replace each instance of “Level 2 and 3” with “Level 2, 3, and 4.” Person County Planning & Zoning 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B ● Roxboro, NC 27573 BOARD MEETING DATES TIME OF BOARD MEETING May 8th 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 P M 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM June 12th July 10th August 14th September 11th October 9th November 13th December 11th Complete applications must be submitted with all required documentation to be considered by the Board. Application fees due upon submittal must be made before 4:00 PM. Please contact the Person County Planning Department at (336) 597-1750 if you have questions with the application submittal process. The Board of Commissioners serves in a capacity of approving Special Use Permits and is the ultimate decision-making body for any Planning Ordinance amendment or Zoning Map amendment, or rezoning. 2025 PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 March 14, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present Members: Chair Walker, Vice Chair Majors, Member Allen, Member George, Member James, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, Sarah Moore, Planner, Michie Brandon, Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for January 18th and February 8th were presented to the Board. No minutes were approved. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Discussion: A request by Person County to review the Person County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that consolidates land development regulations currently within ten individual ordinances, into one consolidated ordinance, updates, and amends regulations for the purpose of providing land use g uidance and land development procedures. Chair Walker opened the minutes at the definition for quasi-judicial decision. Member Lynch stated for real estate sign to make it “sign, real estate” to keep signs together and Mr. Bowley affirmed it was already done. Member George noting that it is not used in the document and asked the Board if they wanted to keep it and Member Lynch noted to strike it. Member Allen asked that for recreational use, if amphitheaters are included. Member George stated that she thought recreational use is more of a classification, like residential use, and Mr. Bowley concurred. Member Allen stated that there is more than one definition for recreational vehicles. Mr. Bowley stated that definitions are included from existing and proposed ordinances and could be combined, including FEMA-approved definitions, as long as the FEMA-approved part remains in-tact. Member Allen recommended to include the definition in the General Statutes. Member George stated to include the underlined definition from the red-letter definitions, which is fully licensed and ready for highway use, to prevent the use of dilapidated recreational vehicles. Member Allen stated to strike church, as there are synagogues, mosques, etc. Mr. Bowley stated he did a search and replaced church to religious institution throughout the document. Member George asked about the need to keep the definition on Page 3-13 and Mr. Bowley stated he moved the definition on Page 3-13 to Page 3-43 under religious institution. Member Allen and Chair Walker recommended keeping the definition and term for resubdivision. Member Allen stated to keep the term residuals and the Board decided to keep it. Member George asked if the Board wanted to keep repair shop when there is a new definition for automobile sales/rentals/parts/service. Member George stated wants to keep it and add it to the use table. Member Allen stated to combine definitions to distinguish that fifty-percent or more of its gross income from charges made for such repairs. Member George recommended to add telecommunications to replacement. For restaurant, it reads as an establishment, which primarily prepares and serves food and beverages to customers for consumption either on or off premises , and strike establishment. Member Allen asked about the terms right-of-way and right-of-way partial width and the Board recommended to combine the definitions. Mr. Bowley added that rights-of-way can also be used for buried utility lines, cables, recreational trails, etc. Member Lynch recommended in definitions, including seminude, to be gender neutral. She also recommended to take out opposite sex in the term sexual encounter. Mr. Bowley stated that he will remove gender reference throughout the document. Member George stated that school mobile unit is not used in the document and to strike search ring. She also stated that since salvage yard is a FEMA-approved definition and included on Page 3-14 with commercial junkyard/automobile graveyard/salvage yard, to keep them separated. Mr. Bowley stated that the General Statutes use a different term (junked and abandoned motor vehicles) to describe this land u se and to select one definition. Member Allen recommended to keep the school definitions including mobile units. Member George suggested adding service station to the use table and Mr. Bowley added that service station is an outdated land use, due to updated facility types. The Board recommended to keep service station and include it on the use table, in case someone wanted to build one in the future. Member George recommended that for front yard where it reads shall remain unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except as may be permitted elsewhere in this ordinance, may have unintended consequences of the front, side, and rear setbacks, because items such as chairs, swings, trees, plants, benches, flags, lights, reflectors, would all be in violation of that, Member Lynch asked where they are permitted elsewhere and Member Allen asked if it should be kept. Ms. Brandon stated that those items are not regulated on a lot. Mr. Bowley stated that the intent is to exclude occupiable structures within building setbacks, as they are supposed to be placed within building envelopes. He stated that striking the term unobstructed may achieve your intent and Member Lynch asked their meaning. Mr. Bowley provided an example of a building first being placed in a setback, then it is inhabited. Member Allen referred to having an existing tree that you are not going to cut down. Member Lynch asked if a tree can be planted in the setbacks and Mr. Bowley it could, but the tree could not be occupied. Member Allen asked for clarification of definition formats and Mr. Bowley stated that all ordinance definitions are included together for comparison. He stated that definitions in gray are in the current ordinances and underlined definitions are from Benchmark or added in since their work . Member Allen asked if signs were defined to this detail in the current document and Member Lynch stated that the shaded terms were and the underlined terms were not from the current ordinance. Member George suggested for shooting range outdoor commercial/club to read outdoor non- commercial shooting ranges shall be permitted to address inclusion of other members that is not the owner of the property or family members at are closely related. This states it would exclude them, not to open it to everyone, but to say non-commercial. Discussion ensued and the Board decided to change it to say for personal use by the property owner or for use under control of the property owner. Chair Walker asked to include short-term rentals in the S-section, instead of as vacation rentals, then create a new definition for the use. Member Lynch stated that she was not at the February 8th meeting and questioned whether we should have the use at all. Chair Walker stated they are allowed per General Statutes and Member Lynch stated that Ashville allows homestays, but does not allow for short-term rentals, except in non-residentially zoned areas. She does not support the definition stating for no longer than thirty days per rental person per year. She added that thirty days is not short-term, as it is more like two-weeks. She is inclined to limit the amount of time to rent per person, family, etc. and the Board then recommended a short term rental definition referencing definitions in other communities, as provided by Chair Walker, as follows: “A short-term rental is defined as the rental in certain zoning districts of any portion of a single-family dwelling or a multi-family unit for occupancy, lodging, or sleeping purposes for an amount of time less than thirty (30) days, per renter, and meets all regulatory requirements.” The Board also liked the definition for homestay as “A homestay rental is the rental of a room or rooms in a private home, in which a permanent resident resides, and is present during the homestay use of the property”, with no new regulation other than the ones proposed in the new UDO. The Board also requested the County Attorney to attend a Board meeting to discuss this land use. Member George asked the Board to keep site specific development plan or call it a new name. Mr. Bowley stated it is also called a site plan. Member George recommended it be changed to site plan. Member George stated that the Solid Waste Disposal Facility and Solid Waste Disposal Site are both in red. We also have a definition for Landfill on page 3-28. Which is Landfill/Recycling. The Board had decided to divide out the Landfill, Recycling, and Solid Waste Facility at the last meeting and asked for clarification on which definition we wanted to keep. Mr. Bowley stated after the last discussion we needed to come up with definitions for Solid Waste Large Scale Facility, Transfer Station, and Solid Waste Facility Small Scale using the ones in red as bases. A Large Scale will be like a Sanitary Landfill or a Construction and Debris Landfill. A small scale would be like the Recycling Facility run by Person Industries, or a Waste Management Company like GFL on a small scale that will not have a big impact on the environment. The small scale could fit in all the zoning districts because you want the hauling to be short trips from the home to it. A large scale would be more appropriate in an area like GI. Anything grandfathered in like the one to the East would be in RC currently and that one has been approved for their expansion for the next 20 years I believe. That one would not need to be rezoned anytime soon but would apply to the new landfills that come along. Mr. Bowley stated he would be working on a definition for it. Member James asked to reword Level 3 solar to say greater than ten acres and take out equal to, and Member George requested to change Level 2 to say up to ten acres. Member George stated that in special use permit there is a typo in land issues. She stated for stream buffers and streams to exclude the term drainage ditches. Member George stated to strike the second sentence in the Storage Container where it states that, these structures are temporary and ancillary to any structures on a lot and shall not be converted to a permanently located structure on the lot unless approved in the other codes. Member James asked do we want to permit permanently situated storage containers. Member George stated there are a lot of businesses that use them and it may harm them. Mr. Bowley stated do you want to make a distinction. One of the i ssues we have with code enforcement is people putting them on residential lots and just leaving them there. Sometimes they will just bring it from Durham and put it on a vacant lot instead of getting a storage unit in Durham. Sometimes they will bring them up and just store fireworks in them. Mr. Bowley stated we want to make a clear distinction. We understand for Agriculture purposes but the residential lot is what we are talking about. Member Allen asked what was the definition of temporary. Mr. Bowley st ated the idea there is it can brought in and moved off but you do not make it a permanent or inhabitable structure. Staff Member Moore stated in our current ordinance it has to be removed after a year. Our zoning permit approval is only good for one year. So for a temporary use, it has to be removed before the permit expires. Member James agreed that the timeframe of 1 year was good. “Chair Walker read the spot zoning definition and Member George asked if it is more than what the Board is intending for spot zoning. Member Lynch asked if the Board is for or against spot zoning and asked if spot zoning needs to be what is the best use of the land, not what the applicant says, regardless of the surrounding zoning. Member Lynch asked Mr. Bowley if the State says anything and he said it is addressed, but not excluded. Member Allen stated it should be on the use table and Mr. Bowley stated that it is not a land use, but a term or concept. Member George asked if the Board is for or against it and the Board decided to add to the definition provided by Mr. Bowley and that it should be discouraged. Member Lynch asked about the two definitions for structure and Mr. Bowley stated that he would combine them. Member George asked about the two definitions for subdivision, that the new definition be kept and to add lot or parcels to it. She stated for subdivision minor that it says not more than five lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new public street or road, or extension of municipal facilities, or the creation of any public improvements, and not adversely affecting the remainder of the parcel of adjoining property . She added that this will decrease the value of the remaining property, due to less area. She suggests striking not adversely affecting the remainder of the parcel and fronting on an existing street, since it will not be considered a street until there are three houses. Ms. Moore stated you would have to have an access easement and that would have to be done before the subdivision itself. Ms. Brandon stated that there needs to be permission from the property owner to have access easements go through their lot or it creates a landlocked lot. Member George asked to say five lots with easement or fronting. Discussion ensued and the Board decided to add access, but strike fronting on an existing street. Member Lynch recommended to correct a typo in subdivision, non-residential and Member George asked to add or for other uses for subdivision, non-residential for general cover and to allow for agricultural uses. She recommended telecommunications for support structure and to add tattoo, taxidermy, and taxicab to the use table. Chair Walker mentioned the technical review committee (TRC) recommendation from Benchmark and Member Allen asked if the Board took action on it. Mr. Bowley stated the Board has not reviewed that section of the UDO and Member James asked if a TRC was recommended by staff to have one. Mr. Bowley stated, yes, he has always managed one. He added that they add an opportunity for multiple departments or agencies to review projects, mainly those that are large-scale. He mentioned that Benchmark made use of a TRC optional. The Board discussed meeting with the applicant and Mr. Bowley stated that a TRC is not a pre-application conference, but related to staff review of submitted applications. He stated that a TRC includes departments and experts related to the application and may include outside agencies, such as staffs from the City of Roxboro or NCDOT. He added that they can also occur informally in the form of staff meetings and the Board decided to keep a Technical Review Committee. Member George recommended FEMA before temperature controlled and Member Allen stated to strike temporary sign on Page 3-54. Member George asked if temporary healthcare structure is a transportable residential structure. Member Lynch questioned if the State allowed them. Member Allen stated it should be zoning regulated, if permissible, and Member George stated to add it to the use table. Mr. Bowley stated it is listed in the General Statutes, its temporary/movable, and it is applied within different zoning districts. Member Allen stated to keep the definition. Member George stated for timber/silviculture and sawmill operations to add the term sawmill operations to the use table, without timber/silviculture. She asked if sawmill will be under the agriculture heading and Mr. Bowley stated yes. Member George wants to add telecommunication to tower and to regulate semi-trucks and larger trucks in truck terminal. Member Lynch asked where this is permitted on the use table and Member George stated it is under heavier uses. Mr. Bowley stated that the Board could add semi-trucks and Member Lynch asked where truck stops are used. Mr. Bowley stated for industrial, warehouse, transportation, and utility uses. Member Allen recommended to delete the term uncovered and the Board agreed. Member Allen recommended to combine the red-letter variance definition with the new underlined variance term and the Board agreed. Chair Walker added 2 or 5 gallon for vegetation, so trees have a height standard. Mr. Bowley asked if he wanted to list a minimum of 5 gallon and Member George stated that a gallon was going to be bigger than 6 inches tall and added that landscaping costs may be too expensive for applicants. Member Allen stated that the existing ordinance definition references evergreen trees and does not include other trees or bushes. Member George stated that the existing ordinance references reaching 6-ft. in height within 3 years and asked if the Board wanted to add that. Member Lynch asked if the gallonage size helps get higher than six inches and Member George agreed, if it grew quickly, she will support it. Chair Walker stated it will be 12 to 15 inches by then and the Board decided to change the definition to read vegetation, screen and to add that it has to reach 6-ft. in 3 years. Member Allen stated to keep the definition generic and Member James asked if the definition affected the table with the vegetation plant list. Mr. Bowley stated that the plant palette list in the new UDO is only recommended, not required. Member George stated that warehouse self-storge or general storage needs to be added to the use table and added that watershed classifications does not have the watershed criteria in the definition. Mr. Bowley stated that there is a table in the stormwater regulations listing the criteria. Member George recommended to move watershed to stormwater and added to keep the change to wire fence definition to fence, wire. She added the term winery to vineyards distillery and brewery. Mr. Bowley stated that those were already combined at an earlier meeting. Member George recommended not including petting zoo, corn maze, cheese processing, roasting of coffee, and associated retail sales in winery and Member James recommended to keep it, because some vineyards have various types of family events. The Board decided to keep the definition as is. Member George stated for yard (side or street side) to keep the original definition or strike extending from the front of the building line to the rear building line. The Board decided to strike that language from the definition. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker adjourned the meeting with a motions from Member George and seconded by Member James at 9:20 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Barry WalkerTabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 May 9th, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Walker, Vice Chair Majors, Member Allen, Member George, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher Members Absent: Member James Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, Sarah Moore, Planner, Michie Brandon, Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All present Members stated they did not have any conflicts of interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The March 14th minutes were provided for Board approval, but the Board did not vote on the minutes. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Discussion: A request by Person County to review the Person County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that consolidates land development regulations currently within ten individual ordinances, into one consolidated ordinance, updates, and amends regulations for the purpose of providing land use guidance and land development procedures. Chair Walker opened the meeting stating that the Board will complete Section 5 at the May 23rd Board meeting and the Board voted unanimously (6-0) with one member absent to extend their review time to June 27th and to July 25th. The Board asked staff to select sections in the new UDO that should not be altered and Mr. Bowley responded, Adult Entertainment, the preambles in Articles 1 and 2, and federal signage standards without knowing the full legal ramifications of the change. Member George asked if the County Attorney had made any comments and Mr. Bowley responded that the County Attorney is currently reviewing the document. Chair Walker began on Section 6 and Member George requested Subsection B to allow more than one unit per lot. Chair Walker asked why accessory structures are not allowed on adjacent lots in Subsection B and Mr. Bowley stated that accessory structures are typically ancillary to the principal structure on the same lot. He added that lot recombination is recommended to assemble the lots placing all structures under a common ownership. Member George suggested striking the last sentence in Subsection B and the Board agreed. Member Lynch asked about placing a storage building on an adjacent lot and nothing keeping them from selling the second lot with only a storage building on it. Member Allen asked if someone can add a house on the lot after the storage unit was built and Mr. Bowley stated, yes. Member George stated on Page 6-3 to change the last sentence in Subsection B to public road, or easement, and to strike Subsections B(1) and (2). Member Allen asked for about flag lots and Mr. Bowley stated that they are a legal lot of record that includes a narrow flag pole. Chair Walker recommended to strike subdivision and Member George referenced the second image in Figure 6.2-3. Mr. Bowley stated that Benchmark showed two measurements within one graphic. Chair Walker discussed the Density, Intensity, and Dimensional Table and Member George asked to separate G-I from NB and HB, changing the building height for the commercial zones to 50-ft.; leaving G-I at 100-ft. Mr. Bowley asked about the height limit for Residential and Chair Walker recommended increasing it to 50-ft. Member George stated to strike footnotes 1 and 2 of the table and to strike Subsection D. Member Lynch recommended to change Conservation Development back to Cluster Development . Member George asked about the language in Subsection C and Mr. Bowley stated it is in the current Planning Ordinance and brought over. Chair Walker recommended to strike six- months. Member George asked to change existing topography to 10-ft. and Mr. Bowley stated that the County GIS contour intervals have 4 ft. Member George asked to include Part A of the existing features plan in the minimum required open space. Member George asked for parks, passive or active open space, to strike the last sentence and in alternatives to dedication on Subsection D to include maintenance in the last sentence. Member George stated that language in Sections 6.4.2 C and 6.4.3 B are the same. Member George stated for solar, junkyards, and mobile home parks there are separate bufferyards in those standards and Mr. Bowley recommended that the Board add, “unless otherwise listed in this Ordinance, the following shall apply”, as bufferyards can vary per use. Member George asked to include vegetative ground cover and grass to ground cover. Member George asked if street yards applied to residential development and Mr. Bowley stated, yes, for major subdivisions. Member Allen stated to keep sentence D and Member George stated planting trees every 100-ft. with shrubs along streets. Mr. Bowley stated that there are installation and maintenance costs that should be accounted for . Member George stated in residential yards planting a tree every 50-ft. can become a hazard and Chair Walker stated to make tree plantings optional. Member Lynch added that there are a lot of places trees do not belong and they are hard to maintain and Member Bradsher added that he prefers to have trees planted, because several acres may have been deforested to build the subdivision . The Board agreed to have tree plantings as optional. Member George asked that the plant install standards in Section C and the utility standards be consistent with Section 6-60. She recommended that for the maximum number of parking spaces in Section B and Section C to remove the word “maximum”. Member Allen asked why only two parking spaces per dwelling are proposed and Mr. Bowley stated that the table lists minimum parking requirements to at least accommodate a minimum of two cars. Member Allen asked to consider visitors for an assisted living/independent living facility with one space per living unit and Mr. Bowley stated that the standards listed are for a minimum number of spaces that also accommodates staff, visitors, and residents that do not often drive. Member Allen recommended to increase the number to two spaces per living unit and the Board agreed. Member Allen stated for churches, religious institutions, and related uses to have one space per three seats and Member Lynch recommended for government/civic facility/office to have 1.5 spaces per employee. Member Bradsher stated 1.25 spaces per employee and the Board agreed. Member George stated for public/private/post-secondary to change it to one space per two students, two spaces per campsite, and to add retail to gas stations. Mr. Bowley stated he would check these ratios against the ITE manual , as well. Member George requested for industrial, warehouse, transportation, and utility use to have one space per employee and Member Bradsher stated to consider construction costs that makes development more expensive to the developer for the additional spaces . He added that it may also require more ponds, due to impervious space, and Member Lynch stated she wants the proposed changes to be realistic. Mr. Bowley recommended one space per employee per shift, as industrial uses are typically in shifts, rather that include spaces for all shifts cumulatively. The Board agreed. Member George stated to strike D and E in 6.6.3.1 due to practical issues requiring driveways to line up. Mr. Bowley stated these are going back to the Department of Transportation standards. The D.O.T. based on the classification of roadway, has access management standards and per those standards. The typical minimum spacing between driveways is 300 ft. The reason behind it is to protect the capacity and flow of the roadway by limiting the number of access points on the road. Other ways they do this is by putting medians in roads to limit where you can make a U-turns as well. Mr. Bowley stated they could change it to recommended or encouraged. Member George stated to change it to encourage in both points D and E. Member George proposed on Page 6-81 to strike half of the minimum street width reference in Section A not in the general statutes and proposed striking Subsection G on utility and easement standards. Mr. Bowley stated that it should reference road crossings over water bodies. Chair Walker stated that he wants to revisit campgrounds/RV parks and Member Allen recommends using a special use permit, rather than as a permitted use. Member Lynch agreed for temporary workforce housing and people bringing their families Member Allen asked about the use of special use permits. Mr. Bowley stated that Special Use Permits are the equivalent of conditional use permits and their conditions of approval vary per location. He wrote land use regulations for this use in new UDO, with consultation with the Environmental Health Department for master utility systems and solid waste disposal. Member Allen stated to allow the use with a Special Use Permit in all zoning districts and Mr. Bowley asked if the Board wanted the use in the G-I zoning district; potentially exposing people to commercial compactor solid waste collection, noise, fumes, vapors, etc. The Board stated to allow it in all zoning districts with a Special Use Permit. Ms. Sherry Wilborn, 221 Woody Dr., Timberlake. She asked the difference between a cluster and a conservation development. Mr. Bowley stated a conventional development is the default, but the Planning Ordinance and new UDO allows for a cluster or flexible development option. He explained master development features of a cluster development and there is only one in the County. Ms. Wilborn commented on the formatting of the new UDO to make it easy to use electronically and Mr. Bowley stated that hyperlinks will be to the table of contents to link sections for ease of use. Ms. Wilborn commented on finding bufferyard standards quickly and Member George stated that Commented [BMB1]: I verified this information on the Original recoding at timestamp 39:00 bufferyard are in the same section as their use. Ms. Wilborn stated that on Page 6-66, the examples are great, however, she questioned the need for a small business to build dumpster screen enclosures. She added to allow trees in major subdivisions, even if maintenance is not required, as it is a cost to the developer only. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member Allen motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member Bradsher and the Board vote passed unanimously (6-0), with one member absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Barry Walker Tabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 May 23th, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Walker, Vice Chair Majors, Member Allen, Member George, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher Members Absent: Member James Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, Sarah Moore, Planner, Michie Brandon, Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All present Members stated they did not have any conflicts of interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Discussion: A request by Person County to review the Person County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that consolidates land development regulations currently within ten individual ordinances, int o one consolidated ordinance, updates, and amends regulations for the purpose of providing land use guidance and land development procedures. Chair Walker called the meeting to order and invited public comment. Holly Forester Miller, 45 Pointe Mayo Lake, Sunset Trail. Ms. Miller presented research materials on short-term rentals and expressed concern for allowing the use. She stated that her community has had problems with one home with it and their homeowner's association attempting to ban them. She suggested that the Board include language that states “no zoning permit shall be granted for vacation/short-term rental use for any property in a subdivision with registered covenants or bylaws specifically prohibiting such use.” Gary Miller, 45 Pointe Mayo Lake, Sunset Trail. Mr. Miller expressed his concern about short -term rentals and supported Ms. Miller’s points. Greg Slaughter, Pointe Mayo. Mr. Slaughter urged the Board to stop short-term rental units in subdivisions that do not want them and he agreed with Mr. and Ms. Miller by stating that they pose safety concerns for permanent residents in the community. Chair Walker moved to Page 5-27 and Mr. Bowley stated that the term sexually oriented was changed to adult entertainment. Member Lynch asked for point 5 to add “are” after “these regulations” and stated on Page 5-28, Section B(a) to include an email address as a form of contact. Member George asked to check Page 3-35, Section N (1) that says less instead of more and expressed concern about itinerant uses. She suggested to strike “may take place on the same lot as a permitted principal, non-residential use, or commercial parking lot”. Member George provided an opinion that taking signs down or placing them in rights-of-way would not pose a safety issue to people in the right- of-way. She recommended to leave signs in the right-of-way for two weeks before the sale. Mr. Bowley stated such signs are temporary and not permanent with calendar days listed to prevent perpetuity. Member Lynch asked if the signs are left out, how are they removed. Mr. Bowley stated that typically Code Enforcement staff has to remove them and they become blight. Chair Walker asked the Board if permitting itinerant retail uses for 120 calendar days is acceptable and the Board agreed. Member George requested that Page 5-37, Section B, list a limit for a sign to advertise and Mr. Bowley recommended daily during the sale only. The Board decided to have two signs the day of the sale, the address, and to be able to place them out a week ahead of the sale. Member George added “for parking” to point D, 5.7.5.4 and for point C, to strike 120 SF. She requested industrial light and heavy to add light as a minor impact. Chair Walker mentioned commercial junkyards on Page 5-39 to say commercial salvage yards. Member George asked if this section was intended to regulate residential junkyards as well. Mr. Bowley stated that the current ordinance has the term residential junkyards, which causes code enforcement issues, and the new UDO eliminates residential junkyards. Chair Walker asked about someone having junk or multiple vehicles on a residential lot and Mr. Bowley stated that it will be reviewed on a per-lot basis. Member Majors asked to place a limit on the number of cars that can be on a residential lot and Member George asked for the definit ion of screening to also be added to the code enforcement standards. Chair Walker asked to consolidate the term commercial junkyards and automobile graveyards. Mr. Bowley stated he thought the last meeting we decided on the Salvage yard. Member George asked for a definition of junk and what the threshold of junk is. Member Lynch stated Mr. Bowley had previously stated visible nuisance. Member George asked for a more detailed definition with a threshold. Mr. Bowley stated it becomes cubic volume its height as well as width. Chair Walker asked do we have a Salvage Yard as a permitted use anywhere. Member Lynch searched the legal definition of visible nuisance and asked did it help. Mr. Bowley stated the definition was very subjective in the field. Member lynch stated it did state it would be based on the opinion of a designated offer which allows someone to say it is a nuisance. Chair Walker stated that if it was screened then they would not have to deal with it. Member Lynch and George asked then what the threshold for junk to be screened is. Member Lynch stated it would be at the discretion of the administrator. Chair Walker stated that it would not be popular. Mr. Bowley stated in the past we have written things as the sole discretion of the county and it gets challenged. Is it legally defensible yes but is it physically enforceable no. Member Lynch asked if the best we could do was a screening definition and Mr. Bowley agreed. Member George stated she was not in favor of Junkyards or Junk but this may harm pe ople who have built their homes too close to the road. Member George stated she would lean favorably to allowing screening to be in the front yard as well. Chair Walker agreed. Mr. Bowley offered some recommendations. Chair Walker stated to have it 10 feet off the property line. Mr. Bowley asked for clarification and stated that “What would you do? 100% optic meshaque screening off the property line, off the front property line was ok with the Board and stated that Staff could enforce that. ? Okay, that’s fine, we can do that.” Member Allen stated to make it 20 ft. from the right away. Member George stated to say out of the right ways due to right ways varying by road type. Chair Walker agre ed. Mr. Bowley asked for clarification on how far it needed to be from the right away and the board agreed on 20 feet from the right away. Chair Walker asked for clarification on where the salvage yard was allowed on the permitted use table saying I have it everywhere except GI and GI was a special use. Member George remembered it as disallowed. Chair Walker thought initially it was disallowed everywhere and then there was discussion about the matter. Member Lynch had it disallowed everywhere except as a special use in GI. Member Bradsher concurred and Memb er George agreed. Member Allen asked if this was going to be grandfathered use. Chair Walker stated no. Member Bradsher asked if that is the case do we want to make it a special use across the board so it does not harm other existing businesses. Member George stated no. Mr. Bowley stated the majority of the existing locations were in the Rural District and this would apply to residential not commercial. Member George stated that allowing it in the Rural District would be allowing the County to be taken advantage of. The Board agreed to leave it only in GI as a special use and Chair Walker asked for it to be listed on the permitted use table as a Commercial Salvage Yard with a grandfathering clause for existing Commercial Salvage Yards in every zoning district. Member Allen asked in Section 5.7.6.4, B that solar energy systems that are roof-mounted or serving residential property, as well as maintenance and repair of solar energy systems, are not subject to this Ordinance and are exempt from obtaining a Zoning Permit then in section C and to remove language to be consistent and Member Lynch agreed. Member George requested in the table on Page 5-42 to refer to the setbacks rather than Section 6.2.2. She requested that the primary means of vegetative maintenance be grazing. Member Bradsher suggested setting a decibel limit for noise at the edge of the property and Member Lynch suggested 55 decibels. Member Lynch requested on Page 5-44, Section G(2) to strike the last sentence and Member George requested on Page 5-44, Section G (3) to add “at least as good as” after “condition.” Member George stated on Page 5-48 to change “may” to “shall” and for battery storage on Page 5-49 to add that same decibel limit at the edge of the property as solar. Member George stated for Section N to strike Tiers 2 and 3 and Member Lynch requested a bond be required under Section M on Page 5-49. Member George stated for Section N (11) to list 55 decibels at the perimeter of the property and had a question in regards to the 10-ft. width in Section 6 being enough width. Mr. Bowley stated that 20-ft. is the standard emergency vehicle width and to change it to 20-ft. Member Lynch stated the word stated to add “to” to Section B and on Page 5-54 and to strike “and no more than eight (8) feet in height” on Page 5-54. Member George stated on number 7 to add that it needs to be a half foot-candle at the boundary on Page 5-54 and on 11(b)(5) to add the calculation of foot candles at the boundary on Page 5-56. Member Lynch stated to add a bond on Page 5-57 in Section F and Member George stated point 1 should include support structures. She added that on Section G, Page 5-58, to strike non-manmade. Chair Walker ended the discussion and invited the public to speak again on any issue. Sherry Wilborn, 221 Woody Dr., Timberlake. Asked if current commercial salvage yards would become grandfathered and Mr. Bowley responded stated, yes, commercial salvage yards will be grandfathered. Member Lynch asked if the use can have a variance and Mr. Bowley responded that any use will have to meet the test of hardship to receive a variance. Donald Long, 9741 Virgilina Rd., Holloway. Thanked the Board for their service and expressed his concern to protect property owner’s rights by allowing short-term rentals to be able to do what they want to do on their properties. He urged the Board to set standards, as provided in the new UDO, instead of restricting short-term rental use. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member George motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member Majors and the Board vote passed unanimously (6-0), with one member absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair Barry Walker ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 June 13, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. He stated that at the June 27th Board meeting, the Board will review UDO Articles 1, 2, 7, and 8. They may also have a brief discussion on Article 4. This should provide Planning staff time to prepare the document for the Planning Board to vote on at the July 25th Board meeting, prior to presenting it to the Board of Commissioners. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Walker, Vice Chair Majors, Member Allen, Member George, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher, Member James Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, Sarah Moore, Planner, Michie Brandon, Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All present Members stated they did not have any conflicts of interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Petition SUB-01-24: A request by the Applicant and Property Owner, 3 Brothers Building, LLC, for Youngs Meadow Final Plat Major Subdivision Concept Plan approval on a ±107.16 -acre lot (Tax Map No. A40 57), located at 623 Youngs Chapel Church Rd. for a 21-lot residential subdivision, per Section 30 of the Subdivision Regulations of Person County. Mr. Bowley presented the Young’s Meadow Final Plat Major Subdivision Concept Plan and stated that Planning staff recommended approval of the subdivision, with the conditions listed. Chair Walker asked the Board if they had any questions. Member George asked with the easement being on the back of the property will the front and back lines of the lot change. Mr. Bowley stated that it would considered a double frontage lot. Member George asked if the lots would have enough room within setbacks to build a home and have a well and septic. Mr. Bowley stated he did and stated the lots are over an acre and meet the minimum lot size. The minimum lot sizes are tied to utilities and allow applicants to meet the setbacks for Well and Septic and Zoning. Chair Walker asked if the application could be delayed until the new UDO. Mr. Bowley stated that would enact delayed due process and we do not have a moratorium in place to officially stay a decision by you tonight. If they wan t to go forward they have that right and option to go forward. Chair Walker asked for how long though. Mr. Bowley stated we did put something back to them to bring something from D.O.T. for an approved road access. Member Lynch asked where lot one was loca ted. Mr. Bowley stated lot one was the largest lot and it had a stream running through it. It was located on the northeastern side of the lots. Member Lynch asked did the lots go all the way to the western side of the lot or not. Mr. Bowley stated it looked like the lots stopped before the greenhouses. Member Lynch asked if the 60 ft. section would be the access for the road. Mr. Bowley stated they had several different options for placing an access easement for the 21 lots. Member Lynch stated lot L9 would be the one access for these 21 lots on Young’s Chapel. Mr. Bowley stated for emergency access purposes they might consider other points of connection as long as there is a separation distance that works for D.O.T. Member Lynch stated that we do not know what that is going to look like yet. Mr. Bowley stated yes but we just want them to be prepared that once it goes to the board and it gets approved and gets to the building permit stage and they try to get a permit from D.O.T. they can. That the D.O.T. does n’t come back and say well we gave one to our neighbor so the only way you can have one is if you share it with your neighbor. That would cause inverse condemnation at that point. Member George stated on her computer GIS shows the current road frontage is close to 3,052 feet but it was not a precise measurement. Mr. Bowley stated his understanding from talking with the applicant was that they were going to leave the greenhouses and the last lot would be right next to the last greenhouse . Member Lynch asked if the board could request for a larger vicinity map to show the larger lots with the smaller lots being created. Member Lynch stated you are looking at only a 10 ft. driveway would we want to recommend a 20 ft. driveway. Mr. Bowley stated we have a private road cross-road section (A) but we cannot make that mandatory but the applicant is working on an alternative access point. Stated it would have been helpful to show the larger lot with the smaller lots. Member Lynch asked what if the lots do not perk what happens. Mr. Bowley stated ideally and we encourage that they would have started with environmental health. If it fails the applicant can go to the state and petition them if they went with an Independent soil scientist. Member Lynch stated that what we are looking at is subject to change from multiple other groups and it may not come back to us. Mr. Bowley stated maybe not it depends if it is consistent with the concept. Member Allen asked if the concept was to have the access road o ff the back of the parcels. Mr. Bowley stated their concept was for each lot to have its driveway off of Young’s Chapel Church Road. Staff had trouble supporting that and brought up the easement issue. Staff mentioned the frontage and the rear to avoid the traffic on Young’s Chapel Church Rd. Ideally, it would be better on the rear of the lot because it allows for better stacking coming off the 60 ft. access but the applicant would have to come up with the concept they want. Member Allen stated that doing that would decrease the size of the lot. Mr. Bowley stated for the developable area of the lot for their personal use. Chair Walker asked if there was a traffic study done on Young’s Chapel Rd. Mr. Bowley stated it is a state road and D.O.T does its traffic analysis. For Staff Whether it is level of service A or level of service F the condition could exist in the future so we want to plan it right the first time. Vice Chair Majors asked if the applicant had been working with D.O.T. Mr. Bowley stated yes the applicant had even had them out for site visits. D.O.T. has even emailed me about it but I do not have anything official for it. Chair Walker asked if the applicant was there and Mr. Bowley stated he was not. Member Bradsher asked are you saying if the D.O .T. approves even though we make recommendations all the applicant has to do is submit a letterhead with the D.O.T. saying that they can approve the driveways and the private road does not count. Mr. Bowley stated that based on past conversations with D.O.T. I’m confident they are not going to approve it. Member Brasher stated it may encourage more development on the parent tract if we have a road. Mr. Bowley stated he did not know but if you let driveway access dictate the design the applicant may want to alter the design to not be linear across the entire frontage. We did recommend that when the applicant came in. Franklin Poindexter, Timberlake. He stated that the lots shown are not square and represents houses close together like a condo and assumed a building type. He expressed concern about traffic on Young’s Chapel Church Rd. and asked if the Church received a letter. Staff affirmed they received a letter. Travis Sharon, 1289 Guess Rd., Timberlake. She expressed concern for the type of house to be built and asked the Board for plans for the remainder of the site. Member Lynch asked if the lots are legally conforming and Mr. Bowley stated, yes. Member Lynch stated that, even though we may not like it, the code dictates design. Chair Walker asked about the location of the stormwater pond. Mr. Bowley stated that the property is within the Neuse Basin and that there is no master stormwater system, each property owner per lot will be required to apply for stormwater permits. Chair Walker asked why the Board is reviewing it and Mr. Bowley stated that this is a Major Subdivision Concept Plan for a subdivision and that Planning Board review is required by the Planning Ordinance. He added that the staff report includes conditions of approval, prior scheduling the item before the Board of Commissioners hearing. Chair Walker asked for a motion and Member Allen made a motion to continue the decision until notice from NCDOT, as listed as a staff condition of approval. Member Bradsher amended the motion to include the plat to show the access easement listed as a condition of approval by staff and to include the larger parent tract on the plat, not just a boundary survey. Mr. Bowley stated that the Board can continue th e item to a date-certain meeting and recommended not to continue it open-ended. Member George referenced Section 153-5(c) that a Planning Board vote is needed within 30 days. Member Lynch amended the motion to include the July 11th meeting date and Member Majors seconded. The Board voted 6-1 with Member James opposing. Chair Walker invited public speakers again. Travis Sharon, 1289 Guess Rd., Timberlake. She stated the remaining 72 acres was listed for sale with access from Youngs Chapel Church Rd. Matthew Huff, 1181 Huff Rd., Timberlake. He expressed concern that a residential use will abut an existing farm. He stated that residential development in the area has led to crime, nuisance, and wildlife displacement. He is concerned that increased development will cause damage to the water table and increased chemical runoff threatening their organic farm certification. Bailey Hunt, 1181 Huff Rd., Timberlake. She stated that the County is at risk of losing their farming history, which is a County foundation. She added that the area has always been used as farming and residential development harms farms. Chair Walker stated that the Board was not planning on rezoning the property and the RC zoning district permits this kind of development. Mikayla Huff, 145 Huff Rd., Timberlake. She expressed concern about traffic and agreed with Mr. Huff. She is concerned about school overcrowding in the area, due to an increase of children from the subdivision. She also added that 3 Brothers Building, LLC, had their contractor’s license revoked, as of May 29, 2024. Item 2: Discussion: A request by Person County to review the Person County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that consolidates land development reg ulations currently within ten individual ordinances, into one consolidated ordinance, updates, and amends regulations for the purpose of providing land use guidance and land development procedures. Mr. Bowley provided a brief introduction and introduced the County Attorney, Lydia Lavelle. Ms. Lavelle provided an overview of short-term rental case law in North Carolina. Chair Walker began a discussion with Board members and then invited the public to speak. Member Lynch proposed banning Short -term rentals outright. Ms. Lavelle stated there are other states such as Austin, Texas to have some sort of restriction and it seems to be too tight of a restriction of property rights to say you cannot rent outright. Member Lynch proposed having a limited n umber of permits for short-term rentals and having them renew them every year. If it goes well then you can up the number of permits the following year. Member Lynch proposed having the owner live in the residence. Member Lynch proposed limiting how long you can rent it. Member Lynch proposed adding a line J to state “No zoning permit shall be granted for vacation/short-term rentals use” for any property in a subdivision with registered covenants of bylaws specifically prohibiting such use. Member Allen asked where RV parks played into short-term rentals. Member Brasher stated we cannot say what anyone can do with their property and block their right to free enterprise. Vice Chair Majors agreed as long as things were going well. Member James agreed as well but suggested increasing the permit fee to attract those who will take it seriously. Member James stated she also agreed with the revocation of the permit if the regulations were broken on several occasions for 365 days. Chair Walker asked what Kind of res trictions we have as a Board, County, and Sherriff’s Department to enforce these regulations. Ms. Lavelle asked Mr. Bowley if there was another area in the code where a permit could be revoked for a year for not adhering to the permit. Mr. Bowley stated he did not recall but it was added to these new standards. Ms. Lavelle stated she did not know if what was specifically said would be a problem but wanted to provide the example of Schroder’s case to show you could not have a registration per se. However, the issuance of a zoning compliance permit is different in that it is a way to make sure people know what to do when they apply for the permit. Ms. Lavelle stated that Schroder’s case also talks about how a registration is disguised as a permit. What you are suggesting I do not think it has been tested but I can do some more research and get back to you. Ms. Lavelle also stated that in Schroder’s case, they talk about limiting the number of short-term rentals but commentators have said we regulate based on numbers. I do think it can be dicey but I do not believe it has been tested and I do think it will get challenged. Ms. Lavelle also stated requiring someone to live in a short-term rental has been challenged twice. I think requiring them to live in will be h ard to argue legally as well. Member George stated right now I feel like it would be easier to start stricter and less permissive and if they are abiding by regulations then loosen the regulations up. Ms. Lavelle stated a starting point would be to have th e regulations and spell out what you have to do in there. Mr. Bowley stated we did discuss short -term rentals with a homeowners association and their legal council could write a stop and decease letter but it does not stop it. Ms. Lavelle stated when you have restrictive covenants and deeds in a Homeowners association they require a private right of enforcement, not the County’s. Mr. Bowley stated we did add an item J. Ms. Lavelle stated she was not sure we would have the authority to enact that kind of restriction. Ms. Lavelle recommended not to add Item J. Member George asked if it would be an option to have short-term rental to be spaced so far apart. Ms. Lavelle stated that was the issue in a Wilmington case. They had a certain number per neighborhood an d they did not get to pick what was at the heart of some of it. I will double check on that but I do think that will become an issue. Member Allen asked if a 30 -day month- to-month apartment lease is the same as a short-term rental. Ms. Lavelle stated she thought it was different from the Vacation Act and under the definitions provided. Chair Walker asked if camper RV parks fell under short -term rentals. Ms. Lavelle stated they would need to meet the criteria of both. Mr. Bowley Agreed. Stating the RV camper is a temporary stay but it is harder to monitor. We would have to make a distinction that it would have to meet both criteria. Julie Maybee, Person County Tourism Development Authority, 705 Durham Rd., Roxboro. She expressed concern that 38% of the County’s revenue comes from occupancy tax and tourism. She asked the Board to consider the impact of limiting short-term rentals and what initiated this conversation on them (i.e. noise complaints). Mr. Bowley stated that code enforcement cases have been a source and the rental use has no use standards. Ms. Maybee stated concern with how accessory structures were permitted for vacation rentals and that any standards will be difficult to enforce. She stated that the short-term rental standards listed say that someone cannot live in them, while being rented. Mr. Bowley stated that none of the rental types in the UDO limit owner -occupation, while being rented and the Board added Homestay rental types. Member James stated that it seemed one-sided, because citizens from a particular part of the County have a percentage of short-term rentals that is not across the County. Claudia Berryhill, 279 Knolls of Hyco, Roxboro. She thanked the Board for addressing issues with vacation rentals and mentioned the use of a property management company to ensure that it is operated properly. She added that there is an honor system for notifications of issues and that water amplifies sound. The issues on the lake are often from weekend lake home owners, not only renters. Mary Jo Daniel, no address given. She stated, as a realtor with Vernon Real Estate, that they manage many vacation rentals and if vacation rental companies receive complaints, she will not list the property. She added that her company leases often say no parties. As long as they are abiding by the rules, she cannot evict tenants. The short-term rental is between 60 to 90 days and vacation rentals are no more than 7 to 10 days. Sherry Wilborn, 221 Woody Dr., Timberlake. She stated that the Board mentioned a ban on short-term rentals at a previous meeting and asked about the standards for them in the new UDO. She added that noise level decimals and lighting limits may not always be enforceable. Paul Rigsbee, 639 Pointe Mayo Dr., He stated that the Board was given a proposition from them three weeks ago, and asked about the next step. Member Lynch asked if his issue is with one resident and asked him to describe the problem. Mr. Rigsbee added that his HOA community has covenants and bylaws that are provided to homebuyers when they purchase a property and the bylaws are to be followed. He stated that one resident has broken the bylaws by allowing a vacation rental, because our rules don’t allow them. Member Lynch asked how long it has been going on and Mr. Rigsbee stated for more than a year. Member Allen asked the County Attorney if the County Planning Ordinance took precedence over bylaws and Ms. Lavelle explained that an ordinance did not supersede binding covenants and bylaws. Member James asked the County Attorney about the dispute process and Ms. Lavell stated it is a private civil matter. She added that the County cannot enforce the HOA’s proposal that County zoning permits be disallowed. Chair Walker directed the conversation to lodging. The Board discussed issuing a yearly permit to renew annually. Mr. Bowley stated that staff cannot enforce that provision. The Board recommended to have the contact person respond to an issue within two hours, strike evictions, and keep short-term rental units receiving greater than two notices for noise ordinance violations shall not be able to apply for a zoning permit within 365 days. The Board asked about making short-term rental units approved by Special Use Permit and Mr. Bowley stated that his office would not be able to process large volumes of Special Use Permits for this use. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member George motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member James, the Board voted and the motion passed unanimously (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Barry WalkerTabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 June 27, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Walker, Vice Chair Majors, Member Allen, Member George, Member Lynch Members Absent: Member Bradsher, Member James Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, Sarah Moore, Planner, Michie Brandon, Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All present Members stated they did not have any conflicts of interest. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Discussion: A request by Person County to review the Person County Unified Development Ordinance that consolidates land development regulations currently within ten individual ordinances, into one consolidated ordinance, updates, and amends regulations for the purpose of providing land use guidance and land development procedures Member George asked for the review of the UDO in the updated format to have all the minutes done and approved before the board was at the point for the final review of the UDO. Mr. Bowley stated that he would get all the draft minutes that have not been voted on yet. Chair Walker asked if that could be done and Mr. Bowley stated yes, we are caught up on all the minutes. Chair Walker opened the meeting at Article 8, non-conformities, and asked for comments from the Board. Member Allen stated the second sentence in Section 8.1 was contradicting. Mr. Bowley suggested to strike it and the Board agreed. Member George stated in Section 8.1 to strike Subsection B. Member Allen stated in Section 8.3 to strike Section A, Subsection 1, and to strike Section 8.3, Subsection B. Member George recommended to strike Subsection E and, for Subsections G and H, to show that people can build back structures one-to-one within an 18-month time span. Chair Walker discussed Article 7, Sign Standards. Member George stated that there was a formatting error in Section 7.1.2, Subsection B, to add a number one, as well as include posted signs to the list, and clarification on Subsections 7 and 9. Mr. Bowley suggested to combine them and suggested to strike the one sign-driveway limit and the Board agreed. Member George asked for the sign height image 7.2-2 to be altered to show the base to the height. Mr. Bowley stated that he will try to adjust it. On 7.2.4, Member George requested that the sign illumination include the 0.5 footcandle limit at the roadway border. On 7.3, Member Lynch suggested to strike affixed to a motor vehicle and Member George stated to strike tree or fence on letter G. On 7.3.2.1, Subsection C, Member George stated that the language contradicted Table 7-9 and Mr. Bowley suggested to strike the language. The Board agreed. On 7.4, Member George requested that illumination in Residential and Rural Conservation zoning districts be disallowed and the Board agreed with striking external illumination only. On 7.5, Member George requested to disallow billboards/off-premise advertising signs and the Board agreed, as well as to add a grandfathering clause for existing signs. Mr. Bowley stated that billboards will then be moved from Sections 7.5 to 7.7, prohibited signs and on Section 7.7.13, he added that signs with motion are typically called animated signs. Chair Walker discussed Article 1, Purpose and Authority, and on 1.2, Member George wants former language added into the UDO. Chair Walker asked that number 10 be included in Section 7.7.21 and on 1.6, Member George wants to combine Subsection B with Section 1.5.2. On 1.8.1, Subsection B, Member George wants to change tolled to caused or suspended, in Subsection D, to change 7 years to 2-5 years, and on 1.8.5 to include a reference to the County’s freedom of information ordinance. Chair Walker them moved to Article 2, Administration and Enforcement and on 2.2.2, Member George wants to reformat and include the information listed in the previous Paragraph 4. On 2.3.1.2, Member Allen asked to include the Environmental Issues Advisory Committee. Member George asked that the Technical Review Committee be listed as optional throughout the document and asked for a definition for nuisance. Member George asked about working after a stop work order is a Class I or Class III misdemeanor. Mr. Bowley stated he would check the general statute. Member George stated in 2.7 B to reword the language to allow the violator more time to fix the issue. Mr. Bowley agreed it should be more clearly stated and suggested “beyond first notice.” Mr. Bowley explained it is saying if you received that first notice then ignored it and received more notices then you start receiving penalties. Member Allen suggested “upon second notice.” Member George stated, “Upon receipt.” Vice Chair Majors stated it says “with no return receipt.” Member George asked if you could get tracking to see if it has been delivered. Mr. Bowley stated you send it first class mail and certified mail so if they do not get it you also send it by regular mail. That is a common excuse. Chair Walker opened conversation on Article 4, Review and Approval Procedures. Member George stated that quasi- judicial and legislative hearings and advisory hearings to add that it includes a public hearing with public notice to adjoining properties within 500 feet and is published in the newspaper for interested parties to offer evidence. Member George stated under 4.2.2 to reword it for 30 calendar days from notification of permit denial, to make the pre- application meeting optional, and to make the Technical Review Committee review-optional throughout the document. She stated that in the beginning Article 4 to reference the general statute and add language similar to the Planning Ordinance that explains the notification process. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member George motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member Allen, the Board voted and the motion passed unanimously (5-0), with two members absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair Barry Walker ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 July 11th, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair Walker determined that a quorum was met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. He asked for nominations for the Vice Chair position and Member James nominated Member George. Member Lynch seconded the nomination and the Board voted unanimously (7-0) to approve. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, Ms. Michelle Solomon, also swore in new Planning Board Member Steven McFarland. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Walker, Vice Chair George, Member McFarland, Member Allen, Member Lynch, Member James, and Member Bradsher Staff Present: Chris Bowley, AICP, Planning Director, and Michie Brandon, Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All present Members stated that they did not have any conflicts of interest. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Petition SUB-01-24: A request by the Applicant and Property Owner, 3 Brothers Building, LLC, for Youngs Meadow Final Plat Major Subdivision Concept Plan approval on a ±107.16 -acre lot (Tax Map No. A40 57), located at 623 Youngs Chapel Church Rd. for a 21-lot residential subdivision, per Section 30 of the Subdivision Regulations of Person County. Mr. Bowley presented the Youngs Meadow Final Plat Major Subdivision Concept Plan. Chair Walker opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Linda Long, 1800 Jones Store Rd, Timberlake. She expressed concern for an increase in traffic and wrecks that may be caused by the new 21 lots. Her concern is over access to the remaining tracts on the site and for neighboring lots. She is also concerned for future development on the remaining two tracts, not knowing how they will be built and asked how this use fits with the future land use plan goal of celebrating rural character. Jennifer Huff, 1164 Huff Rd., Timberlake. She expressed concern for the existing community’s health, quality-of-life, environmental impacts, agriculture, and economics. Arnold Denny, 4030 Burlington Rd., Timberlake. He expressed concern for continued quality-of-life, slowing down development until we have the infrastructure to support it, increased traffic, community safety, and the type of homes that will be developed on the property. He asked if there were any transportation improvements planned along US 501 and Mr. Bowley provided an update on planned improvements by NCDOT. Mikala Huff, 1164 Huff Rd., Timberlake. She expressed concern for area school capacity, quality-of-life, traffic, displacement of wildlife, the agricultural history of the County, and disturbance to existing farms. She also expressed concern for future development on the remainder of the parcel. Matthew Huff, 1181 Huff Rd., Timberlake. He expressed concern for his organic certified farm next door and stated that this site was prime farming land. He also expressed concern for traffic safety, quality-of-life, contamination of water, chemical drift, and displacement of wildlife. Bailey Hunt, 1181 Huff Rd., Timberlake. She expressed concern for quality-of-life, her family’s safety, rural lifestyle, preservation of farm land, and future development on the remainder tracts. Grace Phillips, 390 Youngs Chapel Church Rd., Timberlake. She expressed concern for increased traffic and the potential for wrecks. Franklin Poindexter, 990 Youngs Chapel Church Rd., Timberlake. He expressed concern for access to the 21 lots along Young’s Chapel Church Rd., the lot pattern not using the entire property, property upkeep, quality of the new subdivision, and utility service to the houses if the lots can’t percolate. Matthew Huff, 1161 Huff Rd., Timberlake. He asked if the lots will percolate. Mr. Bowley stated that the lotting plan is only a Concept Plan being reviewed as such. The Applicant had not provided that information and the Applicant will need to seek Department of Environmental Health approval following conceptual approval, which may affect the number of lots. The Applicant stated that they have an independent soil scientist and received the information that day of the hearing, but didn’t know the results. Chair Walker closed the public hearing and opened the Board’s discussion. Member George asked if the plan was for a well and septic or city water and sewer. Mr. Bowley stated No, this will be well and septic. Mr. Bowley stated as far as he knew there were no plans in the back and there never was for anything other than the 21. M ember Lynch stated the lot size being greater than one acre will accommodate individual wells and onsite septics. Mr. Bowley stated yes, per our regulations, they will and they would still need to go to environmental health to get approval. Member Lynch asked what if they do not perk. Mr.Bowley stated at this stage this is the concept plan for the final plan for them to go to the final plot to create legal lots of records they will still need to go to environmental health to get approval. Member Lynch asked what is the topography of the land. The Applicant’s representative Caitlin Harrell stated the back acreage and the side where the greenhouses were never in the plan to develop. ItTheir plan was to leave them in their current condition. Which was the reason for the 60-foot access from the road was drawn in. The Applicant’s representative stated for the topography that there was a blue line stream on the side with the hardwoods.It feeds from the pond and there is an intermittent stream that feeds down the so uthwest corner. The Applicant’s representative stated that the area did not havea adequate access for development and it would require the Army Corp of Engineers to come in and redo that roadway. Member Lynch stated because of the stream limits access to the back end of the property. The Applicant’s representative stated yes. Member Lynch asked what UC on the plan meant and the Applicant’s representative stated it stood for Underground utility and would limit development but you could cross it. Member Lynch asked is that why there were attempts to get access from other property owners. The Applicant’s representative stated that the previous property owners were trying to get an easement to that back section before we purchased it , after we purchased it, and while we were trying to sell it. Member Lynch asked if the intent was to sell the land . The applicant’s representative stated yes, we intend to sell it in its current condition with no further development to it. Member Lynch asked if there would be any kind of deed restriction on it. The applicant’s representative indicated no. Member Lynch asked about the small buildings and the applicant’s representative stated the existing buildings were outside the 21 lots and the only one that would be demolished was the current house that is not inhabitable. Member Lynch asked if there were any plans to widen 501 and deal with infrastructure such as roads and schools. Mr. Bowley stated the roads have been getting upgraded, the portion that north uptown to the Virginia border has been widened, and the portion by GKN South to the county line has already been widened. The last I have heard about widening is the part through Roxboro. They have broken that up into three segments. Segment one would go throughfrom Walmart to the Marathon Gas station. This one is still funded for design. Segment 2 would be from the Marathon to Walgreens and Segment three3 would be from Walgreens to North of the Highschool. Those design funds are not going forward at this time. Member Lynch asked about the part heading to Durham and Mr. Bowley stated no. Member George asked about Southern Person County and Mr. Bowley stated no. Member Allen asked about for clarification from the applicant’s representative regarding statements that the applicant did not have a current contractor’s license. The applican’ts representative said they would check on that. Member Bradsher asked why there was not a single access for all of the lots. The applicant’s representative indicated that it was because of the stream and the stream buffer. Member George asked if the applicant had approved well and septic permits approved by Person county environmental health. The Applicant’s representative stated that she was informed on the way up that the independent soil scientist had found the perk sites and had been iIssued but she did need to find them and send them. She needed to look and see what they had. She knew the soil work was done, the evaluation was done, Suitable soil was found, and an individual improvement permit was written by an independent soil scientist. She had not reviewed the documents in length because she had just received them on the way to the meeting. Member Bradsher asked what the applicant’s plan for addressing the situation if there was limited perks on the lots, would the developer have small 2 bedroom houses to accommodate this situation? The applicant’s representative indicated that in her experience this builder has not pursued lots with less than a 3 bedroom perk permit and that 2 bedroom residences were difficult for realtors to sell. Member George asked if the 3 brothers have a concept plan reflecting the larger lot with the smaller lots. The Applicant’s representative stated there is a boundary map without the large lots because they will not be a part of the subdivision.The cCurrent plat is only showing what the current subdivision will be and that would be a better question for her surveyor. Member George stated that she would like to see the larger lot with the smaller lots because the board was missing the largest and most important lot that is being formed by this subdivision and we are missing the relationship of these 21 parcels to that larger lot that’s being formed as well. Chair Walker stated and asked what JDE on lots 14 and 15 to be abandoned should a public right away be developed between lots 14 and 15 mean. Mr. Bowley stated if these accesses ever become private right away the D.O.T. requested the note to be on there to show it will be abandoned. Member George stated it does not look like the joint driveway easement has been plated and asked Mr. Bowley to point it out because it seems like the noteit is in conflict with the plan. Mr. Bowley stated that the private joint driveway easement that serves lots 14 and 15 would be abandoned if a joint driveway easement was developed. Mr. Bowley stated it was in between lots 14 and 15 and it was the 60 ft opening. Member Lynch stated it is identified as L9 and L10 and it was there so if anyone needed access from the back of the lot they could have access from the back of the lot. L9 and L10 will also have driveway access off of that access easement. Mr. Bowley stated that if Youngs Chapel Church Rd gets widened by D.O.T. that area becomes public right away and D.O.T. wants to assure that at a later date, they do not have to come and acquire that easement privately. Member Allen asked why would the plat not show the driveways coming off the easement. Mr. Bowley stated as a plat you only show the easements at this point. The driveway should be coming in through that gap and there will be a paved access for 14 and 15 coming off the access easement. Member George stated she did not seem spelled out where the access was and there were errors on the plat so the plat did not seem final to her for example on lines and bearings there were 2 L6 entries and there should only be 1 L6 entry. Also, Eespecially since the board had requested that a plat be provided to show the larger lot with the smaller lots on the same plat and that was not provided to the board. Mr. Bowley stated that Youngs Meadow did provide the visual for the larger lots with smaller lots. Member Lynch stated they did but they did not put it on the plat they had to review. Mr. Bowley stated that L6 was linear as two segments so the surveyor broke it up into two. Mr. Bowley stated that the Board could get a good image of the remainder of the property with the final plat and the boundary survey especially since they are not going to develop the remainder. Chair Walker asked if there was a Stormwater erosion plan. Mr. Bowley stated that the individual property owners would have to pull their permits to build and the lots would be sold to individual property owners. Chair Walker asked about the stream buffer on the lots and how that would integrate with the watershed, for example lot 22 is split by the stream buffer . Mr. Bowley stated their net developable area would be less and they would have to pull permits to develop in the buffer or traverse the stream. Member George made a motion to deny the application, Due to it not showing the larger lots with the smaller lots and the incompliance with Article 5 in the Ssubdivision orderOrdinance Design Standards, section 53-5, page 24, Where public water and sewer facilities are not available and individual water supplies or individual sewage disposal systems are planned, the subdivider, at his own expense, shall have the site investigated und er the supervision of the County Health Department or other person approved by the County Health Department to determine whether or not such individual facilities are feasible and shall present proof to the Planning Board that appropriate soil tests have been conducted and each lot in the subdivision not served by public water and sewage disposal systems has been approved by the County Health Department for individual water supplies and/or sewage disposal systems. The site investigation for sewage disposal shall include a sufficient number of percolation tests, and test holes of sufficient depth to determine the absorption capacity of the soil and the locations of the groundwater 24 Date of Adoption: March 9, 1987 table, and of rock formations and other impervious strata. (The number of percolation tests required and depth of test holes shall be determined by the County Sanitation.). The motion was seconded by Member Bradsher. The Board voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend the denial of the Youngs Meadow Final Plat Major Subdivision Concept Plan. Item 2: Petition RZ-01-24: A request by the Applicant, the Person County Economic Development Department, to rezone the ±1,347.34-acre Subject Property, identified as the Person County Mega Park, from an RC (Rural Conservation) to a G-I (General Industrial) zoning designation. Mr. Bowley presented the Zoning Amendment Application RZ-01-24 to rezone the Mega Park site. The rezoning application will change the zoning designation on the site from RC (Rural Conservation) to G-I (General Industrial) for the entire ±1,347.34-acres. The site is designated by the State of North Carolina as one of six megasites that are contemplated for advanced manufacturing to attract that industry. He added that this zoning amendment is consistent with the existing entitlements and anticipated land uses for a Mega Park. Following Board discussion, Chair Walker opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Todd Fox, 1870 Edwin Robertson Rd., Woodsdale. He expressed concern regarding his property value as a result of development of the site. He questioned recent activities in the area and wondered what the ultimate use of the site will be; referencing people trespassing and drone operation on this property that is privacy invasion. Derek Wilkerson, 2072 Edwin Robertson Rd., Woodsdale. He expressed that people have been entering onto his private land with no advanced notice and conducting utility locates without his permission. Jeff Watkins, 1264 Country Club Rd., Woodsdale. He expressed concern for people coming onto his property without prior notice and the potential to change taxable values for adjacent properties following the rezoning. He asked if the property was being rezoned as a condition of sale or to attract potential users. Person County Economic Development Director Brandy Lynch stated that there was an intent to rezone the property that was waiting for Unified Development Order adoption. She added that potential applicants have been interested in the property, but the lack of a needed zoning designation has been a deterrent. This rezoning will allow for that interest to continue. Chair Walker closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the meeting for Board discussion. Member George provided an example of a data center in Virginia and asked about this land use type. Mr. Bowley stated that large-scale campus megasites are typically comprised of commercial and/or industrial uses. Member Allen referred to the new UDO and stated that data centers are a Permitted Use in the RD (Rural Development). Mr. Bowley stated that, during the Board’s review of the UDO, the Board wanted non-rural uses within the RD zoning district. Member James made a motion to approve the zoning amendment application RZ-01-24 for the Mega Park from RC to G-I in accordance with the listed Guiding Principles 2.1, 2.4, and 2.7. Member Bradsher seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of RZ-01-24. Item 3: Discussion: A request by Person County to review the Person County Unified Development Ordinance that consolidates land development regulations currently within ten individual ordinances, into one consolidated ordinance, updates, and amends regulations for the purpose of providing land use guidance and land development procedures. Chair Walker opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Holly Forester-Miller, Pointe Mayo Subdivision, Woodsdale. Ms. Miller requested that the language that she provided for short-term rentals as Item J within the UDO be added to the document. She stated that the language she requested was struck following an opinion by the County Attorney that local government Zoning Permits cannot be withheld due to civic bylaws. She questioned why there is coordination between the Lake Authority and Person County staff. Mr. Bowley stated that there is intergovernmental coordination with the Lake Authority, as they are a separate governmental agency. He added that the County Attorney affirmed that local permits cannot have delayed due process, due to private civic bylaws. The Board discussed and upheld the County Attorney’s opinion not to include new language in the UDO. ADJOURNMENT Chair Walker asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member Bradsher motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member James, the Board voted and the motion passed unanimously (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair Barry WalkerTabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 October 10th, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Vice Chair George determined that a quorum was not met and the meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. ROLL CALL Members Present: Vice Chair George Members Absent Chair Walker, Member McFarland, Member James, Member Allen, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher Staff Present: Planner Nicole Talley and Michie Brandon Planning Technician, and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS NEW BUSINESS Review of Planning Board Meeting Minutes for 12/14/23, 3/14/24, 3/28/24, 4/11/24, 4/25/24, 5/9/24, 5/23/24, 6/13/24, 6/27/24, 7/11/24, 7/25/24, and 8/22/24. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:02 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Tabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 November 14th, 2024, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair George called the meeting to order at 7:00 and determined a quorum had been met. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member McFarland, Member James, Member Allen, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher Staff Present: Planner Nicole Talley and Michie Brandon Planning Technician, and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS All members stated they did not have a conflict of interest. NEW BUSINESS Election of Vice Chair Review of Planning Board Meeting Minutes for 12/14/23, 3/14/24, 3/28/24, 4/11/24, 4/25/24, 5/9/24, 5/23/24, 6/13/24, 6/27/24, 7/11/24, 7/25/24, and 8/22/24. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for the election of the Vice Chair and opened the floor for recommendations. Member James nominated Member Allen and Member Allen accepted. Member James made the motion and Member Lynch seconded. A vote was made and it passed unanimously. (7:0) Chair George Opened the portion of the meeting to review the minutes. Starting with 12/14/2024. Member James stated that for the first paragraph to change, “she did not say” to “she did say.” Member Lynch stated to strike sentence two in paragraph four. Member Lynch made a motion to approve the revised minutes. Vice Chair Allen seconded the motion. A vote was made and it passed Unanimously. (7:0). Chair George opened the review for the minutes of 3/14/2024. Chair George stated in Paragraph 7 to add the discussion on solid waste disposal facility and site. Staff was also working on a definition to separate large and small-scale solid waste disposal facilities. Chair George also stated to add the discussion on storage containers. The Board decided to table the minutes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 3/28/2024 minutes. Chair George stated on page two, line twenty-nine, “Chair Walker had asked about parking on an existing driveway for four vehicles and Member George disagreed needing additional parking,” and asked to change it to reflect that she disagreed and did request for additional parking. Member Allen made a motion to approve the minutes as revised. Member James seconded the motion. A vote was made and it was passed unanimously. (7:0) Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 4/11/2024 minutes. Chair George stated on page 2 the second line, that she requested to break up the amusement park by size and indoor vs. outdoor. Chair George stated on page two, line 41, for salvage yards and solid waste facility to add that it required a special use permit in GI and nowhere else. Member Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Member Bradsher seconded. A vote was made and it passed unanimously. (7:0) Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 4/25/2024 minutes. Chair George stated on the second page, in the first paragraph, lines 12-13, to change Ms. Brandon to former sitting Chair Walker who requested the 50-ft width Bufferyard. Chair George stated to add her comment about the buffer yard and that former sitting Chair Walker asked Staff to look into the Buffer Width. Chair George stated to add to her statement on line 44 the reasoning behind the comment. Member Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Member James seconded. A vote was made and it passed unanimously. (7:0) Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 5/9/2024 minutes. Chair George stated on the second page, paragraph 1, line 32 to add the comment from 6.5.9 driveways to strike D and E because it required driveways to line up and to be limited to one per 300 ft of frontage. Since parcels are only required to be 100 ft. wide there would be parcels that would not be able to have a driveway. Chair George stated Staff Brandon could go back and verify. The Board decided to table the Minutes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 5/23/2024 minutes. Chair George stated on the second page 3 lines down it references page 3-37 and it should be changed to 5-37. Chair George stated to add the discussion on junkyards. The Board decided to table the minutes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 6/13/2024 minutes. Chair George the discussion included Member Lynch's concern about a larger vicinity map including the larger parent tract with the 21 proposed lots. Chair George stated under the UDO discussion the Attorney would research to see if revocation of the short-term zoning permit was statutory or would be able to be policed by the planning department. Chair George also asked to add where the attorney clarified that RV parks would fall under short-term rental regulations and have to abide by both RV park regulations and short-term rental regulations if the RV occupants were there for less than thirty days. The Board decided to table the minutes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 6/27/2024 minutes. Chair George asked to add that she requested the minutes to be done and approved before the meeting for the final review of the UDO. Chair George stated on the second-page end of the second paragraph to add at the end of 1.8.5 the reference for the freedom of information ordinance. Chair George stated we to add where the board had discussed giving the violator more time to fix the issue and the clock would start upon receipt of the notification. That notification would also be sent by certified and USPS mail. Chair George asked to elaborate on public notice. In the second paragraph second line add the public hearing with public notice, mailing the notice within 500 ft to everyone adjoining the property and published in the newspaper. The Board decided to table the minutes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 7/11/2024 minutes. Chair George asked to add on the second page first paragraph to change Huff to Hunt. Chair George also asked to add on the second page of the paragraph that starts with Barry Huff. Chair George asked to confirm if the plan was for septic or well or city water and sewer. Also, add that Member Lynch asked what would happen if they could not get approval for well and septic. Chair George asked to verify if it was Matthew Huff at 1181. Chair George stated to add where the board had asked for proof of approval from environmental health for the well and septic. Their response was no and to cite the section of our subdivision which was a part of the motion and grounds for denial. Chair George asked to include that they did not show all the subject lots. Chair George asked to add that the previous owners had asked for an easement through other properties and that there was a blue line stream on the property that was not adequate access for development. The Board decided to table the minutes. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 7/25/2024 minutes. Chair George stated to add in the first paragraph that we could add the freedom of information to the last line. Chair George asked to add in the last line of the second paragraph to note the class 3 to class 1 misdemeanor was addressed again. Member McFarland made a motion to approve the minutes as revised. Member Allen seconded. A vote was made and it passed unanimously (7:0). Chair George opened the portion of the meeting to review the 8/22/2024 minutes. Chair George stated on the first page of the last paragraph the minutes say 100 but I believe it should be 1,000. Chair George stated on the first page last paragraph four lines up from the bottom Member Bradsher wanted to take Arcades/Amusement out of GI. Chair George stated to add where Former Chair Walker decided to strike indoor/ outdoor recreation for GI. Chair George asked to add in the next sentence that the salvage yard was an S in GI and nowhere else. Chair George stated to add the discussion from Member Lynch in regards to service uses and the desire to divide assembly hall/ amusements based on size and community impact. Chair George stated that in the first paragraph line starting with a lot of records, it states that it occupies a lot of records and it needs to be changed to strike it needs to say strike its lot of record. Chair George stated in between the two paragraphs that for 4.1.5 solar facilities were excluded from the airport overlay but solar specifically mentions reflectivity and discussion from the board supported allowing reflectivity in the airport overlay. Chair George stated in the last paragraph at the very end changed it to keep the buffer yard for Industrial uses the same as the current ordinance. Which is 150 ft. in sq. ft. for plantings in the current ordinance not the 150 ft in linear footage in plantings. The Board decided to table the minutes. Member Lynch made a motion that the minutes that have been tabled for research for March 14th, May 9th, May 23rd, June 13th, June 27th, and August be tabled to allow the planning department to research the wording that needs to be corrected or added. Member Bradsher seconded. A vote was made and it passed unanimously (7:0). ADJOURNMENT Chair George asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting and Member Allen motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Member James the Board voted and the motion passed unanimously (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 8:53 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair Tabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 January 9th, 2025 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair George called established a quorum had been met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member McFarland, Member James, Member Lynch, Member Bradsher, Member Allen, Member Maybee Staff Present: Planner Nicole Talley and Michie Brandon Planning Technician, and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS Chair George read the confict of interest statement and all Members except Member Lynch stated they did not have a conflict of interest. Member Lynch stated she may have a conflict of interest given that her husband’s company may have some involvement with the project and would refrain for discussion on the item. NEW BUSINESS Planner Nicole Talley gave the presentation for Duke Energy Conditional Rezoning. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for public comments and discussion. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for public hearing portion of the meeting. No one from the public showed up to speak. Chair George invited the Applicant, Elizabeth Townsend to come up and speak and elaborate on the reason behind the Conditional District Rezoning. The Applicant stated that the area being rezoned is where they propose the Hydrogen Capable Natural Gas Line to be located and that they were fortunate to have the North Carolina Utility Commision approve the project. She stated the air permit had also been granted and the property was already owned by Duke Energy Progress. She stated that Duke Energy Progress is just looking to get it Rezoned to the correct Zoning Designation for the use. Member Allen and Chair George asked for clarification on which parcel was being Rezoned. Planner Talley stated that the applicant had presented a outline on the larger plat and it did not match GIS. Chair George stated that the newpaper advertisement seemed to only be for 1 parcel but looking at what is on GIS and what was in our packets it looks like it affects 7 parcels. P lanner Talley stated the lots are vacant and does not have any information to identify them. We used this address for the name and area to identify it. That is why it states in the advertisement if any other comments or questions call for clarification so staff can pinpoint you to this area and guide you down the road to where the parcel is. That is the only way to identify it. We confirmed with GIS in December and January before we advertised and made the packet that this is the most accurate that they had. This was confirmed wih Sallie Vaughn our GIS director and she confirmed that the area highlighted in the packet was the exact area. All this has been verified with the County Attorney, who confirmed staff was well within the legal standards for advertisement and to have the meeting. Member Allen asked why the larger plat was drawn the way it was. Planner Talley stated staff gave the applicant the statute requirements for minimium site plan requirements and they have met the minimium requirements. This was Verified by our Contract planner and myself. Member Maybee disagreed stated it did not meet section 154-2 submission of petitions. It is specific in requesting what is supposed to be shown on a site plan. The Application is incomplete and I recommend this be tabled until the next meeting. Planner Talley stated the application was revised pending previous information and submittal per the contract planner and herself. It was revised to show all the correct information from the previous submittal from two p revious staff as well. This process goes back to May with previous staff, current staff, and a contract planner to get to this point. Member McFarland asked the applicant if it was a preliminary drawing your engineer submitted. The Applicant stated yes. Chair George asked the Applicant if she was the one who filled out the application. The Applicant stated yes. Chair George stated on the bottom of the application it does list the site pland requirements and it does seem like some of the items are missing. S uch as the vicinity map, topography of the site at contour intervals no greater than 10 ft, location of perinnial or intermentant waters, and 100 year flood planes. Those seem to be missing here and it is listed in the ordinance as a requirement. Chair George asked why they were not addressed. The Applicant stated that they have done what was requested by current and previous staff and are on their third map. Planner Talley stated that previous staff wanted to bring a bubble map for approval from The Board and the Commsioners. I would not accept that the first time it was submitted after the previous Director left but that is what we have been working off of to get to the point we are at now. That is why we had a second submittal that still did not have deminsions or contour lines. The contract planner came in and got it to the point to have a little more detail then the Original. If the Board wants or needs more information then this is the time for the board to request it and ask them to provide that to you. Chair George stated she was concerned that after hearing this according to the ordinance if the Board does not make a decision in 30 days it will automatically go to the commissioners. Planner Talley stated you can pinpoint a time frame for them to come back to you before they go to the commissioner and The Board can address it that way. Member Maybee disagreed stating that when something comes to the Planning Board it needs to be complete and comply with the regulations so that clock does not start ticking. Planner Talley stated that the Applicant met the minimium requirements to bring before the Planning Board. Member Allen asked what was Duke Energy Progress plan to begin construction. The Applicant stated they have just stated negotiations with a contractor to do the construction of the first facility and there will be second facility adjacent to it. Prior to that they are also looking to do tree clearing which is being done initially before bring the contractor onsite because of the bat requirements and bat nesting requirements. Member Allen asked once the project begins will it affect any of the other properties to the east or south. The Appl icant stated there work would be inside the box and longer term the installation of the first combine cycle facility will lead to the retirement of units 1 and 4. They will stand there until a future time when units 2 and 3 are retired. Then Duke Energy Progress will schedule demolition of them at that point. It will totally up and running before the other is removed. Member Bradsher asked if there was a time constraint with the air permit. Member James asked if the new plan how will it promote or support economic growth.The Applicant stated there will be a opportunity for continued em ployment and new jobs as well. Due to a need need for help with decommisioning of the plants and the tax base will increase. Member Allen asked with decommisioning how will the removal of the coal ash impact the site. The Applicant stated there are coal ash basins that are created and contractors are working now to move the ash into these proper basins that will be covered which will continue for a very long time. They are working aroud the clock and Trans Ash assisting with that project. Member Bradsher asked if there was any solid waste for natural gas. The Applicant stated it would just be air and water. Member Bradsher asked where to find the air permit. The Applicant stated with the Department of Air Quaility. Member Maybee asked if the site was in a protected watershed. Planner Talley stated no. Member Allen asked why they did not rezone the whole parcel. The Applicant stated that had been part of the original discussion with the previous Director that the County would appropriately rezone the area because it was a question why it had been zoned residential originally. The County Attorney had suggested that we go through the application process. The County Manager stated when the project started in the spring it was viewed as aligning wit h the Future Land Use Map. The use is Industrial and it was recognized when the comprehensive plan was done the Zoning District did not match the use for these properties. It was discussed a few different options for proceeding. One option was a administrative clean-up, the second option was moving forward as a Conditional District Rezoning, or the third, moving forward with just a Rezoning. We did settle on in consultation with the county attorney to do the Conditional District Rezoning. The County Manager stated as far as GIS, They have been working on a project for the past 1 to 2 years to map these two parcels because we did not have the records to map these parcels. GIS Staff hap pened to find boxes of records to be able to start recording these parcels in GIS. Duke Energy Progress has been pleased that we have been able to do that but it is time consuming and staff has been working on that along with a number of other things on their plate. Due to that some of the parcels have not had tax map and parcels numbers assigned because of that historical omission. The GIS Director did use the map that Duke Energy Progress provided as a overlay on GIS and measured the 500 ft. around all of those; in order for Planning Staff to send out the written notices. The written notices were not based on the parcel that was advertised Staff did use the Larger Map w ith the parcel that does not have a tax map and parcel number assigned for notifying the surrounding properties. Planner Talley stated it is basically to the point where Mr. Krulik and I are trying to get the process moving. Neither of us expected approval tonight but we wanted feedback from the Board to get it to a certain point to get it fa rther than what Staff could and what the Board wanted to see to get the project approved. She stated that the Board could pinpoint a date and what you want to see from the Applicant. Member Maybee asked the Applicant if they could get the condtions to them by Feburaury. Member James stated she did not mind approving with the conditions but she did not want one Applicant to think they are better than anothe r and that the Board should be equitable to all Applicants. She stated she would just ask for a complete application. Member Brasher asked if it is the understanding of GIS that these are all one parcel but is reflecting as separate parcels. Planner Talley stated yes from my understanding talking with Sallie it is but they have not been able to identify all the lines for that specific acreage. Member McFarland asked what was the timeframe for getting something uploaded to GIS and corrected. Planner Talley stated she was unsure of GIS timeframe because they are also short -staffed. The County Manager stated she was unsure of the records she is referering to and what they have on hand as far as being able to feed those record into GIS. I think they came across the record in a box in a local Attorneys office the County did not realize all that data in paper form was needed. Member Allen stated conceptual based off what Member Bradsher stated we can approve this tonight but if the parcels are not united then we cannot. The County Manager stated GIS would not be the record to rely upon it is going to be the surveys and the deeds. The paper records that exsist GIS is just a reference but it is not going to be 100% accurate. Member McFarland asked the Applicant if once this is rezoned did they have plans to resurvey the land. The Applicant stated they did not have plan s to resurvey the acreage. Member Bradsher stated he just wanted to confirm that on record that is is the correct parcel so the County is covered on record that it is the correct parcel and he would move for approval if there was no more discussion. Chair George stated that she had concerns with the public notice, the application was incomplete, and the site plan did not meet all the requirements. Member McFarland stated he would motion to all the concerns be corrected before going before the Commsioners. Member James agreed. Member Allen asked if the Couty Attorney should be consulted. Planner Talley stated the the County Attorney was already consulted on advertising. Member Maybee stated the legal ad in her opinion could have been phrased better and she had concerns about it being thrown back to the Board. Planner Talley stated that it had been in line with previous staff’s advertiseing. It was verified through the Attorney, GIS and staff. Staff did their due diligence above and beyond in verifying this information. Member Allen stated if we were to approve it with corrections can the Board be assured that those corrections would be accurate. He would not want to pass it on to the Commisioners without it coming back to the Board to verify that the corrections had been made. Member James stated we would just need to trust our elected officials to recognize that the conditions had been met. It would be on the elected of ficial if it was not. Member McFarland stated the corrections were minor changes. Member James agreed and stated that it is a way to show as well that no one is above the other and act equitable. Chair George asked the applicant if they would be willing to bring back a site plan that meets the site plan requirements for the next meeting. The Applicant stated they would be willing but some of the requirements would not be applicable like utilities. Member George agreed and read which ones may be applicable. Member Allen stated if we do not have a Board meeting scheduled in Feburaury would we have to advertise it as a special meeting. Planner Talley stated we would have to make adjustments. She would look at the cutoff times for submittal and that Staff would have enough time to be able to prepare for the meeting. Tha Applicant stated it would take some time to get the surveyor and the topography. The normal meeting dates would be fine and that they wanted to be good neighbors. Member Allen made a motion to table the discussion to the next meeting to allow the Applicant to provide us with the corrected application form. Member Maybee seconded the motion. A vote was made 3:3 and the motion did not pass. Member McFarland motioned to approve Condtional District Rezoning CD-01-24 the Duke Energy Progress LLC. Site to rezone the 297 Acres subject property from Residential to General Industrial zoning designation and find it is consistent with the Adopted Person County/City of Roxboro joint comprehensive land use plan as admended. Bradsher seconded. A vote was made 3:3 and it did not pass. Member Allen made a motion to approve Condtional District Rezoning CD-01-24 the Duke Energy Progress LLC. Site to rezone the 297 Acres subject property from Residential to General Industrial zoning designation and find it is consistent with the Adopted Person C ounty/City of Roxboro joint comprehensive land use plan with all required conditions met to present to the Comissioners that were not on the Original Site Plan. A vote was made and it did pass 6:6. Chair George opened the portion of the meeting for discussion of the minutes. Member Allen asked to fix the typo on the top of the page with Members Absent and Members present. Chair George asked to remove the red line version complete. Member McFarland made a motion to approve as admended. Member Bradsher seconded a vote was made and it passed unanimously 6:0. Member James asked to add a timer depending on the number of people. In the last meeting it seems like the public was allowed to go on and on about certain things. Some of the comments were also negative sterotyping specific demographics and people groups; Instead of being based on the application.. Chair George stated to have it range depending on the number of people. Member Allen stated give them 2 minutes and that’s it. Member Lynch stated if people start to repeat you will need to cut them off. Chair George asked for a motion to Adjourn. Member B radsher made a motion and Member James seconded and the vote passed unanimously 6:0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair, Tabitha George ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning