Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-14-26 Agenda Packet PBPERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street, Suite B Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Person County Office Building, Room 215 MEETING AGENDA May 14, 2026 7:00 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER B. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM 1. Conflict of Interest C. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF BOARD MINUTES 1. Minutes of March 12, 2026 D. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS F. HEARING ON CASES, IN THE ORDER THEY WERE RECEIVED 1. Petition TA 2-26 – Planning Ordinance – Amend Article XIV Subdivision Regulations and Article XV – Development Application Review Procedures i. Action: Public Hearing and recommendation to Board of Commissioners G. ADJOURNMENT PERSON COUNTY PERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Person County Office Building, Room 215 March 12th, 2026, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Chair George established a quorum had been met and called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair George, Member Tanks, Member Wagstaff, Member Lynch, Member Lester, Member Mcfarland Member Absent: Member Allen Staff Present: Planning Director Nish Trivedi, Planner Jay Jennings, Michie Brandon Planning Technician and Board Recording Secretary CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE REMINDER & DECLARATIONS No member declared a conflict of interest. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member George opened the portion of the meeting for approval of the Febraury 12, 2026. Member George asked for actions and comments to be added to the minutes in the consolidation section, TRC section and to review what was requested in the landscaping and buffer sections. Planning Director stated he would review those sections for accuracy. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Member George requested that unfinished business be changed to new business. The Planning Director stated he was following how it was outlined in the approved rules and procedures and ensure consistency with the outline in them. TA-4-26 – Planning Ordinance - Consolidation. The Planning Director gave the presentation for the text admendment for initial public discussion. Member Lester stated what is the difference between meeting verses hearings. The Planning Director stated that all Planning Board meeting are public meetings where people are always invited to and encouraged to comment, not formal hearings. Planning Board does not make decisions so no legislative hearings. Their meetings are not quasie-judicial so no evidentury hearing. The public can still attend meetings and comment at meetings but the meetings are not considered public hearings for the Planning Board. Planning Director provided examples of the very limited counties that allow hearings at advisory board lebel, stated for clarification that Pender county does it for text amendments and map amendments. Member Wagstaff asked what we do it for. The Planning Director stated that Person county does it for text/map amendments, conditional rezonings, development agreements, and vested rights. Member George stated that text admendments are common and typically several items are all bundled into one newspaper ad. Planning Director reminded them that even bundled, cost to the county is per letter per occurance, not just number of amendments. Member Lester stated if we pass this there will not be a ad in the paper. The Planning Director confirmed this, adding that all meetings are public, posted on the County websites, calendar, and packets made available through them. Member George asked how will the public know. Planning Director reminded them of their approved calendar, County website, packet publication. The planner stated the notice will still be placed in the newspaper for the Board of Commsioner public hearings. Member Lynch stated that right now landowners within 500’ will get a letter and a sign will be placed out on the property. Member Lynch stated if I am reading this correctly that goes away. The Planning Director stated no that 500’ notice letter would stay and the the sign would stay because that is still required for all public hearings before the Board of Commissioners. Member George stated that under Planning Board rules and procedures for the notice what member Lynch stated has been struck out. The Planning Director stated to be consistent with the planning ordinance because there are two separate sets the notices requirements become repetitive and are similar enough they only need to be stated once. The Planning Director stated that the second set of requirements for the mail notieces would be kept for clarity. Member Lynch stated as long as those two requirements stay it seemed like adequate notice for the affected property owners and interested property owners. Member Lynch requested that Staff look into other forms to let the public know. Planning Director would follow up later on different means of public engagement. Member Lynch asked about the cost to the applicant. The Planning Director stated that the county pays the fee to advertise right now. Member George stated why has that not been incorporated into the application fee. The Planner stated the county has been paying all notice requirement fees and that it has never been incorporated into the fee schedule. Member Lynch stated that should be looked into. Member George stated that she agreed with the applicant paying there own advertising then decreasing the amount of public notice. The Planning Director stated this text amendment is decreasing expenses and especially costs to the public, because NCGS does not require advisory boards to conduct public hearings, only Governing Board are required to do them. Member George stated that this is decreasing the amount of ways for the public to know about this meeting. Planning Director clarifed, this only removes the small expensive legal add in the paper for planning board’s hearings, all planning board meetings are on the County’s website, calendar, and published packets continue to remain as does legal ad for the Commissioner’s public hearing. Member George stated this will also give individuals more time to gather information to provide for the Public hearing. The Planning Director reminded them that throughout the past several months, out of all the text and map amendments, the only Planning Board public hearing were public provided information was Hicks rezoning. Member Wagstaff stated that the public participated in the solar text admendment. The Planning Director stated that was before he had stated with the county. Member George stated just because the public has not participated in 5 months does not mean that that was a good reason to decrease the avenue for public participation. Planning Director reminded them he would bring back an item on public participation and that they are also welcomed to encourage the public to attend the Planning Board meetings. Member Tanks stated she agreed with the text edits and agreed with member Lynch with the 500’ notice and sign. Member Lynch asked if this was passed how will things change for the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated the only change would be cutting our advertising expense in half, Planning Board meetings would continue, as would public comments. Member Lynch stated for clarification that public hearings are required of the Governing Board which is the Board of Commsioners whereas, the Planning Board is only required to hold a public meeting. Member Mcfarland stated he was in support of the text admendment and that it would not be economically friendly for development to require a applicant to pay the five hundred to six hundred advertising fee. Member Lynch stated what other avenues other than a newspaper ad can we use to let the public know about meetings. The Planning Director stated that staff would do some research to bring back to the Planning Board next week. Member Lynch stated that by offering a alternative that it would help support the decision to stop the Legal ad for the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated that staff would do some research to bring back to the Planning Board next week. Member Lester stated how does staffing affect the legal ad. The Planning Director stated that time goes into creating, proof reading and sending the ad to the newspaper and also making sure that what is sent is what is posted in the paper. The Planner stated that there would be less room for error by changing this process. Member George asked how much time the ad takes and can the time be broken out on the different steps of the ad process. The Planning Director stated he would bring back that information the following meeting. Member Lester asked if the change will take effect immediately. The Planning Director stated it would not take affect until the commsioiners approved it. Member Wagstff stated could we only do one ad. The Planner stated that could be the Planning Boards recommendation but it would still be at the counties cost. Member Wagstff stated it may be suspicious to residents if we remove the notice. Planning Director reminded them that their meetings would still be public and comments would still be collected. Member George stated especially with larger projects coming through. The Planning Director stated most large projects are by right are done administratively and does not require going before the Planning Board. Member George stated any development requiring a hearing. Planning Director reminded them that the Ordiannce only requires hearings on text/map amendments, Conditional Districts, Development Agreements and Vested Rights, not by-right. Special Use Permits are done by the Governing Board. Member James stated her support for the admendment, bringing the meetings into compliance, saving staff time, and saving the county money. Member Lynch stated that the first two 156-4, and 158-3 public notices require that the applicant is responsible for the letter and placing the sign. The Planner stated he would go back and check it. The text admendment will be brought before the Board for action in April. Public Hearing Petition TA-1-26 – Planning Ordinance - Consolidation. The Planning Director presented the presentation for all three text amendments. The Planner stated in terms for the consolidation that the County Attorney is requesting to match the state language regarding each of the individual articles and that we do not use cross references. The Planner stated that the footnotes will be removed as well. Member George opened the portion of the meeting for discussion on TA-1-26 – Planning Ordinance – Consolidation. Member Lynch stated in the definitions, page 108, a date that was revisioned needs to be added. Member George stated that the footnote on page 21 just states AR. The Planning Director reminded them all footnotes would be removed. Member George stated that was not what we were given. The Planning Director stated that County attorney’s recommendations were received yesterday as presented on the slide. Member George stated that that she had asked that the document be prepared converted to black and white but the pdf still remains in color. The Planning Director reminded them they would not be able to distinguish new text from old and that the final document will be in black and white as it would only have the final approved text. Additionally, he would go back and check the footer. Member George stated on pages 127 and 137 it is missing a footer and the rest of the document there is a banner on the bottom. Member George stated in terms of consistency of formatting she has some difficulties with this ordinance. Member Mcfarland stated that this seems to be clerical errors that corrected later. The Planner stated he would correct them. Member Wagstaff stated its just cometic changes. Member George stated that it needed to be brought up due to them not being updated. Simalar to the discussions of the UDO changes that were requested would never be added. Member George stated that was were she was coming from. Member Wagstaff stated that the cometic changes are not the ordinance and Member mcfarland agreed as long as the content shows the changes. Member Mcfarland made a motion and Member Tanks seconded and it passed 5:1 Member Lynch stated that she would like to do this in a way as clear as possible and be considerate of the budget and Member George agreed. Member James stated its confusing when we talk about finance friendly when we were just talking about saving money from not advertising and we could not make a decision. Member George stated that the color for the document was not a value added thing whereas the ad does add value. Member Mcfarland stated this should not be something that we can control. If someone at work prints it in color they print it in color. Public Hearing Petition TA 2-26 – Planning Ordinance - Technical/Development Review Committee The Planning Director represented the section of the presentation for this article. Member Wagstaff stated that requiring another committee requiring all departments to be involved was cumbersome. The Planning Director stated that all departments would be invited, but their attendance is not mandatory, each department would determine how involved they want to be and could appoint anyone on their staff to represent their department. If they had no comment, all they would have to do is say no comment. Member Wagstaff stated but it states they shall respond and they shall attend monthly. Staff Brandon stated the regardless of the TRC the individual would still be required to get that approval. It is simply a way to navigate applicants clearly from point A to point B. Member Wagstaff asked why parks and rec would be involved and it was a overstep into other departments. The Planning Director reminded them that certain projects would have open space amenities and their input would be valuable. Additionally, just as we invite everyone in the public – whether the material in the packet effects them or not – this extends that practice to all departments, whether they have comments on it or not. Member Lynch stated was there any departments listed that would never need to be involved in this type of meeting. The Planning Director stated what is listed is based on my professional experiences from other areas in different states I have worked with based on potential applications, especially when not knowing what an applicant may submit. Certain departments like Human Resources and Finance are not listed because they would not have any comments. Member Lynch stated all of these could potentially be involved in a particular project. The Planner stated and like every public citizen they would be kept in the loop about what is going on. Member Lynch stated that keeps you out of situations where the applicant has to bounce around departments or you can get all departments on the same page at the same time. Staff Brandon stated that it is our job to this also adds a additional standard for everyone to act ethically and not require for one individual and not the other. Member George stated has that been a problem in the past with other departments. Staff Brandon stated our jobs is to act fair and equitable to everyone and it just adds that additional standard to be fair and equitable to everyone. The Planning Director stated we already have proven examples of TRC Meetings like 3 schools in one meeting, and we have applicants requesting them, like Duke. Member Wagstaff stated why do these meeting have to be written in law to be completed. The Planning Director stated that if it is not codefied, it is not practiced or offered. Writing it into the ordinance clarifies to everyone what it is, how it is done and describes the expedited and efficient process. Without it, applicants continue to bounce around different departments at different stages getting different information rather than all being on the same page. Member George stated that what she is hearing is that departments are doing different things for different applicants. Planning Director stated he has no jurisdiction on what other departments do. Member George asked if Planning department will be the judge of what is done. The Planning Director stated the department is simply coordinating a meeting and every department is in the know of what is going on. Staff Brandon stated with as many applications as we are having come through to keep up with permits in a timely manner. This will be effective instead of getting caught up on issues where applicants get tripped up due to not having a process lined out. Member George asked if staff had checked with stakeholders. Planning Director reminded them of the extensive public process resulting in the text amendment, including the two workshops with all the departments, the multiple successful pilot projects involving schools, bardominium, glamping, Duke’s request and the potential benefit to Microsoft. Member Lynch asked about the bardominium meeting. The Planner stated it was a developer seeking multiple different uses on a large property including glamping, resort, gym, and we covered it all with multiple departments in one meeting. They have not submitted a formal application yet.. Member George stated such as contractors that routinely pull permits. Planning Director reminded them that each project requires different permits by our and other departments. This process bring all these different permits together into one meeting so applicants can get all their questions answered at the same time for all their permits. Member Lynch asked if this is a process that shall happen or may happen. Staff Brandon stated each situation is different based on minute details when it comes to planning and zoning and has to be weighed out. You may have someone that wants to build a bardominium but also wants to do the glamping use. Each one requiring different permits. You may just have someone who wants to build a house. That can be processed administratively. It gives staff and applicant consistency in the permits and the complixity of the project determines the need for different permits. Member Mcfarland stated to change shall to may. Member Wagstaff stated if you change shall to may what is the point of codifying it. Why not offer it without codifying it. The Planning Director reminded them that if is not codefied, it is not offered. This amendment expedities the development review process in a single setting. Without it, the development process will remain as is, with applicant bouncing around different departments. Member George stated what cost would you anticipate to be associated and what do you anticipate the dollar value to be. The Planning Director stated it would not cost applicants anything as this improves staff and multi-department work efficiency. Staff could look into a fee schedule for this if the Planning Board makes that part of their recommendation. Member Lester stated that it was her belief that the trc was a intertnal committee that would come in with applicant and discuss openly there concerns and what they need to do, versus now they go to each individual department. The Planning Director stated yes. Member Lynch stated are there extra costs associated with the meeting. Member Lynch stated that if it does then the board would have to look at that. Member Lynch stated she would hope that it would be a more efficient process. Planning Director reminded them the current amendment does not recommend any fees to the applicant. Member George stated why would we charge the applicant for a more efficient process. The Planning Director stated that staff would need Planning Board’s recommendation to approve this process so it can be codefied. The fee would be a separate research should you recommend a fee. Member George stated is there anything disallowing applicants to meet with multiple departments currently. Planning Director reminded them that applicants are welcomed to continue the longer process of bouncing around different departments if they chose to for administrative by-right processes. This process would not stop them from doing that, we are simply trying to help both applicant and staff better manage their limited resources through this efficient process. Member Lester stated it would also help with the he said she said. Member George stated has there been any public comments on any items. The Planning Director reminded them that this has been publicly discussed since November and no comments have been received. We conducted workshops with all departments earning their support along with few pilot projects earning support of developers like schools, Duke, and potential benefit to others. Calvin Clayton, 45 Abbitt St. Roxboro NC. Stated that he was the oldest developed builder in Person County for 42 years and I am also here representing the home builder association in approval to this action. I have bounced around in those offices myself day after day after day and when you get approval from one you do not the other. When one gets your information the other does not. I have made 9 different trips for one application. Weather it is mandated or not and I had to pay this comes from the homebuilders association and other builders in this county for all the departments to hear my information at one time. So be it pass the fee and we are ready to pay it. Member Lynch and Member George stated that it answered there question. Member Lynch asked when a application comes in do they all go through this process or some do and some do not. The Planning Director stated we will create a agenda on which application may need to have a trc, the ones the applicants want a trc and present them and compile comments. Staff would do more meeting as necessary. Member Lester stated is the DRC and TRC the same thing. The Planning Director stated that the Planning Board would need to pick a name. Member George stated looking at the yearly graph it looks like business permits have been decreasing since 2023. Staff Brandon stated that it has been a uptick this year. Planning Director added that staff has helped applicant submit accurate information in their applications, as presented with Misc being updated to actual commercial. Member George stated that on page 7 applicability to give clarity to who it is we could change shall to a may and add or that requestes such a review. Which would address concerns of forcing a review, and also people who would want to request a review. The Planning Director stated that all the applications, reminding them of the list previously shown, and their was no intent to list all of them in the text amendment. Member George stated to strike number 5 the followup because that will keep from having a delay. Member Wagstaff stated it should be service offered to anyone but to write it in the ordinance is unnecessary. Member Lynch stated somewhere there needs to be a procedure. Planning Director reminded them if it not codefied, it is not done. Current pilot projects are evidence of its success. Member Mcfarland stated that in his experience this process is valuable to support this idea that this is what is currently done in the construction field. Member James stated that it offers staff flexibility to say who it is applicable too and not based on how it is written. Member James stated her support for how it was written and the efficeincy of the process. Member Mcfarland stated his support and stated that it stops people from answer shopping. Member Lester stated that it adds that ethical standard and there cannot be any private negotiations what is addressed in the meeting. The Planning Director stated that if the text admendment is not codified, we are not offering it freely because it is not requires and creates additional work that is not required. Mcfarland stated you will have good and bad contractors and making them go through this project will place them in the right path and take accountability upfront. Member Tanks stated it takes a lot of contractor time and staff time with bounceing back and forth. Member Tanks stated we need to trust staff and it will be helpful to the economic growth of the county. Member George stated that she would prefer the need to change it to allow contractors to request such a process. Member George stated it is not one of the examples given and as it is written those would not be volunteered for due to extra effort being required. Member George stated to add or that request such a review. Planning Director reminded them of the successful pilot projects, the two workshops with all departments supporting the improved process, and no additional efforts were created through this expedited and efficient development review process. Member Lynch stated are we also changing shall to may. Member George stated that support of changing shall to may. Member Lynch stated it’s a shall but in the judgement of the planning Director and stated the board should discuss it. Member James and Mcfarland stated to leave it as shall. Member Lynch made a motion. Member James seconded a vote was made and it passed 5:1. Member Wagstaff stated he was opposed due to the process not needing to be codified and staff should offer it regardless. Public Hearing Petition TA 3-26 – Planning Ordinance - Special Use Permit Standards The Planning Director represented the presentation for the item. Member George stated on page three, attachment 1, paragraph 3 it mentions properties in watershed areas shall be stringent to more stringent performance standards is this in addition to the existing regulations or just the existing regulations. The Planning Director reminded them of Falls Rules, stated it is just the existing rules and rules that the watershed ordinance requires. Member Lynch stated section 155 was it added for legal reason. The Planning Director stated they are in section 160D and they were added to bring it in line with 160D. Member George stated where the language came from from on page 6 for environmental protection. The Planning Director stated it either came from the comprehensive plan or the environmental protection regulation found in the EPA. The Director stated he would add the citation when it came before the Board of Commissioners, along with other citations as necessary. Member George stated that anything habitat could be disturbed by any activity. Planning Director reminded them that habitates are state and federally regulated, they can be regulated locally through wildlife planning. Member George stated it does not specify endangered species and it does not look to limit it in anyway. Planning Director stated he would add state or federal definition of wildlife habitat into the text amendment. Member George stated that it could have a adverse impact if it were to include any habitat such as a ant hill. Planning Director will update the staff and supplemental report to address local, state and federal practices on wildlife habitat protection. Member George stated that traffic is also too broad of a term and could be adverse. Member Wagstaff stated that the term is so broad it could go in as a supplement instead of a regulation. The Planning Director reminded them that all development generates increased traffic, traffic is scientifically regulated by NCDOT, ASHTO, and others, and reminded them that most ordinances incoroprate a separate traffic impact analysis requirements but our ordinance currently does not, and this is one way of address the impact development has on local traffic. Member Wagstaff stated the commissioners or whoever requested it should be aware that these items can be required but writing it in the ordinance seems unnecessary. Planning Director reminded them that by codifying it, it helps Board of Commissioners with their decisions, making it legally defensable. Staff and Supplemental report will be updated to address this as well. Member Lynch stated that this would apply to special use permits and the board may want to be careful with it considering it is different than what usually comes through to the Planning Board and may have special concerns with the special use request. Planning Director reminded them Special Use Permits do not go before Planning Board, they go to Board of Commissioners. Member Wagstaff stated these tools are already at there disposal. The Planning Director reminded them that right now there is no legal bases for such request as it does not hold the same weight without writing it in the ordinance. Additionally, stated by codifying it gives the Commsioners the leverage to request it, without it, it would only be a personal opinion based request, not a legal one. Member George stated as it is written in 155-4 it states that it is a finding of fact required for approval. The Planning Director reminded them that Findings of Facts only applies to quasi-judicial actions, at the Board of Adjustments, not Planning Board. Member George stated that it would bind them instead of giving them. Member Lynch stated that it is binding the Commsioners to find that fact to approve that development. Planning Director clarified these standards simply give Commissioners the legal means to request such issues be incorporated into any Finding of Fact. Staff Brandon stated are you asking if it can be waived if they choose too. Planning Director added that all conditions must be mutually agreed upon by applicant and decision board. Member George stated somewhat because it is being required of the Commsioners to approve the project. Planning Director reminded them this is not requiring Commissioners anything, only giving them legally defensible authority to make certain requests of the applicants. Member George stated that the terms used are too broad and somethings habitat is going to be disturbed. Planning Director reminded them this would be addressed with state and federal definitions on habitat. Staff Brandon stated it also takes out the liability that they are picking and choosing who to place requirements on and who not. Member Lynch stated that it does state significant that does limit traffic. Member Lynch stated that agreed that environmental habitat disturbance was too broad. The Planning Director stated he would provide a citation and clarification on what legally represents a habitat and traffic. Member Lynch stated that significant could potentially cover it. Member George stated it also lists categories and it can be misinterpreted as anything in this category is significant. The Planning Director stated there is a legal state and federal definition of what is regulatory considering habitatas and that he would provide a definition and would check with the County Parks and Recreation Department on any of their regulations for the updated staff and supplemental reports. Member Lynch asked if the Planning Director could make a suggestion to tightening the habitat and not making it so open. The Direcgtor stated that he would include a legal definition and regulations that regulate habitats. Member Lynch stated habitat as defined by the various state or local agencies. Member George stated to be certain she did not want to wait for the definition. The Planner stated that the board could continue this item to the next meeting. Member George stated not according to NCGS. Member George stated that the ordinance states after 30 days our recommendations should go to the Commsioners. The Planning Director reminded them how Board of Commissioners conduct public hearings, opening them and continuing them to a date certain. Member Wagstaff agreed with Member George. Member Lynch stated the commsioners could define it better than the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated he would include the citation and definitions when it went to the Commsioners. Member George stated that another option would be to change it to endangered species. Member Wagstaff stated that those usually have state and federal laws. Staff Brandon stated would you want to add federal to what lynch stated to add. Member George agreed and suggested to add endangered or vulnerable species. Member Lynch made a motion. Member Lester seconded. A vote was made and passed 4:2. Member Wagstaff stated some items presented did not need to be codified. Member Tanks stated she was in support of the original amendments and adding the citations for the legal definition. HEARING ON CASES, IN THE ORDER THEY WERE RECEIVED ADJOURNMENT Member Mcfarland motioned to adjourn and Member Wagstaff seconded. The Board voted and it passed 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:07 P.M. ___________________________________ Chair or Vice Chair ___________________________________ Recording Secretary, Michie Brandon Planning Technician, Person County Planning and Zoning PERSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 325 S. Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina 27573 Item: Petition TA 2-26 – Planning Ordinance – Amend Article XIV Subdivision Regulations and Article XV – Development Application Review Procedures I. Background On February 23, 2026, Planning staff met with a County Commissioner and a local developer to discuss potential residential subdivisions and their relationship to the County’s private road standards, with particular focus on access and egress for exempt subdivisions. While access for family, minor, and major subdivisions was addressed through Text Amendment 08-25, adopted by the Board of Commissioners on November 18, 2025, the issue of access for exempt subdivisions remained unresolved. During this discussion, staff also identified that the exemption for re-surveys of existing lots was not currently included in the County’s exempt subdivision regulations. This proposed text amendment updates the County’s exempt subdivision provisions to align with state law and to address access and egress requirements for exempt subdivisions. Additionally, on April 20, 2026, the Board of Commissioners petitioned a text amendment removing County staff authority to initiate text or map amendments. The meeting minutes from that session serve as the staff report for this amendment. III. Summary of Proposed Amendments • This amendment clarifies exempt subdivision regulations and amendment process • This amendment has gone through the following public review process: – April 30, 2026, and May 7, 2026 - notice issued for Planning Board Public Hearing – May 14, 2026 – Planning Board Public Hearing IV. Staff Analysis These updates support the County’s goal of a clear, consistent, and modern planning framework by ensuring regulations are compliant and easy to understand development practices. V. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Person County Planning Ordinance, as well as NCGS § 160D-604 & § 160D-605, requires zoning maps and ordinance amendments to be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. A statement reflecting the consistency must accompany the Planning Board recommendation. A general statement of plan consistency and a desire for clear regulations can be used as adequate support, if specific language from the Comprehensive plan cannot be found. VI. Action Conduct Public Hearing and provide recommendation to Board of Commissioners VI. Submitted by Nishith Trivedi, Planning Director Staff Report April 20, Board of Commission Minutes (Excerpt) Vice-Chair Wilborn stated that she requested this item be added to the agenda. She stated that she would like to see it practiced that text amendments are only brought forward at the request of the BOC, the Planning Board, or by citizens who file an application. She stated that she has spoken to the Chair of the Planning Board, and that the Chair would like for it to omit the Planning Board and for the request to come from the BOC or citizens. Wilborn stated that there have been two text amendments that came from Planning staff, that were presented and voted on by the Planning Board, that have not been brought to the BOC. She stated that one text amendment was about buffers and landscaping, and the other for a technical review committee. She stated that she would like to add the language that once something is presented to the Planning Board and they have voted on it, that it be brought to the BOC at their next appropriate meeting, within the next month, and can only be delayed at the request of the BOC. Chairman Puryear stated that he is in agreement with Wilborn. He stated that if a change is needed, it needs to be requested by a resident and not a staff member. He stated that Planning staff should not have the authority, and should be prohibited from initiating requests, unless directed by the BOC, or receives an application from the public. He stated that he has spoken to several members of the Planning Board, and they feel it is not their duty just to change things for the sake of changing them. He stated that if Planning staff feels something needs to be addressed, they would need to come to the BOC. Wilborn stated that there is a new practice where the items are brought to the Planning Board for review/discussion in one month and then brought back the next month for a vote. She stated that twice this year the meeting was not properly noticed, therefore postponing or cancelling the meeting. She stated that she would like for the practice to be that it is presented once to the Planning Board for review, discussion, and vote, then go before the BOC. Commissioner Long had concerns related to §153-2 and §153-3, and noted discrepancy related to staff initiation for submission of petitions. He also had concerns in reference to the fee(s) associated with applicants submitting an application, as he stated that fee does not need to be excessive. Cathey acknowledged the discrepancy and stated that related to the fee it is established annually during the budget process. Long stated that staff needed to be removed from §153-3, and Cathey stated yes, that would make it clearer. Wilborn asked where does that leave the ones that have already been proposed by staff that have not yet made it to the BOC. County Attorney T.C. Morphis, Jr. advised if they were truly initiated by staff, it is the Boards’ discretion if they want to have them continue through the process. A motion was made by Vice-Chair Wilborn and carried 5-0 to instruct staff to no longer proceed with staff-initiated text amendments and to withdraw those previously mentioned staff-initiated text amendments, and to bundle the §153-3 cleanup with the Private Road Standards amendment into a single consolidated text amendment package for public notice and hearing. TA 2-26 – Planning Ordinance – Amend Article XIV Subdivision Regulations and Article XV – Development Application Review Procedures Article XIV Subdivision Regulations Section 141 – Subdivision Types (Amended: 5-3-99, 11-18-25) 141-1 Excluded or Exempt Plats Surveys meeting the requirements of GS 47-30(f)11.c do not require a signature from the Planning and Zoning Administrator or the review officer and may be directly submitted to the Register of Deeds for recordation. The following events shall be excluded from the provisions of this article: 1. The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the county as shown in its subdivision regulations. 2. The division of land into parcels greater than ten (10) acres if no street right-of-way dedication is involved. 3. The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of streets. 4. The division of a tract in single ownership, the entire area of which is no greater than two acres into not more than three lots, if no street right-of-way dedication is involved and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the county as prescribed herein. 5. The division of land for use as gravesites. 6. A division of land which has been created by a judicial partition and/or sale. 7. All re-surveys of an existing lot. 8. Any plat presented for recordation on which a lot is shown and pledged as collateral for loan proceeds and where the property depicted by the plat is a portion of a larger tract of property owned by the same entity. 9. A combination of lands which adds land to previously subdivided and recorded lots which are contiguous to the addition. Plats depicting the divisions listed above may be recorded provided the owner desiring to record such plats shall obtain a Certificate of Exception from the Planning and Zoning Administrator and shall present such certificate to the recorder as proof the exception condition is present. Such certified plats will be exempt from the Person County Private Road Standards. The required certificate shall read as follows: Certificate of Exception. I certify that said property qualifies as an exception to the provisions of the Person County Subdivision Regulations under Section 141 16-1. ____________________________________________ ____________ Planning and Zoning Administrator Date Person County, NC Article XV – Development Application Review Procedures 154-1 INITIATION OF AMENDMENT The Board of Commissioners may, at any time, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the boundaries or regulations in this Ordinance, or subsequently amended. Proposed changes or amendments may only be initiated by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, or by one or more owners, optionees or lessees of property within the area proposed to be changed or affected. This may be done in accordance with the provisions of this section. 154-2 Submission of Petitions Petitions to amend this Ordinance or the zoning map shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review according to the adopted Planning Board and Board of Commissioners yearly schedule. The petition shall include the following: 1. A completed Application for Map Amendment or Application for Text Amendment. 2. For Amendments to the Official Planning Map, a map drawn to scale showing the exterior boundaries of the lot(s) which will be covered by the proposed map amendment; 3. For amendments to the Planning Ordinance text, a copy of the existing text provisions which the applicant proposes for amendment, and a written statement which describes in detail changes the applicant proposes to make to the text of the Ordinance. 4. The alleged error in the Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance Text which will be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the same; 5. The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment reasonable necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare; 6. The manner in which the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; and, 7. All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment. (Amended 8/5/96) Each petition, unless initiated by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, or Board of Adjustment, or staff, shall be accompanied by a fee to defray the cost of advertising and other administrative costs involved.