P&Z Board Members Present:  Joy Wayman, Scott Brookhart, Kelly Commiskey, Christopher Brooks,

Harry Baulch, Don Frantz, Julia Rudy, Keith Fenn

Staff Present:  Scott Ramage, Greg Barnes, Kevin Hales, Tom Horstman, Terry Warren, Dan Matthys, JoAnne Carlyle, Debra Grannan, Jennifer Currin, Philip Smith, Ricky Barker

A.  Call to Order (Chairman Brooks)

Chairman Brooks welcomed two new Board members, Hari Nath (not present) and Keith Fenn, noting that the total number of Board members was reduced by council from 10 to 9.

Hari Nath arrived at 6:53 PM

B.  Approval of the Minutes of the January 22, 2007 Meeting (Chairman Brooks)

Motion to approve:  Don Frantz
Second:  Harry Baulch
Discussion:  None 
Vote:  7-0 (1 abstaining/Keith Fenn)

C.  Nomination and election of Vice-Chair (Chairman Brooks)

Motion to nominate Kelly Commiskey as Vice-Chair:  Don Frantz
Second:  Harry Baulch
Discussion:  None   
Vote:  8-0

D.  Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or Mixed Use Sketch Plan requests with a public hearing:

Please adhere to the following guidelines:

·         Before your presentation, print your name on a form provided by the Board Secretary to ensure the official record reflects the correct information.

·         Provide the Board Secretary any documents or materials to be presented to the Board.

·         Proceed to the podium nearest the Board Secretary and state your name clearly.

·         Public testimony is limited to comments on new or substantially changed aspects of the request which have occurred following the public hearing held by the Town Council.

·         Be concise; avoid repetition; limit comments to five minutes or less, and designate a spokesperson for large groups.

1.       06-CPA-10 Modern Woodmen of America Comprehensive Plan Amendment presented by Mr. Scott Ramage

Motion to approve:  From HDR to  OFC/INS or HDR  Julia Rudy made a motion to recommend approval of the Plan Amendment adding that the Amendment should be compatible with the remaining homes to give it a residential feel.
Second:  Joy Wayman 
Discussion:  Don will support as read but does not like dual designations; prefers OI 
Vote:  8-0 

E.  Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or Mixed Use Sketch Plan Requests with no public hearing:

1.     06-REZ-34 Napowsa Rezoning presented by Ms. Debra Grannan

Motion to approve:  Joy Wayman
Second:  Scott Brookhart
Discussion:  No discussion   
Vote:  8-0  

2.  05-AC-009 Reedy Creek Activity Center Concept Plan presented by Ms. Debra Grannan (Tabled until the March 19 P&Z Board meeting)

3.     PL07-010 Land Development Ordinance Round 8 Amendments presented by Ms. Jennifer Currin

Joy Wayman noted that she had concerns with sections 3, 10, 11, and G

Keith – 10, 7.3.7J Floodplain, p. 52 Illegal discharges, #12

Chris – his comments won’t affect the vote; public hearing notice; search warrants

Julia – p. 33/Table 7.2-5 overhead electric utility lines, 3rd bullet down

#12 p.57

Letter A A

Motion to approve:  Kelly Commiskey recommends approval of all LDO Round 8 amendments at this time with the exception of sections:  3, 10, 11, 12, G and AA which will be discussed in later motions.
Second:  Don Frantz
Discussion:  No discussion   
Vote:  9-0

#3 – Procedure and Protest Petitions

Discussion before the motion:

Joy Wayman expressed concerns about section 3.4.1.D.1 and the requirement no changes can be made to the application prior to the Town Council public hearing.  Ms. Wayman thinks it defeats the purpose when most issues can be solved prior to the public hearing when applicants are required to have meetings with the public and most issues can be solved through that process before the Town Council public hearing.

Christopher Brooks says he thinks the required meetings with the public before the application is filed is to keep things from changing and having staff work on something and have things changing too frequently so that by the time it gets to Town Council, it’s changed from the original application staff received. 

Christopher Brooks asks what is the time period for refilling if an applicant withdraws their application, how long do they have to make changes?  Discussion on waiver after an applicant withdraws their application:  Jennifer Currin, Planner II answers:  They can withdraw their application and file at any time based on monthly submittal deadlines without a waiting period. 

Kelly Commiskey agrees with Joy Wayman that the applicant needs to have some latitude to make changes after submission and before the Town Council public hearing; she is concerned that the applicant will quit working with the neighborhood, since they know they can’t make changes.

Don Frantz:  The concern he has is that before the public hearing the applicant has had the neighborhood meeting, they have seen what is being presented at the Town Council meeting, so when they speak at the public hearing, they know what they’re getting ready to talk about.  If a number of things have changed by the public hearing, they are definitely going to feel uninformed.

JoAnne Carlyle offered clarification to the Board regarding Chairman Brooks’ question about a required waiting period for a denied request, versus if there is a waiting period for a request that is withdrawn by the applicant prior to a decision. 

Joy Wayman made a motion to remove the sentence “Once the application is filed with the Planning department, no changes can be made to that application prior to the Town Council public hearing”
Second:  Kelly Commiskey
Discussion:  None
Vote:  3-6 (Scott Brookhart, Hari Nath, Harry Baulch, Don Frantz, Christopher Brooks, Julia Rudy voted against the motion)

Motion to approve #3 Procedure and Protest Petitions:  Don Frantz
Second:  Harry Baulch
Discussion:  None
Vote:  7-2 (Joy Wayman and Kelly Commiskey voted against the motion to approve)

#10 – Urban Transition Buffers (UTB) Regulations Tom Horstman presented information on behalf of the staff.

Discussion before the motion: 

Joy Wayman has the following concerns:

1) A 100’ foot buffer directly adjacent versus the State law of 50 feet; is it a new minimum standard of 100 feet in adverse of State law of 50 feet?  Christopher Brooks asks are we acting in contradiction to State law?  Not according to Tom Horstman with the Town of Cary Engineering department.  The Riparian Buffer Ordinance that we have in place now has an additional 50’ buffer on streams that are shown on the USGS quadrant map.  There is no State law that says a municipality can’t add an additional buffer to a State required buffer.  An existing plan would not be subjected to these rules, only a new plan coming in for approval. 

Motion to approve:  Don Frantz
Second:  Kelly Commiskey
Discussion:  None 
Vote:  9-0

#11 – Protecting Riparian Buffers & Riparian Buffer Types and Jurisdictional
                     Authority

Discussion before the motion:  Joy Wayman wanted to know if this was just to strike-out all references to riparian buffers, and the answer from staff was yes.

Motion to approve:  Kelly Commiskey
Second:  Scott Brookhart
Discussion:  None
Vote:  9-0

#12 – Illegal Discharge

Discussion before the motion: 

Christopher Brooks commented that the general statutes should dictate the issuance of search warrants and is somewhat concerned about the wording that says “limit it to court of law”. Don Frantz agrees and wants to modify the motion.

Keith Fenn asked if, on p 52 J 1, is the reference always to the Town Manager; does that imply staff or a representative of the Town? – Terry Warren answers yes it does imply staff or a representative of the Town.

2.  Letter C further down -- Not explicit at whose expense that would be – The Town Manager shall have the right to set up on any permitted facility such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the Town Manager to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility stormwater discharge?  It would be at the facilities expense per Terry Warren, Engineering department.  Christopher Brooks wants this to be added for clarification. 

3.  Letter D, What is the basis or is there an established threshold that triggers the monitoring? 

Terry Warren responds:  Anytime there is an illegal discharge that was discovered and it had the opportunity to be an on-going part of the operation of that particular facility, then we would set up at that time a full-time monitoring process.  The language was taken from a model ordinance that the EPA provided, so that’s how this was created; but that’s the scenario under which Mr. Warren sees the monitoring being established.

4.  P. 53 letter K, 3^rd line from the bottom additional wording is needed; Keith Fenn reads the wording as is:  “To the extent practicable shall be deemed compliance with the provisions of this section.

Terry said it appears it is a typo and looks like it should be ‘in’ compliance; but he will have to look into that a little further.

Motion to approve #12 adding the following:  Christopher Brooks

1)  Under general statutes don’t limit the issuance of search warrants to court of law, just let our general statutes dictate the issuance of search warrants (Council for the Town) don’t limit it to court of law

2)  The additions discussed under C and language clarification under letter K.

Second:  Kelly Commiskey
Discussion:  None   
Vote:  9-0

Letter G – Application Requirements

Discussion before the motion:  Christopher Brooks says the only thing before them with letter G is the strike-out of riparian buffer replaced by urban transition buffer on the application.  Joy Wayman had brought this up to discuss individually, but has no issue once the reason for letter G is explained.

Motion to approve:  Don Frantz
Second:  Harry Baulch
Discussion:  None   
Vote:  9-0

Letters AA – Conditions (p. 70)

Discussion before the motion:  Julia Rudy wanted to discuss why it’s proposed to go to 90 days for new business, temporary signs?  Jennifer Currin, Planning staff answers – a lot of that has to do with the time is of production to make new signs as well as corporate mergers in the timing that it takes.  So it’s to allow them more flexibility.  The amendment right now is still limiting it to 30 days within the first 60 days.  However, the Planning Director would have the authority to extend the duration if they submitted a request and it was found that it was justified.

Christopher Brooks likes 60 days total. 

Motion to approve:  Harry Baulch wants to allow staff their recommendation of 90 days, and let them evaluate if it’s being taken advantage of; then staff can come back in LDO Round 9 to make a new recommendation.
Second:  Don Frantz
Discussion:  Christopher Brooks will vote against, he thinks it’s too long of a period of time.  Kelly Commiskey and Julia Rudy agree.
Vote:  Harry Baulch, Don Frantz, and Hari Nath vote in favor 3-6

Motion to approve a maximum of 60 days:  Joy Wayman
Second:  Kelly Commiskey
Discussion:  None
Vote:  8-1 (Hari Nath votes against the motion)

F.  For Information

Monthly Site/Subdivision Activity Reports

G.  Adjournment— 7:40 PM

Please contact the Town of Cary Planning Department with any questions.  The phone number is (919) 469-4082.  Visit our Web site at www.townofcary.org for more detailed information about each agenda item.

“The Town of Cary is committed to providing all citizens with the opportunity to participate fully in the public meeting process.  Any person with a disability who needs an auxiliary aid or service in order to participate in any meeting may contact the Town Clerk at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.  The e-mail address is sue.rowland@townofcary.org; the phone number is (919) 469-4011; the TDD number is (919) 469-4012.”

Planning and Zoning Board meetings are broadcast live the night of the meeting and are rebroadcast the same week on Tuesday at 9:30 AM and Wednesday at 6:30 PM .