Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Excerpt of DRAFT Minutes <br /> 106 Brian Crawford thanked Michael Harvey for his presentation and asked if there was anyone in the audience that <br /> 107 would like to comment on the proposal. Michael Harvey informed the Board that neither Mr. Davis nor his Attorney, <br /> 108 Mr. Yuhasz,were present this evening as staff had recommended the application be tabled. <br /> 109 <br /> 110 Brian Crawford asked if the Board had any comments. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said that from her reading of the <br /> 111 Quarterly Public Hearing packet there have been issues concerning development within the White Cross Node dating <br /> 112 back to the 1990's and that it was determined that there needed to be a re-assessment of the Nodes. Mary Bobbitt- <br /> 113 Cooke asked Michael Harvey if staff had ever completed the analysis of the Nodes that was suggested back in the <br /> 114 1990's. Michael Harvey said there was no documentation of any study or other similar analysis of the various Nodes <br /> 115 to determine the viability of the existing development limitation contained within the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> 116 <br /> 117 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke asked Michael Harvey is the original zoning petition, filed by Mr. Davis in the 1990's, was <br /> 118 withdrawn over concerns that it would be denied. Michael Harvey indicated that within their public hearing packets <br /> 119 there was a letter authored by Mr. Davis in January of 1996 requesting that his petition be tabled allow for a review of <br /> 120 the development constraints within the Nodes as staff had recommended the 1995 rezoning petition be denied for <br /> 121 similar reasons. <br /> 122 <br /> 123 Jeff Schmitt said he believed there ought to be a re-assessment of the development constraints within the Nodes. <br /> 124 Jeff Schmitt said he recalled several County Commissioners had indicated during the public hearing that the location <br /> 125 of the Nodes had been a labor-intensive process and that there should not be artificial limitations on the amount of <br /> 126 non-residential development that is allowed to develop within them. Jeff Schmitt suggested staff should complete an <br /> 127 assessment of the existing regulations in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary delay and allow Mr. Davis to move <br /> 128 forward with his application. <br /> 129 <br /> 130 Samantha Cabe said she agreed with Jeff Schmitt and was concerned that something was not done back in the <br /> 131 1990's as suggested to address this matter. Samantha Cabe said there were a number of possible solutions, <br /> 132 including revising the existing language, to address what she felt was an arbitrary limitation on the amount of <br /> 133 commercial development within the existing Nodes. Samantha Cabe suggested staff might want to consider adding <br /> 134 language within the Ordinance that indicated the acreage limitations might only impact building and parking areas but <br /> 135 did not impact active septic or repair fields. Samantha Cabe suggested that such a quick fix would allow Mr. Davis to <br /> 136 move forward and allow for more development within the Nodes. <br /> 137 <br /> 138 There was general discussion among the Board members on possible solutions to this problem. <br /> 139 <br /> 140 Samantha Cabe asked Michael Harvey is staff had any suggestions on how to address this matter. Michael Harvey <br /> 141 indicated staff had been working on possible solutions to the problem but was unprepared to make formal <br /> 142 recommendations at this time. Michael Harvey said staff had recommended that the application be tabled to afford <br /> 143 staff the necessary time to develop alternatives on how to address the problem for review and consideration. Jeff <br /> 144 Schmitt said that this work needed to be expedited to avoid unnecessary delay. <br /> 145 <br /> 146 Samantha Cabe asked when staff would be ready to present options for review by the Planning Board. Michael <br /> 147 Harvey suggested staff could develop a list of alternatives for review and comment by the Board at their February <br /> 148 regular meeting. Craig Benedict added that if the Board wanted to table this item tonight, as suggested by staff, the <br /> 149 Planning Board recommend to the County Commissioners that the application be tabled and staff directed to begin <br /> 150 working on various options on how to address the five(5)acre development limitation within the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> 151 <br /> 152 There was additional discussion among the Board members. <br /> 153 <br /> 154 Larry Wright asked staff to clarify what could be completed and presented for review at the February regular meeting. <br /> 155 Michael Harvey said staff could be prepared to present several possible solutions to the acreage problem and solicit <br /> 156 Board member input at the February meeting. Michael Harvey said the Board would then have to make some <br /> 157 recommendation to the County Commissioners on how to proceed with whatever option you suggest. Brian <br /> 158 Crawford asked when the first opportunity would be for such an amendment to be brought before the County <br /> 159 Commissioners. Michael Harvey indicated the May 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> 3 <br />