Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORANGE COUNTY <br />BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br />Meeting Date: August 18, 2009 <br />1 <br />Action Agenda <br />Item No. ,5 - b <br />SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Development Limits within <br />Nodes <br />DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes <br />ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment <br />2. Minutes -June 3, 2009 Planning Board Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 <br />3. Draft Minutes -May 18, 2009 Quarterly Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607 <br />Public Hearing <br />PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation and consider taking action on a <br />staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 seeking to <br />modify existing development limitations on non-residential development within Nodes. <br />BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. As <br />staff stated during the hearing, the Ordinance currently limits the total amount of non- <br />residentially zoned property permitted within a Node based on population density. The various <br />Nodes are limited to a total of ten (10) acres of non-residential zoning. <br />It was determined, after the review of a Zoning Atlas Petition at the November 24, 2008 <br />Quarterly Public Hearing, that a more reasonable method for regulating non-residential zoning <br />within the Nodes was needed. <br />During the hearing, the following general comments were made relating to the proposed <br />amendment: <br />1. A Board member expressed concern that the Planned Development process would allow <br />more non-residential development within the Nodes than was acceptable, <br />2. A Board member suggested exempting septic and repair area from the acreage <br />calculation in an effort to address the problem in the short term, <br />3. A Board member indicated there ought to be an evaluation of the existing land uses to <br />determine if they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and <br />4. A Board member expressed concern that this amendment could allow for additional non- <br />residential development within certain protected and critical watershed overlay districts. <br />