Agenda - 08-18-2009 - 5b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attachment 2 1 Minutes 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 JUNE 3, 2009 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; 7 Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large; Mark Marcoplos, Bingham Township At-Large; Earl McKee, Little River Township 8 Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove 9 Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; Vacant, At-Large 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Robert Davis, Planner III; 14 Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; 15 16 OTHERS PRESENT: Kimberly Lewis; Margaret Lewis; Alvon Lewis; Lucy Fearrington; Joseph Fearrington; Noah Hams; Ola Harris; 17 Kirstin Frescoln; Louis Kingsland; Vicky Hendel; Walter Whitlock; David Holdaway; Kent Wiles; Tom Holt; Andrew Nobel; Lee 18 Lambert; Steve Prakken; Sheyko & Nichole Sergey; Ann Waller; Greg Forest; Jay Harris; Derek Harris; Jon, Cheryl, Katlyn & 19 Kegan Edwards; Clementine Self; Johanne Gisledth 20 21 **~.***~*,*,**,.*,.****,~,*,.***.~~..~,*******,~,**„*.~****„ 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Article four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule 24 Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non-residential 25 zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity 26 Nodes. 27 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly 28 Public Hearing. 29 30 Presenter: Michael Harvey 31 32 Michael Harvey: The item relates to a proposed amendment is to Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to 33 revise existing development limitations within the various Nodes within Orange County. The Board will recall from a recent 34 zoning atlas amendment petition we have limitations within each of the existing Nodes on how much non-residential 35 development can occur. Right now the Ordinance says that non-residential development shall be limited to 5 acres. 36 37 Judith Wegner: Could you explain nodes? 38 39 Michael Harvey: Anode is a geographic area of the County defined within the Comprehensive Plan and denoted on the Land 40 Use Element Map as having potential for allowing non-residential development activities. Nodes are normally located at road 41 intersections or strategic points of the County. One of the justifications for the nodes was to try to encourage non-residential 42 development in rural areas of the County that would satisfy some of the basic needs of the surrounding property owners without 43 requiring them to commute long distances to urbanizing areas of the County. There are five rural community activity nodes. 44 There are also subcategories of nodes with the same essential purpose and function although when you read the 45 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, their purpose is not as grandiose as the rural community nodes. Ultimately, nodes are located 46 in an effort to try to take advantage of major rural roadway intersections throughout the County to allow for reasonable 47 commercial or non-residential development. The Ordinance currently limits how much development can go within in these 48 Nodes. What staff purposed is to increase the amount of acreage allowed for non-residential development. We brought this to 49 the Planning Board as an information item and the Planning Board. The Planning Board recommended a course of action that 50 would have seen an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance specifically geared to addressing non-residential development limits 51 within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. The problem staff had with that recommendation was it singled out one 52 Node to allow for heightened level of development. The Comprehensive Plan does not treat the Nodes differently and as a result 53 we cannot, from a Zoning standpoint, adopt an amendment that treats one node differently from the others. Its all or nothing for 54 us. That would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That's an even longer process. So the compromise we have put 55 forward was to recommend that non-residential development within all rural community activity nodes would be raised to 10 56 acres for both Local Commercial One and Neighborhood Commercial Two development projects. We also put in a provision 57 stipulating that there was a possibility you could get more if you went through the planned development process. There were a 58 lot of comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing and they were across the board with no real consensus with what should 59 happen. 60