Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Commissioner Hemminger asked how 48 months was selected and it was answered that <br />permits would have to be obtained from NCDOT and easements would also have to be <br />obtained. This is a reasonable amount of time for these things. <br />Commissioner Yuhasz asked for clarity on whether major projects would have to come back <br />every 12 months to show that they were proceeding. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to check and see how Chapel Hill and <br />Carrboro do extensions and for the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board to <br />see. He thinks that when there is an extension, then the applicant could stipulate how many <br />months the extension should be. He thinks that the staff should monitor progress. <br />Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the first page and that the applicant can only <br />request an extension from the Board of County Commissioners upon the favorable <br />recommendation of the Planning Board. He thinks that this is wrong, and he would like to <br />change this. He respects the Planning Board, but there might be other interests of the Board of <br />County Commissioners that would make it important to have an extension. <br />Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the statement, "It should be noted that no <br />extension request shall be approved if such request represents an alteration." He asked for a <br />definition of an alteration. Michael Harvey pointed this definition out in the article. <br />There was no public comment. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to refer <br />the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the August 18, <br />2009 BOCC meeting. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to <br />Article Four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Section(s) 4.2.8 and <br />4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to modify existing standards governing the <br />acceptable level of non - residential zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural <br />Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity Nodes. <br />AGENDA ITEM: C2 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />Review of a proposal to amend <br />Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 <br />of the Zoning Ordinance <br />to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non - residential zoning within <br />Nodes <br />ISSUE: <br />*The Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, establish limits on the total amount <br />of non - residential zoning permitted within a Node, <br />*The Ordinance would allow up to a total of nine (9) acres but only in instances where existing <br />density within a given Node is similar to existing Transition Areas, <br />elf density within the Nodes is not similar to existing Transition Areas, non - residential zoning is <br />limited to five (5) acres, <br />•The review of a recent rezoning petition during the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing <br />brought these limitations under greater scrutiny, <br />