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