Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node and that upon completion of that study, the <br /> entire Node be allowed to support non-residential development consistent with the provisions <br /> of the Ordinance. <br /> He said that the staff does not believe that the proposed amendments as offered by the <br /> Planning Board can be enforced. There is an area of the node that the Planning Board wants <br /> to exclude from the prohibition and staff is uncomfortable with this without any study being <br /> done. <br /> Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the <br /> amendment that staff has proposed in Attachment 2. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said that there was some reference that this would be looked at <br /> by the County Attorney because legally the County could not select just a few properties to be <br /> exempt. John Roberts said that he would be hesitant to recommend that this piece of property <br /> be carved out for these parcels without further study. <br /> There was no public comment. <br /> Commissioner Yuhasz asked why this was coming up at this particular time and <br /> Michael Harvey said that he was directed by the Planning Director and Manager in January to <br /> fix this issue. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said that it looks like much of this node in the critical watershed <br /> is comprised of two large properties. She asked if these were in the present use value or <br /> conservation easements and Michael Harvey said that the property to the south is under <br /> present use value. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to <br /> receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and do NOT adopt the <br /> Ordinance amendment recommended by staff contained within Attachment 2 of this abstract. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that he seconded for the purpose of discussion, but he <br /> would rather do something. <br /> In answer to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Craig Benedict gave some history <br /> about the nodes. <br /> Craig Benedict said that the nodes were put on in 1981 with the Land Use Plan and the <br /> watershed lines were put on in 1994 and there was no specific discussion about excluding <br /> commercial development in the nodes. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that an assumption could be that it was assumed back then <br /> that there would be no commercial development in these nodes because they were so close to <br /> the watershed. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that the County was very proactive in watershed protection <br /> back in 1994. She said that she made the motion that she did because she would prefer to <br /> have a study. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said that there may need to be a small area plan for this area. <br /> He said that there is some evidence that there is a historic commercial district in Cedar Grove <br /> and this is an opportunity to work with the community in an expeditious manner. <br /> He suggested amending the motion that staff recommend a one-step small area <br /> planning process for the Cedar Grove node. Commissioner Gordon agreed with this <br /> amendment, but asked that there be a reasonable timeline. <br /> Commissioner Pelissier said that she would not want to vote against what staff is <br /> recommending because there is so much on the plate for the Planning Board now. Secondly, <br /> this is only about 20 acres maximum and if the 6% impervious surface applies, this is not <br /> anymore than there would be if there was residential development. She does not see anything <br />