Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/5/09 ~Cj <br />historic crossroad for Cedar Grove. They had said at that time, five (5) acres of limited commercial and five (5) acres of <br />neighborhood commerdal. When the 1994 watershed regulations went into effect, they overiayed and put widener restrictions in <br />there. We do not know if they intentionally or unintentionally knocked out three quarters (314) of this node. What we are trying to <br />determine was it the idea that they wanted to exdude this other area from non-residential. What we are suggestion now is yes <br />you can have some non-residential uses on the other three quarters (314) of this intersection but not allow anymore impervious <br />than if it was for residential use. Six percent (6°~) is very restridive. <br />Lany Wright: Here it says, and again I'm referring to the land use which is dated but I'd like to know what I can use to substitute <br />this or where I can find the content. <br />Michael Harvey: In the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Larry Wright: I couldn't find the counterpart to this. If you could send me an email. Thanks. Its says the soils are rated poor for <br />septic tank absorption fields and most building types. What does that mean? <br />Michael Harvey: That the soil are poor and do not lend themselves to normal septic systems. <br />Larry Wright: Then we would be sensitive to that? <br />Michael Harvey: If they can't get a septic permit they can't develop any uses on a parcel of property regardless if the proposed <br />amendment is adopted or not This amendment will not eliminate the need for a property owner to comply with all applicable <br />permitting requirements allowing for any type of development <br />Larry Wright: Part of that really is in that watershed. Another thing, this looks like it is pretty big. From what I understand, the <br />spirit of the Cedar Grove Township was to keep it rural. One of the things they are trying to do in the OUTBoard is to consolidate <br />economic development areas to make them walkable and less driving and it would be nice since this is a sensitive area to <br />consider making it small <br />Michael Harvey: In my opinion, in order to do that would require a comprehensive plan amendment and a land use element map <br />amendment to reclassify the rural community activity node. <br />Larry Wright: So what kind of amendments are we looking at here? <br />Michael Harvey: Here we are looking to darity what types of development are allowed within various critical and protected <br />watershed overlay districts in instances where there may be a previously located node. <br />Larry Wright Aren't we ultimately looking at this anyway? <br />Michael Harvey: I don't know if that is the ultimate goal. <br />Judith Wegner: I wonder, Michael, for the old time Planning Board, is there a chance to do a bus tour? To see different areas of <br />the County and I wonder if before February maybe late fall we could do that, is that possible? It relates to our small area <br />development and a field trip might really be benefidal. <br />Tommy McNeill: Absolutely, I think that would be a wonderful idea, I agree with that one hundred percent (100°). Additionally, <br />there are some public areas within the County that the Planning Board should be aware of and that could be added to the tour. <br />Craig Benedict I've done a tour for some Planning Board members a few years ago about Economic Development Districts <br />(EDD) also so that could be part of the tour. <br />Judith Wegner: I think that would be helpful. I also think about the fire department and where they are located. We all are doing <br />our best to pay attention to this but maybe even on a weekend we go and dig in and get knowledgeable and prepare with a <br />number of folks who are doing it That would be very helpful. <br />Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I want to follow up on what Lany was talking about and it is a question. Larry was interested in an <br />amendment that would reinforce the historical nature plus the watershed protection. I don't want to lose that If we do have an <br />amendment for this watershed, my question is does it apply to all the activity nodes for economic development? <br />Michael Harvey: No <br />