Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/5/09 ( ~ <br />Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Why not <br />Michael Harvey: Nodes, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, have different levels of intensity relating to the acceptable level <br />of non-residential development. There are also specific zoning district designations that are utilized to allow for development <br />within the distinct categories of node. The only way to get specific, meaning to only allow certain uses within an individual node, <br />is to essentially engage the Small Area Plan (SAP) process to identify those particular uses for each individual node and then <br />amend the Comprehensive Plan to include those policies. It should be remembered that comprehensive plan and land use <br />element map amendments are normally presented annually, normally at the February quarterly public hearing. In this case, at <br />least in my mind, we could not engage in such an amendment until a SAP is completed, which has to be authorized by the <br />Commissioners prior to commencement <br />Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Thaf's what I am talking about, amending the Comprehensive Plan which occurs in February, so in <br />preparation if that's what Lany wants us to think about and that's what we should think about when we are on this tour. Is it <br />possible to amend it such as you can tweak one of these in a unique way as opposed to what you do you have to do to all. <br />Michael Harvey: You have to remember that you would have to make a recommendation or request to the County Board of <br />Commissioners to allow staff to initiate the SAP for any or all the nodes. It would have to be independent for each node. How <br />long that will take is anyone's guess. <br />Tommy McNeill: Do you feel that would be beneficial to have each node have its own unique circumstances for growth? <br />Michael Harvey: As we talked about on page 24 of your abstract, we agree that there ought to be a comprehensive evaluation of <br />acceptable land uses within the various nodes. Our concern is we don't need to delay this amendment while waiting for that <br />process to occur. <br />Lany Wright: I would like to say that just under that LC-1 there is a very small post office right there and then there are two (2) <br />old stores that belong to Mr. Oliver, the general stores. Then right across from that is a wooded area and that was at one time <br />where a new post office was supposed to go. I don't think they have the money to put it there but I guess the land is committed. <br />Then there is a beauty parlor that is probably 24x24 that is just on the other side of that wooded area. There are structures there <br />the next thing that is commercial is the Ruritan Club, is that inside the cirGe? <br />Craig Benedict: No <br />Glenn Bowles: I think the reason the post office didn't go in is because the soils there are terrible <br />Mark Marcoplos: One thing I want to understand better is that statement you alluded to, while staff agrees there ought to be a <br />comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses within the various nodes, we do not believe it is necessary to delay the <br />proposed amendment to allow such a study to occur. Now it sounded like it is a pretty straight forward concept of the same <br />impervious surface restrictions as residential and it has to meet all the health department requirements for septic, etc. So that <br />sounds like that solves it right there. I wonder why there is a reference to having a process to determine what would be allowed <br />in this watershed protected area and also, presumably if this is passed and it there has not been any study of what is allowed in <br />the area, because that is going to happen later, nothing would be allowed in the area until that study was done, right? <br />Michael Harvey: That is not correct Development would be allowed consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. We <br />could not begin a SAP process to specify land uses until the County Commissioners, a) authorizes the process and b) restricts <br />development until the process is completed. There would have to be some sort of moratorium in order to limit development <br />Mark Marcoplos: So if this thing would pass without specifying what activity would be allowed in the idea that would be done <br />later, yet development would occur before the process to determine what ought to be allowed there. <br />Michael Harvey: Right now the ordinance limits development in this node as all other rural community activity nodes for local <br />commercal one (1) and neighborhood commercial two (2) as detailed within Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are <br />specified land uses that are permitted in larger nodes based on those Zoning designations. <br />Mark Marcoplos: Why then have a comprehensive evaluation of acceptable land uses if we're happy to have stuff be built there <br />before it? <br />Craig Benedict: The amount of uses might not be the 10 acres each so LC-1 and NC might not be the issue. What may be <br />asked when we look is to compress the node, make the node smaller. Five hundred (500) acres and only allowing twenty (20) <br />4 <br />