Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/5/09 ~a <br />Mark Marcoplos: Well, you're proposing to change it by this.... <br />Michael Harvey: I am proposing to amend the Zoning Ordinance where there is currently a prohibition to stipulate that in areas <br />where you have a node, that non-residential will be allowed in established nodes based on established (imitations. <br />Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: What Mark is proposing is to follow the recommendation to change but not the entire node. Just a very <br />small piece in there. <br />Michael Harvey: In my opinion you can't do that. You can't differentiate property within the node as being more acceptable. <br />That will not work with this amendment What you are talking about is simply changing the critics( watershed boundary line. <br />Judith Wegner. Ifs amulti-phase aspect. <br />Michael Harvey: You have a node boundary as it exist right now. In order to exclude that intersection you essentially have to <br />amend the watershed boundary line in order to free that area up to allow for non-residential development. <br />Mark Marcoplos: Now wait a second, that cannot be true because if this is being passed to apply to this area, that is being done <br />without changing the watershed overlay, right? <br />Michael Harvey: That's because we are proposing to amend Article Six (li) which is the watershed protection overlay district to <br />allow for non-residential development within various critical and protected watersheds where a node exists. You are right we are <br />not changing the line of the critical watershed, we are just saying that within various critical and protected watersheds, if there is <br />anode, the node can be developed consistent with the ordinance. What you are saying is that you will allow a small portion, not <br />the entire node, to be developed for non-residential land uses. <br />In my opinion that proposal essentially discriminates against seventy-five percent (75%) of the existing node within the critical <br />watershed by allowing twenty-five percent (25%) of property owners to have the benefit of being able to develop non-residential <br />land uses on their property. In my opinion you either have to change the watershed boundary to allow the properties you are <br />referring to in order to develop non-residential land uses or the whole node gets the same benefit of this amendment. <br />Mark Marcoplos: I guess I don't buy into the legality of the whole node has to be addressed. What I am saying is the watershed <br />boundary doesn't change either way. <br />Michael Harvey: It would have to change with your recommended solution. In my opinion you cannot apply staffs proposed <br />amendment to only a specific portion of the node. There is no data to justify that proposal in my opinion. <br />Perdita Holtz Mark, you're recommending changing the proposed language to say except within a portion of Cedar Grove node <br />established by some boundary to be determined. <br />Mark Marcoplos: Yes, it down around the intersection. For now, then look at the rest of it and figure out what ought to happen <br />away from the intersection. <br />Judith Wegner: Can you conceptualize it as phases and that is the first phase. <br />Mark Marcoplos: Exactly. <br />Perdita Holtz That sets serious precedence for tampering with one small aspect of the various nodes. <br />Michael Harvey: I am sorry, I still do not think we can do that <br />Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: But the reality is if you see one node, you'll only see one node, all of these nodes are different, unique in <br />character, history, culture, watershed issues and I think it should a prerogative to get to know them well enough to say does it <br />need tinkering or do we have to give everybody the same shoes to wear. <br />Earl McKee: I can understand what Mark is saying but the problem I see with it by, let's call it tinkering with this one little section, <br />you're inviting someone in t_ittie River to want to do the same thing with part of their node or any other node in the County. <br />You're inviting people to want special consideration for their particular profit. I can see it being used by individuals or developers <br />and corporations to insist that you have changed one little section in the Cedar Grove Node and made it specal, then I want it <br />done in this section too. <br />7 <br />