Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<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 Michael <br />Harvey said that he was directed by the Planning Director and Manager in January to fix this <br />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 aone-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 />happening in this area in the near future that would be inconsistent with this area. She does not <br />think that a small area plan could be completed in the near future. <br />Chair Foushee agreed with Commissioner Pelissier. <br />Commissioner Hemminger asked if this sets a precedent with other nodes in a <br />watershed. Michael Harvey said that the only other node in a watershed is a rural industrial <br />