Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 <br />anticipated project costs entirely with funds on hand; and <br />WHEREAS, the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department is able to borrow funds <br />to complete the financing of this building expansion at a favorable <br />interest rate if the loan is approved by the unit of local <br />government with which the fire department contracts to provide fire <br />protection; and <br />WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to approve a tax-exempt <br />financing arrangement between the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire <br />Department and Central Carolina Bank, or another qualified lender; <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County <br />that said financing arrangement is approved. <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />B. PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TWO ECONOMIC <br />DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS <br />Commissioner Gordon said that with regard to the two economic <br />development districts, there are two major policy questions. One deals with <br />the location of commercial, industrial, economic development and similar non- <br />residential activity nodes and the other deals with County Commissioners <br />review of economic development proposals. These are both explained in detail <br />in the agenda abstract. With regard to the first policy question, <br />Commissioner Gordon said that the previous locational criteria in the Land Use <br />Plan required that major commercial activity nodes be located in areas in or <br />near population centers with centralized facilities such as water and sewer <br />(urban nodes with urban services). The particular locational criteria on page <br />10a that are relevant are public services and utilities, population density, <br />soil conditions and existing land use which would imply urban uses. She said <br />that when the EDDs were approved with the particular land use changes, more <br />intensive land uses in many other parts of the County that are essentially <br />rural were also allowed. Although there were not a lot of changes for the <br />EDDs, Commissioner Gordon feels that there are implications that need to be <br />considered for the future. The second policy question has to do with Board <br />review of economic development proposals. She feels that although the land <br />is prezoned, it does not necessarily mean the County Commissioners must be <br />removed from the review process. She feels that because the standards are <br />fuzzy and require a lot of review, that the Commissioners should have some <br />review function for large developments. This could be a fairly simply Special <br />Use process where the only specific condition would be to meet the Design <br />Standards. She made reference to the information in the agenda abstract and <br />summarized some of the key points. She asked the Board to consider these two <br />policy questions. <br />Commissioner Willhoit noted that with regard to the County <br />Commissioners getting involved in the process of interpreting whether or not <br />the project meets the criteria in the Design Manual, that this is a good <br />example of a need to distinguish between policy issues that the Board is <br />suppose to be involved with and the staff applying the policy to a proposal. <br />He feels the Design Manual is a good document which provides a much more <br />detailed guidance that what they have had in the past. The issue of some <br />arbitrary level over which the Board would make the decision as opposed to <br />smaller developments is exactly the opposite of what he would suggest. The <br />total impact of developing 200 acres is the same if it is developed as one or <br />