Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br />Plan* (background attached here): the ideas proposed by the working group included targeted, <br />selected, careful rezoning in ways that would tailor added, environmentally sensitive uses that would <br />nonetheless serve economic development objectives (again, by rezoning to a new *conditional use <br />district* with a narrowed band of permitted use and a conditional use permit (unlike the parallel <br />general district), it would be possible to make suitable accommodations between existing and proposed <br />new uses. The same is true as to *agricultural support enterprises* (actively discussed in 2007 as <br />indicated in attached background, but also discussed again in late 2009 by the BOCC regarding <br />agricultural initiatives in the county... the file is 6 MG plus so I don't want to attach here but can send <br />separately and probably will later via "you send it"). The idea here has been that the County should <br />encourage the ability of farmers to introduce targeted companion uses in agricultural districts without <br />having wholesale rezoning to permit industrial uses in general. Thus, back to my earlier industrial <br />example. A particular farm might want to become a distribution center for "community supported <br />agriculture" (that is, a pick-up point for weekly vegetables that have been paid for by individuals in <br />advance)... or it might want to create a microbrewery on site. You can see that there might be a need <br />for a tailored approval for things of that sort... are there going to be more traffic impacts in the first <br />instance? Are there issues about adequacy of space, smells, water supplies in the second? If there were <br />some sort of special Agricultural Development *conditional use district" created, it might be possible to <br />allow such uses on a targeted basis, without allowing any and all throughout the district. I think it's <br />important that we get going in this arena before we lose our farms. A conditional use district approach <br />would be very suitable for that purpose. It would also be helpful in other areas where we have not yet <br />done small area plans... for example along NC 54 where proposals for certain business development by <br />UNC or the county or others might have been addressed through general district controls... much better <br />to have more tailored options. In some ways, I hope I've shown that overall conditional use districts <br />may be helpful on a fairly wide-ranging basis. On the other hand, if people don't fully understand them, <br />and if we want to get the kinks out, maybe we should go stow and start with authorizing them in only <br />specific areas. That's my suggestion for a compromise at this point. <br />2. Second, as to *conditional districts.* <br />a. *Generaily on "conditional districts" (better to be ca{led "floating zones").* I think the <br />terminology used in the new UDO is very confusing when used at the same time that the term <br />"conditional use district" is being introduced. The classic term for this kind of thing is indeed *floating <br />zones* (better, perhaps, "floating districts' so we don't think that we're moving into the Bermuda <br />Triangle). The term "floating zone" has been used for 50 years or more so it shouldn't be that scary). <br />That doesn't mean that the aliens are landing and taking us away. Instead it means that there are <br />certain kinds of uses (framed as districts) that should be defined in advanced, but not put on the map <br />until a rezoning request is made by a property owner and the governing board does an appropriate <br />review and approves. I think this shouldn't be a worrisome concept... it's really well-established <br />standard practice here and elsewhere. it's just that we've had a confusing name change proposed and <br />we should instead return to standard terminology in the first instance. <br />b. *When and how to use the floating district concept.* One such use is the classic "planned <br />development" (often with mixed uses). Another is a "shopping center" which may be of a scale that <br />needs extra review and which shouldn't be put on the map so as to favor one particular property owner <br />in advance. Yet another might be a "mobile home park" or an "airport." Indeed, I have suggested that <br />airport use be treated as a floating zone so that the governing board has the maximum authority to <br />decide whether to authorize such use at all (rather than treating an airport as a type of use as of right or <br />with a special use permit in any existing district). The reason I feel that way is that there are many, <br />