Agenda - 02-15-2011 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

23 many questions about the impact of a possible airport (as those of us who fought against the proposed UNC airport location are well aware)... environmental, traffic, safety, poliutian, effect on nearby lands, and more. I'm not sure that I'm yet at peace with the proposed types of floating districts in the UDO. Mobile home park makes sense. It may 6e that for the other proposals (airport, public interest and master planned), I think we need something more: floating zone with permit also required so something along to the lines of a "conditional use district" but for certain uses that have not "general zoning district counterpart." If the Planning Board agrees with that proposition, I think it could help us move ahead by (a) focusing on whether some "floating districts' should be authorized in concept but only if combined redistricting and permit approval are incorporated, and {b) if so, which uses should be treated in that way. c. *Larry's point about limiting the use of floating districts.* i. *Barring rezoning?* I also wanted to respond to Larry's particular question about whether "floating zones" could be foreclosed in AR or RB designated zones. I have two thoughts here. First, "floating districts" involve rezoning from an existing zone to one of the new "floating zones." Thus, I think it's problematic to say that some areas of the county could never 6e rezoned {which would be the result if that tack were taken). ii. *Crafting particular district requirements.* On the other hand, I think that it would be very possible to frame the details of any given floating district to say more about when it should be used, what compatibilities are required to satisfy the comprehensive plan, etc. So, for example, an "airport floating district" might be described as one requiring a minimum parcel of xxx size; a distance from environmentally sensitive, water bodies, residential uses, school uses, of xxx; proximity to certain transport corridors [if fuel is being brought in and out] of xxx; compliance with FAA requirements re flight paths, meteorology, etc.; necessity based on public necessity [not just private preferencesj)... (have old files from the time of fighting against the airport that 1 could pull out if needed on this point. ii. *Rural buffers and watershed.* As to rezoning in the rural buffer or protected watersheds: Since these are areas of mutual concern to the municipalities as well as the county, it might be that we could propose to the BOCC that they enter into some kind of mutual agreements with the affected municipalities that rezoning in such areas requires a higher level of approval (the statutes provide for supermajority approval of rezonings if there are protest petitions from specified neighbors... I think [but haven't researched] that there might be a possibility to do something of this sort pursuant to legislation that related to joint planning or to provisions relating to intergovernmental cooperation but someone would need to research that. It seems to me that this is a broader question than just "floating districts" (since rezoning to districts other than floating districts has implications for shared commitments/obligations as well). Maybe we could request further legal counsel on this point. *Process, timing and next steps.* a. *2/28 Public Hearing.* Perdita kindly shared the draft of our resolution and a proposed schedule with Brian and me on Thursday. I'm attaching my response and my suggestions on the schedule. In particular, I responded that I thought we anticipated that the BOCC would want to hold a hearing on the UDO and anything else we've been able to propose for revisions at the date set for public hearing in late February. I don't think treating that meeting as a work session is functional because the