Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
25 <br />UDO Comments from Judith Wegner to Staff I2/1/2010 <br />Hi, folks. Thanks for sharing the statement ofthe motion adopted by the Planning Board last <br />night and the proposed schedule to accompany the resolution. <br />I think that the statement of the motion (below) is accurate. I think that the initial proposed UDO <br />schedule that you attached misses some important nuances and have accordingly attached both <br />the initial draft from Perdita and a revision that I think more accurately reflects the Planning <br />Board discussion last night. <br />I particular, I think that the UDO schedule should anticipate an opportunity during the 2/28/2011 <br />joint BOCC/Planning Board meeting for public comment on the November version of the UDO <br />as well as any proposed changes identified from the Planning Board that were submitted to the <br />BOCC by that date. I really don't think that the Planning Board viewed this occasion as a `work <br />session"... but rather as an opportunity for public commentary. I've also included other <br />revisions in the prosed UDO schedule to bring the summary more closely into conformity with <br />my understanding of last night's discussion. <br />I also wanted to some observations about how to proceed with the conditional use <br />districts/conditional use districts discussion moving forward. As it happens, I ran into Alice <br />Gordon and her husband at the grocery store late this afternoon on my way home and talked <br />about some of these ideas. <br />1. I think that the use of the terms "conditional districts" and "conditional use <br />districts" makes things very confusing for the public. I think that "conditional districts" might <br />better be termed "floating zones." At the same time, in retrospect, I admit that I'm confounded <br />by the decision to identify only three "conditional districts" as ones involving mobile home <br />districts, "master planned" districts" and "public interest districts." I honestly don't recall <br />discussion by the Planning Board as to use of the term "conditional district" or a limited focus on <br />these three types of "conditional districts" (in effect floating zones). There are other traditionally <br />recognized "floating zones" and I think that the Planning Board should discuss (a) whether this <br />terminology ("conditional districts") is advisable or unduly confusing (I think it's confusing, <br />particularly in the context of referencing "conditional use districts" as well). I also don't <br />understand why these three types of "conditional districts" are the only ones identified and am <br />bemused about the categories and why they have been selected rather than others. I think that <br />this topic deserves considered attention on its own footing and would be happy to meet with any <br />of you during December to share these concerns and help shape the conversation for the PB in <br />January. Absent such a meeting, I plan to write about this topic to the PB and BOCC (since I'll <br />have to miss the 1/5 PB meeting). <br />2. As to "conditional use districts": I think that this concept is not clear to lay people, <br />and that the wide-spread application of this concept to all districts is ultimately inadvisable at <br />this juncture. I'd suggest that the planning staff, Planning Board, and BOCC consider targeting <br />