Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
26 <br />certain districts (not all districts) as suitable for the establishment of companion "conditional use <br />districts" parallel to general districts with a wide range of uses that would be permitted as of <br />right. In talked with Alice Gordon about this topic at the grocery story, I think there may be <br />common ground if everyone focused on the areas in which "conditional use districts" have an <br />obvious benefit: possibly agricultural districts (where a narrower band of uses might be suitable <br />and would limit wide-ranging rights of use, so as to make the narrower band of uses available <br />under a conditional use district conceptually desirable); likewise certain economic development <br />districts; likewise a certain narrow range of commercial-type districts. I think that trying to <br />establish the need for parallel conditional use districts for every type of existing district is a <br />harder case to make and is confusing to lay people who haven't worked with the details. As I <br />recall, I think Planning Board (or at least I) thought that it was desirable to incorporate a <br />conditional use district concept to respond to proposals relating to some of the "small area <br />planning" initiatives that had been articulated over the last several years. I understand that the <br />planning staff may think that conditional use districts are generally desirable for the purpose of <br />flexibility... but on the other hand, I think that introducing this concept to the BOCC and the <br />public would be better advanced by focusing on creating specific conditional use districts that <br />parallel only some (not all) of the general districts (so that people can begin to see the benefit and <br />the methods that such districts employ). I appreciate the planning staff's possible preference to <br />incorporate a conditional use district protocol across the board, but I really think we'd get further <br />if we focused on some specific areas in which conditional use districts are potentially most <br />viable and most important rather than trying to incorporate parallel conditional use districts <br />across the board. <br />3. I don't think the debate is necessarily well advanced by trying to incorporate <br />conditional use districts across the board. I also think that there are textual issues here (as Alice <br />Gordon indicated). That's one of the issues that I hope to look at closely in the coming days. <br />Just thought I should note these observations as early as possible to allow the planning staff to <br />offer their own thoughts on these points. <br />Best wishes--Judith <br /> <br />MOTION made by Judith Wegner to: <br />Number 1 that the Planning Board expresses its intent and desire and commitment to <br />work in detail with Conditional District and Conditional Use District by having two <br />meeting in January and to address stream buffer issues in a meeting early in February. <br />Number 2 that the Planning Board recommends that the staff meet with any of the <br />interested other municipalities in the County during the month of January to provide them <br />with information and to solicit their input. <br />Number 3 that the Planning Board commits itself to submit to the Board of County <br />Commissioners substantive recommendations by the middle of February so that the <br />Board of Commissioners can determine whether they would like to calendar a further <br />discussion of those matters for the end of February scheduled public hearing. <br />Number 4 that the Planning Board recommends that the planning staff hold an additional <br />outreach meeting by the end of January to inform the public more fully about issues, <br />particularly Conditional Districts and Conditional Use Districts. <br />2 <br />