Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2011
>
Agenda - 02-28-2011
>
Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2012 10:48:23 AM
Creation date
2/21/2011 10:29:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/28/2011
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C.1
Document Relationships
Minutes 02-28-2011
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
200 <br />DRAFT <br />183 May Becker: I brought this up at the previous meeting and I don't know to what extent we're going to follow up. From my <br />184 understanding you're ready to make a recommendation but I had a concern about the Conditional Zoning, the new zoning that <br />185 was being put into the new UDO. In other words, we went through the discussion at our meeting before the last meeting, where <br />186 on the overhead there was discussion of the differences between Conditional Use and Conditional Use Zoning and we talked <br />137 about in which case there was a requirement for a Special Use Permit. I pointed out that I was concerned about it being too <br />188 open -ended for developers. I think that is where the discussion ended. There was a kind of question of whether we would revisit <br />189 that discussion and I just wanted to bring that up again that I still have those concerns. To me there wasn't a real, it was a <br />190 presentation where I felt we understood better what the new language or what the UDO was describing but to me it wasn't clear <br />191 whether that's really what should be incorporated into the UDO. <br />192 <br />193 Larry Wright: Ok, does anybody have any other comments? There will be a time for staff to respond to that. I have a question, <br />194 the lambda, the footnote, use not permitted as a Conditional Use District, permitted only in zoning districts, could you expand on <br />195 that? <br />196 <br />197 Perdita Holtz: Its permitted only in General Use Zoning Districts where there is an asterisk or the requirement for a Class A or <br />198 Class R Special Use Permit on this chart. You cannot apply for Conditional Use District, that's linked to the General District. <br />199 <br />200 Craig Benedict: For example, page 49, in order to have a hospital somebody would have to ask to rezone maybe from an R -1 <br />201 residential area on a land use plan designation that says general commercial 4 is a place where hospital would be permitted so <br />202 somebody would have to ask for a General Use Rezoning from R -1 to GC -4 if it met the Comp Plan locational criteria. Then <br />203 somebody would have the ability to come back at a later date and have a hospital, somebody cannot go into a NC -2 and ask for <br />204 an NC -2 -CU, Conditional Use to get a hospital that would not permitted. <br />205 <br />206 Larry Wright: Could you address May's concerns please? <br />207 <br />208 Perdita Holtz: I can, you may recall that Judith and Brian met with staff in December and Judith talked about some of that <br />209 meeting. One of the things that staff talked with Judith and Brian about was that with Conditional Zoning you are placing all sorts <br />210 of conditions on the zoning so to go back and still require an SUP concurrently, you are taking all those conditions you've just put <br />211 on the zoning and attaching them to the SUP, its redundant. Staff believes it is redundant and Judith pretty much said that at the <br />212 January 5th meeting if you look in the minutes, she had thought about it and kind of concurred with staff that it is redundant to <br />213 require both the Conditional Zoning District and a Special Use Permit. <br />214 <br />215 Craig Benedict: If I could add another thing that was discussed at the January 5th meeting is that some developers would come <br />216 in for a Conditional District and not know the specific site plan for the five pods of development that are there. They might know <br />217 one so it would be impossible for them to know how to build out their business park or their office park with a specific site plan <br />218 which comes with the SUP on those four pods. Conditional Districts allow this in one case, this master plan program to find out <br />219 where the road are, where the utilities are, where you want to preserve the stream buffers, and the adjacent buffers, and allows <br />220 them to come back at a later date consistent with that master concept plan and they get a site plan approved. That was the <br />221 other reason why given the toolkit of choices of how to develop property, you have roughly three categories to go with, General <br />222 Use Rezoning, Conditional Use Rezoning that includes an SUP and site specific plan when somebody knows exactly what they <br />223 want to do, and this third category that is Conditional Districts where they know the constraints of their site in the master plan and <br />224 then do not have a site specific plan at that time. It was thought by the Board during this explanation that having these tools <br />225 available would give opportunity for different choices of economic development and residential development opportunities in the <br />226 county. <br />227 <br />228 May Becker: My recollection of the discussion before that in the email that Judith had sent out was that there were difference <br />229 between Condition Use and Conditional Zoning Districts and there were some targeted areas. She pointed out it would be useful <br />230 to have these particular zoning districts for targeted areas and she pointed out there was some concern about the conditional <br />231 zoning being in a sense too broad and the compromise might be, for example, to use it in certain targeted areas. My <br />232 understanding was that we were going to discuss that further, in other words once we understood the differences between the <br />233 two which was more clearly presented at the meeting, not this last meeting were we talked about the stream buffers, but the one <br />234 before that, but then we would be able to understand which targeted areas would benefit from that type of zoning. In other words <br />235 1 guess to summarize, it's not clear to me why the Conditional Zoning District is necessary. I know you pointed out that it leaves <br />236 it more open -ended for developers or that they might not have a specific site plan but at the same time I think there is some <br />237 potential problems that were suggested in the emails and I think those were the types of issues I was wanting to talk about or at <br />238 least be able to address in terms of what target areas and what problems could occur and why we specifically need both. <br />239 <br />240 Perdita Holtz: At the current time Planned Development, which these replace, is allowed potentially anywhere. <br />241 <br />242 May Becker: Right but that's still different in certain ways from the Conditional Use versus the Conditional Zoning, right? <br />243 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.