Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
101 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />g <br />9 <br />~~ <br />~~ <br />~2 <br />~3 <br />~4 <br />15 <br />~5 <br />~7 <br />~;~ <br />~9 <br />2g <br />2~ <br />22 <br />Z3 <br />24 <br />25 <br />2~ <br />27 <br />2g <br />29 <br />30 <br />3~ <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />3~ <br />39 <br />4~ <br />4~ <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />4~ <br />49 <br />5a <br />5~ <br />~~ 22 <br />special use permit is required, thus eliminating the need for a quasi~~udicial process with <br />a decision based an competent, substantial evidence presented at a public hearing. <br />~~} Concerns related to the Rural Buffer and the Joint Planning Agreement <br />Some of the proposed new language in the UDO changes essential features of the Rural <br />Buffer FRB}. The original language in the existing ordinance specifies that development <br />in the Rural Buffer is for lour densities and relies on ground absorption systems for <br />sewage disposal. However, one of the proposed new development standards for the RB <br />district would substitute the term "~rastewater treatment facility"' and use that term <br />instead of the term ""ground absorption systems," for approved Conditional Districts. <br />The definition of a wastewater treatment facility includes a system that discharges to <br />surface waters, and indeed any other system as may be permitted by the Health <br />Depa~n,ent or the :State of North Carolina.. Tf?at is a significanr difference, and the <br />original language should be restored. <br />Conditional Districts should not be allowed in the Rural Buffer. Instead they should only <br />be placed in the Economic Development Districts and other areas with specifically <br />identified land use categories so that they are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan <br />and surrounding land uses. <br />Concerns articulated above are relevant to the'~atershed Overlay Districts Accordingly <br />the conditional districts should be prohibited in the University Lake watershed Overlay <br />District. In addition, though outside the scope of the Joint Planning Agreement, <br />conditional districts should be prohibited in the Cane Creek and Upper Eno Protected <br />and Critical watershed Overlay Districts. <br />BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Tawn Council asks the Orange <br />County Board of Commissioners to look further into the areas of concern explained <br />above, in order to head off possible consequences unintended by the Board; and <br />BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that, because of these concerns, it does not seem <br />prudent to adopt the UDO for the sections of the ordinance identified above until the <br />proposed language is clarified, or substantively changed where necessary. In some <br />cases the original language of the existing ordinances should simply be restored. <br />This the ZSt~ day of February, Z01 ~ . <br />Commissioner Gordon said to enter into the record emails and comments that <br />Board of County Commissioners received. These are shown below: <br />Draft resolution from the Tawn of Carrboro: <br />~~~~~~~@~~9 ~~~A~~IN~ ~8~~ ~~~~~~~~ UNE~I~~ ~~V~~~~M~N~ <br />~~~9N~N~~ (U~~) ~~~ O~ANG~ C~UN~V <br />Re~~lu#ion Noe '~~/~019~9 ~ <br />WHEREAS, revisions have been proposed to the Orange County Unified Development <br />Ordinance JUDO}, and under the Orange CauntylChapel HilllCarrbaro Joint Planning <br />A reement, Carrboro is to give comments on these revisions to the Orange County <br />g <br />Board of Commissioners; and <br />